Beam and efficiency

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Scott Harris

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
48
How does the beam of a boat with a full displacement hull affect efficiency when cruising at a speed/length ratio of 1? Do narrower boats have significantly greater efficiency or does it not matter much?
 
Think there are more variables, like stern shape, draft, weight etc.
I would think narrow is more efficient, but a square stern creates drag, also wetted surface area, hence weight and draft. But if you are not building the boat, these will be out of your control. In full displacement, can't imagine that big of a difference in what most of us are running.

JMHO
 
Scott, my boat has a 15'7" beam. When I'm running at idle (750rpm) I'm doing about 8.5kts and that is my most efficient running speed.

A way to find out for a specific boat is to use the formula for hull speed, which is:
Velocity in knots = 1.35 x square root of the waterline length.

So let's say you are looking at a boat that has a waterline length (LWL) of 30'

Velocity = 1.35 x square root of 30
square root of 30 = 5.477
Velocity = 1.35 x 5.477 = 7.4kts
 
I don’t think that there will be a significant difference between a foot of beam more or less. Buy the boat that works for you and don’t be concerned about marginal differences in efficiency.
 
7.58 knots is the mathematically calculated hull speed for our planing hull Tolly.

Traveling a bit below that [7 +/- knots - using twin screws in calm water] provides us with right at 2 nmpg.

Traveling on full plane at 16 to 17 knots = 1 nmpg

Cruising really slow [4.5 +/- knots] on one engine = nearing 3 nmpg

Slow is affordable. Mid speed is not too costly. Fast is somewhat costly in fuel - but adds hours to the eventual destination enjoyment and really provides great fun feeling while piloting from our bimini covered [but otherwise wide open] fly bridge?!
 
How does the beam of a boat with a full displacement hull affect efficiency when cruising at a speed/length ratio of 1? Do narrower boats have significantly greater efficiency or does it not matter much?

Are you assuming that both boats have the same displacement? If so, I think hull shape, etc., will be the most important factor. But if displacement is proportionate to beam, I suspect the narrower boat will be more efficient, at least given comparable hull shapes.
 
Hull shape probably matters more. If my boat had more of a fan tail or wine glass shaped stern, it would undoubtedly do better. But at 7 knots I'm very happy with 3.5 nautical miles to a gallon.

The other point of comparison is waterline beam. My beam is about the same on the sides whether at the cap rail or waterline (not counting the rub rail). A boat like a KK 42 already has a significant curve in the hull before it enters the water. So when comparing beams for efficiency through the water, the KK 42 is more slender than her overall beam would lead you to believe.

Ted
 
The more narrow the boat, especially in relation to the length of the hull equals speed and efficiency.

How can you make a 850 foot aircraft carrier weighing many, many tons achieve a top speed in the 30 mph range? The answer is simple..Make it narrow, the navy learned this many years ago.

pete
 
Yes, narrower is faster and more efficient, but if you want to have some room to be comfortable on the boat, I wouldn’t give it a concern. Fuel is one of the lesser costs in boat ownership unless you plan on crossing oceans.
 
The more narrow the boat, especially in relation to the length of the hull equals speed and efficiency.

How can you make a 850 foot aircraft carrier weighing many, many tons achieve a top speed in the 30 mph range? The answer is simple..Make it narrow, the navy learned this many years ago.

pete

"How can you make a 850 foot aircraft carrier weighing many, many tons achieve a top speed in the 30 mph range? The answer is simple..Make it narrow, the navy learned this many years ago."

The square root of 850 is 29 ....and the aircraft carrier still has about 270,000 hp to get to that speed.
 
Annual pleasure power boating fuel "efficiency" [i.e. per day cost] ... in so far as $$$’s and "sense"

2, 3 and sometimes 4 nautical miles per gallon are the fuel use figures often mentioned. $3 per gallon is the average cost I use here for calculation.

Soooo - - > Regarding the generally accepted average of 200 hours engine-running time per year on a consumer’s pleasure boat ... let's do some base calculations - - - - >

A. nmpg | B. hrs. of travel | C. speed traveled | D. distance traveled | E. gallons used | F. cost per gallon | G. annual cost | H. cost per mile | H. cost per day – levelized throughout the year.


2 nmpg | 200 hrs. of travel | @ 8 knots = 1,600 nm distance = 800 gallons used x $3 per gal = $2,400 annual = $1.30 per mile = $6.58 per day of the year

3 nmpg | 200 hrs. of travel | @ 8 knots = 1,600 nm distance = 533 gallons used x $3 per gal = $1,599 annual = $1.00 per mile = $4.38 per day of the year.

4 nmpg | 200 hrs. of travel | @ 8 knots = 1,600 nm distance = 400 gallons used x $3 per gal = $1,200 annual = $0.75 per mile = $3.29 per day of the year.

Therefore - - > In general… we may either own a boat that only costs $0.75 per mile [avg $3.29 for fuel per every day of life] – or – own a boat that costs $1.30 per mile [avg $6.58 for fuel every day of life].

One way or the other – if a person can’t afford from $3.29 to $6.58 per day to fuel their pleasure power boat – then – they should probably not purchase nor try to even begin owning a boat.

