Fairline Sqd 78 Hard Top

[Danchc]

Hi

Don't think anyone else has mentioned this, but Fairline have built their first Hard top for a Squadron 78.

They appear to have removed the crane, or maybe hidden it somehow.


https://www.facebook.com/FairlineBoats?ref=stream

http://www.fairline.com/en/news/fai...mer-demand-with-new-squadron-78-hard-top-2014

 

[MrB]

I love your comment on the crane lol :encouragement:

 

[U4]

Humm... Cant say that I am a fan of the design, perhaps its a 'grower'!

 

[wakeup]

Interested to hear what JFM has to say about the design. No doubt he would have had a preview or request for comments prior to production....

 

[lanerboy]

I don't really like it I prefer the old model but maybe it will grow on me

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Not sure why a simple hard top should merit such publicity. To me it looks too much like an afterthought as if they've taken an angle grinder to the radar arch and plonked a hard top on it. I think it would look a lot better if it was integrated with the radar arch

 

[Danchc]

Not sure why a simple hard top should merit such publicity. To me it looks too much like an afterthought as if they've taken an angle grinder to the radar arch and plonked a hard top on it. I think it would look a lot better if it was integrated with the radar arch

I suppose the publicity is just a way of telling people who like hard-tops, that they can get a Fairline with one rather than buying another make.

But, it just doesn't look right. Makes me think of those exaggerated car designs in the Wacky races cartoon. It makes it look too tall and blobby.

Some may like it, and if it is an option rather than a new standard feature...

 

[lambohill]

This does not look at all right.
The 78 without, or even with bimini's is much better looking. The proportions are much too tall / top heavy due to attempting to perch this enclosure on top. It is reminiscent of an american design such as a carver on a 40, rather than a more sleek 80 foot boat. The fly will no doubt be nice inside, but externally, at least from a high level, it is just plain wrong.
I feel that anything that draws the eye up on a boat of this type works against the rest of the aesthetic. In my opinion, with flybridge design the aim should be to attempt to minimise the impact of the fly, or to make it vertically invisible.
Flybridge design should be effectively using the hardtop of a sports yacht silhouette to get extra floorspace, good idea. But, once you decide to stick a great big roof on it, the plot is lost.
This design idea should not have left the drawing board.

 

[MapisM]

I would be curious to hear the view of a pro designer on this matter. Vas, are you around?
In fact, while on one hand I agree that it doesn't look right overall, I guess it would have been difficult for them to do a much better job.
The "fins" on the sides match rather nicely the shape of the superstructure below them.
And the HT as such is not bad at all, maybe just a bit too "square" upfront.
Yes, it definitely looks too high, which normally is not a problem in boats in this length bracket, where the height is smoothed away (so to speak) by the boat size.
I suspect the problem here has more to see with the hull sides and the superstructure, which are maybe not as high as in some other 80 footers, rather than with the HT height as such.
And obviously, they must have aimed at a decent clearance on the f/b also for rather tall people...
Another thing which looks a bit out of place on the Sq78 are the Sunseekeresque steel poles above the fins, tbh.
But overall, I'm not sure I would prefer the bimini to this HT, if given the choice (that probably jfm did not have yet, when M2 was built).
Besides, I'm sure it would be sufficient to lower the thing a bit, and get rid of those s/steel poles, to make the HT much more balanced against the other boat volumes.
I'll play a bit with photoshop, when I have 10 mins....

 

[lambohill]

'I would be curious to hear the view of a pro designer on this matter. '

I guess I am in that category.

I have probably had my say, ....but, I feel it is simply a step too far.
A huge wing on the last countach, a cedar clad panel too many.
The square design and the product in itself may be fine, but it does not sit well on this boat. This will not I feel be one the squadron 78's classic evolutions, and it will not stand the test of time.

 

[MapisM]

I guess I am in that category.

Ops, apologies.
I see now that I called for Vas opinion right after your post, but there was no disrespect at all for your view!
I just wasn't aware (or if you mentioned that in the past, I didn't remember it) that you're also an architect - sorry about that.
Anyway, do tell, what's your take on my comments, don't you think that it would have been hard to make it much nicer?

 

[lambohill]

It made me smile!
I am only an architect not a naval architect however much I may have preferred that role
I truly think that this looks like the client telling the designer what 'must ' be done with little regard for what has gone before. I am unsure if a sucessful job could be done as in any case I think the premise is wrong, in that it is simply too vertical for a horizontal design.

