Boat design consultancy

[jfm]

Yup I agree with HLB that it must look right and match the boat. It would be crime to spoil an Azzurro and MapisM knows that better than anyone. Though, beautiful as the Azzurros are, their radar tower on MapiM's boat isn't their finest piece of work and definitely it could be changed without spoiling the Azzurro-ness of the boat, imho.

I was thinking though that the HT could be made in GRP (becuase nothing else will give the perfect combo of low weight, high stiffness, easy maintenace that divinycell cored GRP will give you) then simply have some teak strips made up to attach to the fore + aft faces of the 2 GRP legs, and perhaps a wood "rim" all the way around the edge of the HT, varnished, to match the original look. With nice corner radii, like the original

MapisM those 2 Azzurros (58+64) out of the water look beautiful, except the bathing platforms are a bit of a naval architecture after-thought! Esp the 58.

 

[BartW]

Thanks Bart, btw there are some really nice diving spots in the area where she's based.
If and when you'll fancy a trip down there, don't forget to send me a PM!

I did try to draw it also with the reverse legs, but it looked weird - to my eyes, at least.

yes you'r right, the "drawing" looks weird,
But still I prefer the rear facing legs. If you look at the other pics, all have rear facing radar arch, especially the sister ship, imagine a thin GRP roof, curved from left to right, (a little higher in the middle)
same curve like the flybridge front wall.
NO teac rim (would make it look too heavy),
eventually solid wooden and varnished legs, not too fat, not white,
I tried another drawing below.

IMHO the front facing legs don't fit with the design of the boat, unless you make the roof a little longer, see 2nd drawing, but still it should look all very slim....

But perhaps I am wrong, you Italians have that extra feeling for design

About the diving, I'm sorry, I forgot where she is, (Sicilly?)
Just one advice; pls avoid dive gear on such a good looking and well maintained boat ,
But If I remember well, we agreed on sharing a bottle of Italian whine, preferably on this nice boat.

 

[petem]

Rear facing arch is the way to go. I'd use this as inspiration....

I think the secret is to have an additional turret / mini arch housing the radar / radomes continuing the backward line above the solid canopy.

Pete

 

[MapisM]

I think the secret is to have an additional turret / mini arch housing the radar / radomes continuing the backward line above the solid canopy.

Well, there's more than this "secret" in the overall beautiful lines and proportions of that boat, I reckon.
27 additional feet LOA, on top of the 53 of the boat we're talking about, to start with...

 

[MapisM]

About the diving, I'm sorry, I forgot where she is, (Sicilly?)
...
But If I remember well, we agreed on sharing a bottle of Italian whine, preferably on this nice boat.

Thanks for the additional thoughts and drawings.
Re. the bottle(S), I'm ready when you are. But don't go to the wrong island: southern Sardinia it is!
There's a gorgeous cave dive in these waters, frinstance.
Inside it, fresh water pours out of a rock, mixing with salt water and creating a visual effect that must be seen to be believed!

 

[MapisM]

MapisM those 2 Azzurros (58+64) out of the water look beautiful, except the bathing platforms are a bit of a naval architecture after-thought! Esp the 58.

Funny you mention it, 'cause I discussed the subject with the yard some years ago, suggesting that the only proper way to make a platform really look integrated is, ermm..., fully integrate it with the boat hull. "Elementary, my dear Watson", I can already hear you say.
But their objection was that if they should build a full 58' hull instead of a 53'+5' platform, they could as well attach a platform also to the 58' and call it a 63'... Argue with that if you can!?!
In fact, the new 58' in the previous pic actually has the same 53' hull. The main difference is in the superstructure, which is slightly shorter (actually any Azzurro is different, 'cause they're all fully custom built).
But the funny thing is that the "old" bolted on platform looks actually better (in spite of the fact that the new one is all built in wood), considering the overall boat style! Though this is just imho, of course.
I don't have a comparable pic of the boat on the hard, this is the closer one.

 

[petem]

Having previously re-designed that ghastly Sealine Radar arch here is my submission....

It's not quite to scale but I think the overall principle is cock on.

 

[Nautical]

That one maybe an 80 footer but this one is based on a 58 so nearer the size mark, still looks lovely IMHO of course

 

[grumpy_o_g]

I think it's the straight line of the flat hard top that looks wrong. I tried to replicate the angled lines of the top of the flybridge surround in a hard top but my photoshop skills aren't up to much. I know you'd end with a lot of height at the front and perhaps tight for headroom at the back but I'm convinced it would look better. If you can follow the angle of the front saloon windows for the front support and the rear support for the rear that would look even more integrated. I reckon keep all the supports thinner than the ones below as well so as to avoid a top heavy look.

This probably doesn't make any sense at all but I know what I mean - I'll keep trying with Photoshop (GIMP actually)..

 

[AndieMac]

IMO your boat Mapis, as it is now, will certainly carry the look of a hardtop, whatever material you end up using for the construction.

The combination of the topside height, bulwarks and relatively low superstructure, will give you good scope for an asthetically pleasing result.

I will post some pics of the Princess hardtop (GRP) with SS up-rights, when she is back next week (after making room for the wooden boat rally).

Just to wave the flag for alloy......

