Engine placement at bow

[Terra Nova]

Originally Posted by Wckoek

Emergency fuel filter or oil change at sea would be uncommon ...

Perhaps you are brand new to boating, or maybe just very young and inexperienced.

Emergency fuel filter changes are NEVER done at the dock. It is the very action of being in rough seas that stirs stuff up from the bottom of the fuel tank and clogs the filter, hence the requirement for an "emergency" filter change.

As far as rationalizing any good reason whatsoever for an engine room in the bow, there really isn't one. Instead there is a long list of problems created by such a bizarre arrangement that flies in the face of the sensible evolution of yachts.

[Albro359]

For more than 10 years i owned a 40ft IOR Admirals Cup yacht that had its engine in the bow with a hydraulic drive, long hoses to under the companionway hydraulic motor and standard shaft.
This yacht had a deep forefoot, so while pitching was evident at times, it was never a bothersome issue.
The exhaust ran all the way to the stern and was a standard wet exhaust...no issues with it.
The reasoning behind this was the Admirals Cup rating formula at the time. putting the engine forward allowed the keel to be set more aft than would be normal and with the 60ft mast in the centre of the boat (huge J measurement) and a very flat run hull aft, max beam at the companion way, with a barely noticeable chine, she was a real runner and went like witch to windward.....this boat dates from 1974 !
I sailed her all around the South Pacific, with and without crew...sold her in 2013
So it can work...I know this has nothing to do with the trawler but it's a discussion about engine placement
Cheers
Alan

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Unthinking reaction of the determined orthodox thinker.

The "Emma Maersk", biggest container ship, has the engine midships rather than the more orthodox aft engine room. Requires an exceptionally long prop shaft - why?

The Israelis build tanks with the engine in the front rather than the back like everyone else because it provides greater crew protection - why? Because they value highly trained tank crews more than the tanks.

I can imagine doing a filter change in a warm dry forward engine room in say the arctic conditions which prevail in much of north America, Asia and Europe during the winter versus doing it in a crawl space under the aft deck, or in the open with deck hatches open, where many of the orthodox power cruisers have their engines.

Cannot see that there would be much difference in wiring runs.

I would want to see the designers full reasoning before branding them as idiots.

Actually I have had a very successful career as a Project Manager and Owners Representative for the design and build of + $70,000,000.00 Super yachts.

Working with clients and naval architects in the completely open minded conceptual first stage, is the most enjoyable part for me.
Anything is possible!
If the client wanted the yacht to double as a submarine, we would make it happen.
An engine room in the bow is an easy one, but the 2nd Stage Feasibility Study would identify and solve the obvious drawbacks, which are not shown in that silly marketing presentation.

If a designer tried to push that sales concept onto my client as a "let's try something new" idea, I would politely listen to his detail solutions to my questions, if vague or uninformed I would destroy him and his concept at his first and probably his last meeting with my client.

Sorry on post #11, I am assuming that is part of his sales pitch and there are things claims like for the bulbous bow for that size which have been proven untrue in many tests. Marketing hype is what the weak designers try to get away with.



Unless the client still really fell in love with it in order to be "different"...then I'd make it work!

Best advice i ever got from the very best yacht builders in the world, whom I had the privledge to work with.
"You pay architects and designers for their ideas, but never let them do any of the structural studies and engineering plans!

Midship engine rooms are the most popular for a number of very practical reasons, which one can study re shaft angles, build economics, stability, twin engine requirements, etc, etc... but these days with different propulsion and reduction gear configurations, trend is now to semi aft for increased fuel tankage being placed midships in the deepest part, thus increasing range by about 32‰ (all else being equal).

Using examples of Israeli tanks and container ships is not relevant.

We tank test and measure GForces at the bow, bridge, crew quarters and guest accommodation.

A power yacht survives by keeping the engine running in a storm....this dumb solution jeopardizes this considerably as well as the safety of the engineer.

You obviously dont know the ergonomics of most trawlers.

Even on a 46 ft Diesel Duck trawler, you have a comfortable walk in engine room midship where emergency repairs or hourly checks can be made safer than in any other part of the boat.

On larger yachts, that also offers a second emergency escape in case of fire.

In yachts over 300 tons, that becomes mandatory!


Lastly, those that assume a newly changed fuel filter will never go bad quickly, because of hidden contamination.... have had little real experience at sea and bunkering in remote places.

[Wckoek]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Perhaps you are brand new to boating, or maybe just very young and inexperienced.

Emergency fuel filter changes are NEVER done at the dock. It is the very action of being in rough seas that stirs stuff up from the bottom of the fuel tank and clogs the filter, hence the requirement for an "emergency" filter change.

As far as rationalizing any good reason whatsoever for an engine room in the bow, there really isn't one. Instead there is a long list of problems created by such a bizarre arrangement that flies in the face of the sensible evolution of yachts.

Hello, I admit I might be inexperienced if compared to some of you, as I have only been boating on off around 6-7 years, more than half of that on sail and probably haven't make a passage more than 1500 miles on motorboat.
But I have seen some fuel polishing system, even the not so sophisticated ones have 2 or 3 filters, having them all fail at once without any signs showing before leaving to sea is would really baffles me, and it wasn't really expensive to fit a good polishing system in the whole picture.
Maybe you are right, fuel sediments are really that nasty.