However – if you can afford that fuel cost - - >>> THEN GO FOR IT!!!

Happy Boat-Fueling Daze! - Art :speed boat:
 
The answer of course is to get two long skinny hulls and bolt them together.

However don't get too worried about fuel burn.
If you are using fuel it means you are using your boat so be happy.

Looking at my log I have clocked 11,000nm in 3 years on this boat. All coastal cruising, no long voyages.
 
How does the beam of a boat with a full displacement hull affect efficiency when cruising at a speed/length ratio of 1? Do narrower boats have significantly greater efficiency or does it not matter much?
This question goes to a technical hull design attribute called Prismatic Coefficient. PC describes relationship of cross sectional area at midship to overall length. A low PC means the hull has relatively low displacement in the ends compared to midship - my canoe sterned Willard 36 for example. A high PC would carry load carrying ability to the ends and favor higher speeds of 1.5 S/L or more a broad transom Tiara comes to mind. A racing sailboat is designed with a higher PC because it will be operated at a higher S/L speed as it has the crew and motivation to do so. A cruising sailboat will be designed with a lower PC because it will be rarely operated at much over 1.0 S/L.

Is the difference in fuel consumption of a high PC vs a low PC vessel operated at 1.0 S/L significant? If you're a cargo ship that is underway 9 hours out of 10, even small percentage improvements add up. For a powerboat operated 100-200 hours per year? Nope. Not significant at all. I don't know what the actual difference is, but cannot imagine it would be significant at all.

Peter
 
Beam is mostly a matter of the speed you are willing to pay for. The OP question was about a SL of one , just the sq. rt. of the working LWL.

Since there is little wave making at SL 1 a beach ball would have the least wetted area for the weight and be the most "efficient" in terms of HP required..

For most folks with near a 3-1 L/B (length to beam) ratio will find a speed of between .9 to 1.15 times the sq rt will be most efficient for fuel burn..

It takes at least 6-1 L/B for the wave creation to lessen which may allow greater speeds , but at the cost of higher fuel burn at lower speeds because of the increased wetted surface .
 
Beam is mostly a matter of the speed you are willing to pay for. The OP question was about a SL of one , just the sq. rt. of the working LWL.

Since there is little wave making at SL 1 a beach ball would have the least wetted area for the weight and be the most "efficient" in terms of HP required..

For most folks with near a 3-1 L/B (length to beam) ratio will find a speed of between .9 to 1.15 times the sq rt will be most efficient for fuel burn..

It takes at least 6-1 L/B for the wave creation to lessen which may allow greater speeds , but at the cost of higher fuel burn at lower speeds because of the increased wetted surface .

Very well described, Fred
 
Aircraft carrier, battleship, go fast boat or trawler, the answer is the same: Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?

pete
 
Annual pleasure power boating fuel "efficiency" [i.e. per day cost] ... in so far as $$$’s and "sense"

2, 3 and sometimes 4 nautical miles per gallon are the fuel use figures often mentioned. $3 per gallon is the average cost I use here for calculation.

Soooo - - > Regarding the generally accepted average of 200 hours engine-running time per year on a consumer’s pleasure boat ... let's do some base calculations - - - - >

A. nmpg | B. hrs. of travel | C. speed traveled | D. distance traveled | E. gallons used | F. cost per gallon | G. annual cost | H. cost per mile | H. cost per day – levelized throughout the year.


2 nmpg | 200 hrs. of travel | @ 8 knots = 1,600 nm distance = 800 gallons used x $3 per gal = $2,400 annual = $1.30 per mile = $6.58 per day of the year

3 nmpg | 200 hrs. of travel | @ 8 knots = 1,600 nm distance = 533 gallons used x $3 per gal = $1,599 annual = $1.00 per mile = $4.38 per day of the year.

4 nmpg | 200 hrs. of travel | @ 8 knots = 1,600 nm distance = 400 gallons used x $3 per gal = $1,200 annual = $0.75 per mile = $3.29 per day of the year.

Therefore - - > In general… we may either own a boat that only costs $0.75 per mile [avg $3.29 for fuel per every day of life] – or – own a boat that costs $1.30 per mile [avg $6.58 for fuel every day of life].

One way or the other – if a person can’t afford from $3.29 to $6.58 per day to fuel their pleasure power boat – then – they should probably not purchase nor try to even begin owning a boat.

However – if you can afford that fuel cost - - >>> THEN GO FOR IT!!!

Happy Boat-Fueling Daze! - Art :speed boat:

Some of us use our boat more like 600 to 1,000 hours per year and fuel has been over $5 per gallon. Nothing wrong with striving for fuel efficiency so that you don't have to park your boat if domestic fossil fuel policies change.

Ted
 
Some of us use our boat more like 600 to 1,000 hours per year and fuel has been over $5 per gallon. Nothing wrong with striving for fuel efficiency so that you don't have to park your boat if domestic fossil fuel policies change.

Ted

Of course!

However, in the context of "pleasure boating" many million participants: You [and many others too] are anomaly for extensive hours run-time per year. A very happy for you [at least I believe from reading your posts that you are happy] boat using anomaly.