The alloy HT on my own boat is 10' x 7'. The camber/curve-ish is created by having 3x10' long narrow sheets, with the central one (perfectly horizontal) butted/overlapped to the two outside ones, with a gentle angle down on the outside edge. The welding needs to be totally perfect.
A 30mm vertical band around the entire edge, including radiused corners gives the appearance of depth, and absorbs the camber variance on the fore and aft ends. The vertical band is welded onto 40mm (horizontal) pipe, running around the full parameter, following the radiused corners, providing strength to the whole unit, but also a look of 'roundness'.
The unit was then powder-coated.
Tranverse beams every 30cm (12"), are packed between with insulation foam and sheeted with 4mm plywood with a marine 'hull-liner' cover.

Not as glamourous as moulded curved grp, but worked out lighter (stability issues with a smaller boat) and more cost effective. We do walk on the top occassionally, and carry a dinghy always.

 

[MapisM]

Thanks everybody, some nice suggestions again.

@petem: I agree, your drawing with the radome fitted on a mast and further astern is much better than my previous one with the back-slanted legs and the radome directly placed on the HT. Mmmm... decisions, decisions...

@nautical: oh yes, lovely she surely is. And btw, now that I notice, the HT legs are forward-slanted, whilst they're back-slanted in the bigger models.
Anyway, aside fom that, actually my main aesthetic concern is that the HT looks nice where the superstructure below is much bigger/taller in comparison to the HT itself, as it happens with most modern boats, where the pilothouse is raised to leave room for cabins below.
In a plain single deck as the boat we're talking about, the superstructure profile is overall much lower, hence the HT could appear a bit "top heavy".

@g_o_g: agreed, all the straight-line hardtops in the previous drawings should be nicer in flesh, if nothing else because of a bit of curving along the beam. Otoh, it's better to look for an acceptable alternative on paper knowing that the final result should be better, than the other way round...

@AndieMac: thanks in advance, I'm really interested to see that Princess HT with all s/s legs.
Indeed also your alu top looks very nice, with the white tubes and the s/s grab handles.
How thick are the sheets you used, 3 or 4mm I guess?
And didn't you have any troubles with the white coating? Quite often with aluminum, whenever you must "break" the coating for any reason (e.g. for the screws used to fit the grab handles or the canvas rails), the coating begins to peel and make bubbles, which slowly propagate all around.
Besides (but this is just a curiosity), what's the reason for the hatch? From the pics, it looks like you can easily reach the HT from the FB...

 

[jfm]

what's the reason for the hatch?

to allow you to pass through the hard top when using the stairs/ladder from cockpit to flybridge. (You having a blonde day there, MapisM? )

 

[MapisM]

You having a blonde day there, MapisM?

Well, it's monday after all, innit?
No, actually I thought from the pics that there's enough room to reach the FB anyway, through the space due to both the different height and (possibly) some horizontal space.
But I might be wrong of course.

 

[jfm]

Here's a sideways pic of andiemac's Bertram. I guess you could squeeze through without the hatch. Actuallly you'd think it would be good to have the hatch opening in the HT 3-sided, ie have no forward edge to the HT in the hatch opening, so no "bar" in the way when the hatch is open, but AM probably had a technical/design reason not to do that I guess

 

[MapisM]

Here's a sideways pic of andiemac's Bertram.

Doh! Now I remember to have seen the pic in some previous thread, I didn't think about it.
An alternative (along the KIS principle) was maybe just a U-shaped recession in the HT above the ladder, with no hatch at all.
To be closed with some canvas when not in use, of course.
But as you say, it looks like AM gave some careful thoughts at it, so probably he had reasons to make it as he did.

 

[jfm]

Yup!

Anyway, back to the matter in had. Here is another doodle. Apropos nothing really. Just food for thought!

 

[MapisM]

Just food for thought!

And a good one at that - along the lines of what also petem suggested. Definitely an alternative worth a thought.
Though other things equal (size, shape, material, etc.), I would say that the forward slanted legs could give a better overall stiffness, or is it a stupid idea?

 

[jfm]

Though other things equal (size, shape, material, etc.), I would say that the forward slanted legs could give a better overall stiffness, or is it a stupid idea?

I think that's a 100% illusion. Forward sloped rear legs, and backward sloped front legs, gives the mind an impression of a triangle. But in truth you have no triangulation and that's that. All the rigidity is given by stiffness in the "nodes" where the 4 legs attach to the boat and the HT

If you imagine flexible corner joints, 4 strips of meccano loosely bolted at the corner joints, then a prallelogram (my pic immediately above) is just as wobbly as a trapezium (which is what you get with forward facing rear legs)

 

[benjenbav]

If it were my decision, I'd leave the current structure alone and add one or maybe two biminis for shade.

 

[MapisM]

I think that's a 100% illusion.
...
All the rigidity is given by stiffness in the "nodes" where the 4 legs attach to the boat and the HT

Precisely what my left brain suggests.
But for some reason the right brain doesn't want to accept that...
...though I can't find any mechanic rationale for it.

Btw, talking of right brain ideas, there's a really crazy one which popped to my mind, looking at your last drawing.
A foldable hardtop, sort of.
Not yet finalised enough to post and hear the panel views.
I'll do it as soon as I have time to check if the goemetry makes sense, and draw an example.
Hoping that the patron Saint of Naval Architects will forgive me!