[Wckoek]

Superyacht where budget and space isn't a concern of course the engine would be placed on where it perform better.
In case of size, displacement and budget concerns, maybe its worthwhile to try, even if only work on coastal designs.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Wckoek

Superyacht where budget and space isn't a concern of course the engine would be placed on where it perform better.
In case of size, displacement and budget concerns, maybe its worthwhile to try, even if only work on coastal designs.

Its not so much about size, but more so about the trickle down technology you see when top end Race boats or Formula One cars develop solutions and data that help the smaller sailboat or family car.

It's the same with powerboats which benefit from solutions to incredible challenges given by wealthy Superyacht clients.

In that rarefied community of Superyacht contractors, they all cut their teeth by doing small yachts first.

Then gain a reputation by producing something the client loves, the builder can build and the crew/owner can maintain in the worst of conditions.

I got to help form and work with those teams and then Captain the yachts thru many succesful circumnavigations.

The main difference between them and what I see here as a cheap marketing trick, is that they have the best interest of the client first.

If this designer had already sold and built 3 or 4 of his bow engineroom solutions, it could then be judged.

But I don't know if he has?

I just doubt it and this is where he becomes more of a charlatan than a professional to me, ....because of the obvious pitfalls my experience shows me.

One not discussed is noise and vibration management, where this solution would be very noisy for structure born noise and harmonic reasons compared to a mid engine solution.

[Pelagic]

One last thing....
The industry does promote innovative thinking.


Via competitions they reward and support those new designers whose concepts and solutions have a real chance of surviving professional scrutiny.

https://www.boatinternational.com/lu...ovation-awards

[hzcruiser]

Originally Posted by Albro359

For more than 10 years i owned a 40ft IOR Admirals Cup yacht that had its engine in the bow with a hydraulic drive, long hoses to under the companionway hydraulic motor and standard shaft.

Alan

Thanks for your insights, Alan! Goes to show that it's not totally whacky to think outside the box.

[boat driver]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Its not so much about size, but more so about the trickle down technology you see when top end Race boats or Formula One cars develop solutions and data that help the smaller sailboat or family car.

It's the same with powerboats which benefit from solutions to incredible challenges given by wealthy Superyacht clients.

In that rarefied community of Superyacht contractors, they all cut their teeth by doing small yachts first.

Then gain a reputation by producing something the client loves, the builder can build and the crew/owner can maintain in the worst of conditions.

I got to help form and work with those teams and then Captain the yachts thru many succesful circumnavigations.

The main difference between them and what I see here as a cheap marketing trick, is that they have the best interest of the client first.

If this designer had already sold and built 3 or 4 of his bow engineroom solutions, it could then be judged.

But I don't know if he has?

I just doubt it and this is where he becomes more of a charlatan than a professional to me, ....because of the obvious pitfalls my experience shows me.

One not discussed is noise and vibration management, where this solution would be very noisy for structure born noise and harmonic reasons compared to a mid engine solution.

Pelagic
you are being a bit harsh and sound a bit shortsighted on this subject-
your suggested decision to "dismiss" your designer sounds like a protectionist who is judging his personal risk/profit as project leader based on limited knowledge and experience vs trying different to meet the customers' interest.

The concerns raised in this forum are all good for a buyers list of risk assessment- but do not close your eyes to possible great benefits chosen by the designer/builder.

An engine and drive train design is generally the largest fixed weight with a limited positioning in the hull stability form. This is manipulated by the vessel purpose. Provided all the naysayers and armchair experts are filtered, all concepts started with a first build.
How about the idiot who built the first fiberglass (plastic) boat? What about the first customer that wanted a 60 foot aluminum Burger yacht? (no one would insure the boat) , what about when the bridge of a ship was moved from midship/forward navigation bridge/house to over the stern and engine room? What about permitting multihulls to race in ocean races (Newport/Bermuda 2018)? What about building a high speed catamaran ferry? What about putting engines in bows of commercial oil rig crew vessels for easy maintenance and the cabins aft for better ride? (which I venture may be an inception for your design)
All are examples of risks that became standard industry practice.

If you like the boat, if the vibrations and noise are not a disaster, if the maintenance is logical and doable, then get the boat.

Your question why not more? I would suggest shortsighted project managers looking at the profit vs quality-
Surmising on the information you provided, the boat is most likely well thought out of high quality craftsmanship and will outperform your expectations or a total dud which will example quickly when it departs an inlet.
Safe exploring.

One suggestion- do not prematurely poo poo a dry stack for a wet exhaust. The advantages of dry may be part of the success of the design in simplicity, noise reduction, disposal of exhaust fumes, (keel cooled?) and clean hull sides.

[Wckoek]

Unfortunately both designs are marketed to builders rather than commisioned designs, and many of such designs don't get build, one that wasn't currently in business and Mr Buehler had recently deceased.
Or else such idea can be try on a smaller boat, say a 30 plus foot displacement motorboat.