And... where are you purchasing fuel... $5 per gal? That could be and fuel costs may in general be considerably higher than the $3 price I based my calcs off of. So... the per day outcomes I listed simply need an approximate 60% upward adjustment. Even so, and although boat costs always should be paid attention to, boating is still a pretty affordable "big-time" passtime for many people.

Regarding you needing a fuel economy hull/engine, due to 600 to 1000 hrs. annual run-time. I understand and fully agree! :thumb:
 
Mate has a similar sized ex commercial trawler to ours
Same engine, gearbox and very similar if not same prop and nozzle
He has 4 ft extra beam
He needs higher RPM to do the same speed as us
Higher RPM is more fuel burnt
Saying that......I envy that 4ft extra beam.
 
Aircraft carrier, battleship, go fast boat or trawler, the answer is the same: Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?

pete

(me) "I want my car to go faster" Mechanic "How fast to you want to spend?"

Tuna ( on e of the seas fastest creatures) travel ocean at speeds we dream of, the are football shaped. Whales carry enormous weights, same blunt shape. A boat has to deal with under water and above, but it's good to keep in mind.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1086.jpg
    IMG_1086.jpg
    41.9 KB · Views: 45
  • IMG_1091.jpeg
    IMG_1091.jpeg
    7.5 KB · Views: 142
  • Screen Shot 2020-12-07 at 9.20.31 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-12-07 at 9.20.31 AM.png
    111.4 KB · Views: 38
  • Screen Shot 2020-12-07 at 10.25.02 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-12-07 at 10.25.02 AM.png
    181 KB · Views: 38
Of course!

However, in the context of "pleasure boating" many million participants: You [and many others too] are anomaly for extensive hours run-time per year. A very happy for you [at least I believe from reading your posts that you are happy] boat using anomaly.

And... where are you purchasing fuel... $5 per gal? That could be and fuel costs may in general be considerably higher than the $3 price I based my calcs off of. So... the per day outcomes I listed simply need an approximate 60% upward adjustment. Even so, and although boat costs always should be paid attention to, boating is still a pretty affordable "big-time" passtime for many people.

Regarding you needing a fuel economy hull/engine, due to 600 to 1000 hrs. annual run-time. I understand and fully agree! :thumb:

You missed the tense (past tense) of my $5 per gallon comment. That was more than 10 years ago under the previous administration. It had a chilling aspect on the recovery.

This is what I paid last month as I don't live on the West Coast. :p

20201113_072458.jpg

Ted
 
You missed the tense (past tense) of my $5 per gallon comment. That was more than 10 years ago under the previous administration. It had a chilling aspect on the recovery.

This is what I paid last month as I don't live on the West Coast. :p

View attachment 111047

Ted

You're pretty tricky!

IMO:"has been" could be used as current or "past tense". "had been" can not be current... only past tense.

ONLY $1.47 a gallon - OMG!!! It's almost like they are paying you to cruise!

:eek: :thumb: :socool:
 
Been a lot of threads on various forums about long, skinny boats vs those of typical proportions. In the end I think it comes down to no one wants to pay marina fees for a boat with an interior of a boat 30% shorter.

One of my old boats was 65ft with a 16ft beam. Moderate 4:1 ratio. It had a nice interior and was quite fuel efficient.

When I was living overseas a shipyard proposed building me a bluewater cruiser from a longliner mold. 70ft with a 13ft beam. Super fuel efficient cruising at 9 knots with a tiny little diesel. But the interior would be basically like a sailboat.

But think about Buehler's 70ft Ellemaid and his 55ft Idlewild. Both are remarkable, efficient vessels which are special-purpose built, quite esoteric, and have proven themselves to have pretty much zero resale value.

Lots of pros and cons to long/skinny, but mostly cons.
 
You're pretty tricky!

IMO:"has been" could be used as current or "past tense". "had been" can not be current... only past tense.

ONLY $1.47 a gallon - OMG!!! It's almost like they are paying you to cruise!

:eek: :thumb: :socool:

So I take it that you had forgotten the summer of $5 a gallon gas and diesel.

Ted
 
Power boats in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and fifties were narrow ... by today’s norms.
And the reason was common among all of them ... too little power.

Engines started out so heavy 5hp may have required hundreds of pounds of engine.
But over years and decades engines became the engines of today. But the boats of the past were narrow (basically all of them) for lack of power and efficiency. There were almost no trawlers in the 50’s. The diesel engines then were just too heavy. But now we have powerful and light engines and can have boats w more beam and the resulting cherished stability.

But if you want even more efficiency just make or buy a boat that’s narrower and lighter.
But real efficiency isn’t that popular as finding a narrow boat will take lots of looking.
Good luck.
 
"Mate has a similar sized ex commercial trawler to ours
Same engine, gearbox and very similar if not same prop and nozzle
He has 4 ft extra beam
He needs higher RPM to do the same speed as us
Higher RPM is more fuel burnt
Saying that......I envy that 4ft extra beam."


It may be similar but I would guess its heavier.

Even at modest speeds 3hp per Ton adds to the fuel burn rapidly.
 
Back
Top Bottom