Click for Abeking Click for Perko Click for Westport Click for YF Listing Service Click for Westport

Old Vs. New hulls

Discussion in 'General Yachting Discussion' started by Ben, Feb 14, 2006.

You need to be registered and signed in to view this content.
  1. Ben, Feb 14, 2006
    #1
    Ben

    Ben Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Looking at the pictures of some of the beautiful yachts at Rapsody Yachts I came accross a hull picture that got me wondering.
    This yacht has a hull shape that to me is typical of boats of the era, how would it compare to a modern yacht of the same size?

    I have attached the pic in question, in the pic is the Rapsody 33.
    I have also attached the picture of what I consider a hull that represents average modern construction.

    What say ye?

    Attached Files:

  2. WestAust, Feb 14, 2006
    #2
    WestAust

    WestAust New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Perth
    I say, I'm loving your signature Ben!!!
  3. KCook, Feb 15, 2006
    #3
    KCook

    KCook Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Indeed, most production cruisers have hull treatments that compare to your bottom example. Fortunately, this is not actually a requirement for a modern hull. Here is an example of an exception -

    http://www.cranchiflorida.com/34gallery.html

    Kelly Cook
  4. AMG, Feb 15, 2006
    #4
    AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    Sweden
    Hi Ben and Kelly,

    For once, I can not follow what you are saying? Sure most boats have different hull shapes for different purposes, or are you talking of the topsides?

    I also think that the examples given are almost the same, except for the top picture?

    Maybe I am not awake yet...:)
  5. Ben, Feb 15, 2006
    #5
    Ben

    Ben Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    To me, the first pic looks like a good sturdy remake of a high speed ocean going hull, much like what you'd find on a WW2 PT boat.

    The second pic is intended to be indicative of the most common type of general purpose hull you'd find in todays mariners.
    (I know quite a few boat builders make much better hulls than the example pictured, I was hoping to compare the Toyota (the one that everyone buys) of pleasure boats, as apposed to the mercedes.)

    Which hull type would you expect to handle general plesure boat duties better, the boat design little changed in over 50 years, or the new up to date model?


    BTW, nice boats Kelly.
  6. KCook, Feb 15, 2006
    #6
    KCook

    KCook Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Lars, I know what you mean. We don't get to see the actual bottom in either photo. Their specs may well be very close to the same. I puzzled over this myself. And also ended up with the assumption that the hull topsides/sheer was what Ben was digging at.

    That 2nd photo does show what some of us pundits refer to as a "bubble boat". Which is distinct to GRP production models. Hard to imagine a custom aluminum boat that would look like that. The explanation I would give for the bubble boat theme is maximum interior space for minimum cost. The various swoops, whoops, and curves molded into the topsides are an effort to also provide style (of sorts).

    Or something like that,
    Kelly
  7. Innomare, Feb 17, 2006
    #7
    Innomare

    Innomare Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    The forefoot seems to be much thinner in the upper one. The lower one has more of a blunt bow. In other words, the entry angle on the design waterline is larger for the lower one.

    As a consequence of this, the upper one will have better seakeeping, it will slice more through the waves. The lower one will have a rougher ride in waves, but then again, it will probably plane earlier in flat water, and it will surely have extra space inside.

    You can also see quite clearly that the stations in the forefoot are somewhat concave in the upper one, while they are convex in the lower one. My guess would be that the lower one gives you also a wetter ride.

    All in all, I would prefer the upper one... And if you look at what's above the waterline I would not hesitate a minute.