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by Wckoek

Just saw this design and was curious.
Aside from weight distribution and power loss from transmission, is there any reason that engine isn't place in front more?
Seemed like a good way to save space in a small boat.

One quick thought is that it LOSES available living space, which would often more likely be made available to a master stateroom, or at least V-berth in that forward area.

More common designs would have the engines UNDER the saloon or cockpit sole -- which comes withe trade-offs like lack of head-room -- and that offers more usable living space in the saloon and/or cockpit.

Maybe viable, but maybe not as sale-able to the larger market...

-Chris

[thruska]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Buses are typically rear engine--no long drive shaft.

Perhaps in Californika but many rural areas have majority front engine.
No matter really. Shaft blocks ,bearings , balancers, and cushions ,do the job per intention of manufacture. IMHO

[thruska]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Perhaps you are brand new to boating, or maybe just very young and inexperienced.

Emergency fuel filter changes are NEVER done at the dock. It is the very action of being in rough seas that stirs stuff up from the bottom of the fuel tank and clogs the filter, hence the requirement for an "emergency" filter change.

.

Perhaps, perhaps not...

FWIW, I’d suspect this boat design would have an integrated fuel polishing system with auxiliary filter loops.

Orthodox thinking begets orthodox thinking.
Many think junk sails are unorthodox except the Chinese

Hahahaha

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by boat driver

Pelagic
you are being a bit harsh and sound a bit shortsighted on this subject-
your suggested decision to "dismiss" your designer sounds like a protectionist who is judging his personal risk/profit as project leader based on limited knowledge and experience vs trying different to meet the customers' interest.

The concerns raised in this forum are all good for a buyers list of risk assessment- but do not close your eyes to possible great benefits chosen by the designer/builder.

An engine and drive train design is generally the largest fixed weight with a limited positioning in the hull stability form. This is manipulated by the vessel purpose. Provided all the naysayers and armchair experts are filtered, all concepts started with a first build.
How about the idiot who built the first fiberglass (plastic) boat? What about the first customer that wanted a 60 foot aluminum Burger yacht? (no one would insure the boat) , what about when the bridge of a ship was moved from midship/forward navigation bridge/house to over the stern and engine room? What about permitting multihulls to race in ocean races (Newport/Bermuda 2018)? What about building a high speed catamaran ferry? What about putting engines in bows of commercial oil rig crew vessels for easy maintenance and the cabins aft for better ride? (which I venture may be an inception for your design)
All are examples of risks that became standard industry practice.

If you like the boat, if the vibrations and noise are not a disaster, if the maintenance is logical and doable, then get the boat.

Your question why not more? I would suggest shortsighted project managers looking at the profit vs quality-
Surmising on the information you provided, the boat is most likely well thought out of high quality craftsmanship and will outperform your expectations or a total dud which will example quickly when it departs an inlet.
Safe exploring.

One suggestion- do not prematurely poo poo a dry stack for a wet exhaust. The advantages of dry may be part of the success of the design in simplicity, noise reduction, disposal of exhaust fumes, (keel cooled?) and clean hull sides.

Boat Driver, I can understand your comments on my motives, because you don't know me, or my career history.

Just happy to say that I became highly recommended by satisfied clients who then promoted me within thier inner circle to advise on marine projects over the years. Most are now close friends and mentors to me after 30+ years of association.

My philosophy on building a fully custom yacht is quite simple:

Only two people have a major financial interest in building a custom yacht.
1. The Client, who pays for the project
2. The Builder, whose business and shipyard is put at contractual risk by building and guaranteeing the projects success.

The rest of us, including designers, architects and Myself, are simply employees whose job is to provide both principal investors with sufficient technical details and an honest appraisal, so that they can make an informed decision together on the contractual agreement.

My methodology has been to spend considerable amounts of the clients money upfront, during the Feasibility Stage, in verifying NEW concepts with a team of technical specialist to the level that when the bid package goes out to various selected Builders, they have more information than with projects they are already building.

The design egos, media, marketing and politics on the Superyacht level are incredible!

One of my jobs when working with an Architectural, design team was to visit Builders world wide, where their designs had been built.

You would be amazed at how many disasters happened because a famous architect was providing the builder with hurried and incomplete engineering drawings that the Builder had to somehow execute within the contractual build time.

Change orders of 50-100% of contract price were not uncommon, because of design defficiences from the Architect.

Those guys, I simply paid for their conceptual ideas but kept them out of the feasibility and production stage, because they were not objective or capable to produce engineering drawings adjusted to the builder's production style .

With my methodology and attention to detail, our projects came in with change orders less than 3% which pleased both the Client and the Builder.

But there is one more factor that you will appreciate. As captain, during the first few years of a newly launched yacht, I had no one else but myself to blame, if things failed or went wrong.

The safety and operational happiness of my guests and crew, is something that is non negotiable and heartfelt as my primary ethical responsability

So i hope you can better understand my "harshness" when dealing with those "professionals" who I discover, only know the glossy magazines and bright lights of the Monaco or Ft Lauderdale boat shows.

There are a lot of parasites in that industry.

[darylat8750]

Different scale but a well respected and experienced designer. Atkin & Co. - Tinkle Bell

Qute as the dickens.