Edit to say:
Yes MapisM, I feel the brief would still be wrong, but the execution better to have dropped the s/s poles, thinned the frame edge detail, and created an evolution of the radar arch in an aerofoil profile, as opposed to a bolt on sunseekeresque marquee in an sc35 frame, both of which are spot on within their own [boat] design.

 

[MapisM]

LOL, you made me smile too.
I don't think Vas is a naval architect either. But tbh I'd rather not ask a naval architect, for something like this!
Anyway, in the meantime I did try to fiddle the pic, it actually took me even less that 10 mins.

It's not night and day of course. And I still see your point, in fact.
But imho the lowered version is a tad nicer than the original... Wadduthink?

 

[lambohill]

You could get yourself a new job!
Your lower profile is much better.

If the structure could be all completed in a s/s or aluminium frame, clad in a low profile grp aerofoil with a thin leading edge and profile rebate or check, such as that to the leading bow edge, repeated to the sides, this would be a much lower impact, as of course would a non helicopter viewpoint!

 

[MapisM]

Thanks, glad you appreciated.
Of course, the potential spanner in the works is that it's easy to lower the structure in photoshop, but if in practice that translates in not enough headroom on the f/b, it's much better to stick to the bimini!
Otoh, quite often the builders are very cautious with the minimum headroom requirements for living areas, as if they would sell all their boats to NBA players...
...so, considering that they sell the Sq78 as a semi-custom boat, maybe if a buyer would accept to have less than 7 feet (or whatever) clearance, it wouldn't be a big deal for them to make it lower.
Just a thought, anyway.

 

[lambohill]

What do we know? It never seemed to bother windy with their hardtop, just stick your head out through the roof if you want to stand up.

 

[MapisM]

LOL, yeah, but the Sq78 ain't exactly in the same league as a 37GM....
With all due respect for the latter, which is also a great boat.

 

[lambohill]

Sorry, could not resist idea of helming the 78 with one's head out through the top, just to get the low profile!
The reason the Windy looks great is in no small part due to the low profile granted by the roof, and that 'is' a classic design, if not a very practical one, sadly the two are often mutually exclusive.

 

[vas]

lh & mm,

just back from a day return trip to Athens,

lambohill, wasn't aware you're an architect as well, that makes us three I think (I assume JTB is also one?) And no I'm not a naval one, just a plain vanilla one
I went through the thread quickly, I do agree with most comments made, too tall, arch should really extend to the H/T, ss sections just to there to sort out a design issue, et al.
Being trying to design a decent small, off-centre H/T for the f/b helm area in order to stick a f/b panel on top of it, but it's a hell of a job.
First of all as pointed by both of you and others a decent elevation of the thing means it would be good for midgets.
Second serious problem is that since the whole superstructure is slanting inwards, if you try todo something that sort of "follows" the lines in bows in view, you've had it, it's going to be rather narrow and awkward from the f/b.
Third a full house H/T is almost pointless, the brief was obviously to cover helm and all the seating area. Next step would be to bring side skirts to protect from the sun...
I'd rather have something small as a permanent feature (possibly over the helming station) and the rest folding somehow or rolling inside the arch. Never realized why none bothers to make a slightly thicker arch and have a roll mechanism to a bimini in there. Back where the arch is craft is wider, helm is narrower, so a roll top like system would work nicely. Hell, could even employ the retracting arms used on various shopfronts down here, fully cantilevered...

I'd be interested to hear/see JFMs comments on this and I'd be very impressed if he approves it

late for MiToS got to finish bow cabin upholstery today, so later

V.

 

[RogerRat]

It's not night and day of course. And I still see your point, in fact.
But imho the lowered version is a tad nicer than the original... Wadduthink?

MM, I think you have your pictures mixed up the lower version is the Fairline version with SS vertical rod supports.:encouragement:

I'm not a fan of HT's on Flybridge boats personally, the only one I have been on was the Princess 98 in a recent thread and I must say it was nice and probably very practical in a med location. For UK use, not so good.

Still, when I first saw these hardtops on Princesses' leaving for the docks, my first impressions were, "What the hell did they do that for?" But they definitely are 'growers' and look better as you see more and get used to them.

Personally,r, I like this version as Fairline built it, any changes would be titivation, as in rounding forward edge, attempting to role 'webasto' sun roof inside the arch and even playing with headroom by varying length of support struts.

Fairline have to respond to market pressure and customer feedback and this what I would expect to see as a development. A good example was the removal of the internal stairway to the fly, more people ordered the 50ft+ Squadrons without them and in the end it was dropped, I'm not a fan but then I'm not in that market, above 50' I believe the internal stairs to be much better. imho.

RR