Design: Objective or Subjective?

[Sceptic]

Boat design is subjective judgement. Maybe I am wrong,but maybe I’m right,

Who can say, and not be subjective?

Mike

 

[SomeSailor]

Design is a process indeed and the word design dosn't connect to a thing. "A design" is, however relatable (usually) to a thing.

I think many miss the point that design is just means to an end. Without a need, a solution isn't required. There are MANY designs that produce solutions that meet that need.

This has been like trying to teach my dog English. He gets a few words here and there but otherwise the language totally escapes him.

I wasn't trying to teach you anything. But simply sharing my engineering perspective and experiences. Truth be told, a design engineer is the worst person to ask for a solution that is elegant in form. Engineers will always draw a straight line and meet your spec as closely as possible. Its the nature of the craft. If you want elegance, that takes clear definition of those requirement, and a flexibility in time and budget that most projects will not bear.

You complained about the lines of a Bayliner, and that is part of what drives those designs. They have a price point to hit, production rates and manufacturing and industrial limitations.

If you have cheap labor in Taiwan, relaxed industrial oversight and a customer willing to pay, you have a scenario where design can be manipulated to a form which lends itself more to the eye.

 

[Nomad Willy]

SomeSailor,
As to the original question I think there is no doubt.
"A" design itself has no subjectivity or objectivity any more than an anchor has warm fuzzy feelings. I guess you could call design a plan and a plan can be based on objective ideas or subjective ideas. But it can't be based on subjective or objective materials other than the choice of same. Fiberglass just isn't objective or subjective. But the CHOICE of FG or steel could be VERY subjective or objective. One could choose steel because it's the best (we don't know that) material because of durability and strength or one could choose FG because it's warm and smooth and shinny. It may be none of those things but if it is perceived to be such and chosen for those reasons the choice could be objective or subjective. But as to "a" design (as in a specific boat) it can't be subjective or objective any more than a log because it's not an idea or a plan anymore than an anchor could be a Democrat or a Republican.

So I'm say'in Design is full of objectivity and subjectivity but hopefully 100% objectivity. And we can hope also that "a" design was achieved with objectivity.

And "a" design is no more objective than a cup of coffee.

And Marin I hope you haven't called me a dog and if said dog wants to speak French just let him.

 

[SomeSailor]

Fiberglass just isn't objective or subjective. But the CHOICE of FG or steel could be VERY subjective or objective.

I agree. A Naval Architect was given requirements that were aligned to certain business requirements and design constraints. "Choosing" fiberglass is both a design and a business decision.

When boats are manufactured from molds that are used at the rates that Bayliner needs to hit the price point the market will support, there are certain design decisions that must be made. Modular manufacturing techniques, production facilities, etc, all drive the design. So, in this scenario they don't have the subjectivity we envision them having, and certainly don't have the design latitude that other design teams are afforded.

 

[Underway]

Form or function? Carbon fiber, sponsons for wide beam aft, light, fast efficient, drop dead stunning (IMO).

 

[SomeSailor]

Drop dead ugly. Looks more like a littoral combat boat than a luxury motor yacht.

See the similarity?

 

[Tony B]

Most designs are both objective and subjective with tons of concessions all along the way, depending on your main objective. I guess we could leave the word "subjective" out of the equation if 'aesthetically pleasing' is part of the objective. In addition to function, people like things to be good looking and easy on the eye. So, how much is objective and subjective when a basic function is required but also limited by size and cost?
Also note that the common usage of a word or phrase is not always dictionary correct. When I speak in generalities, I usually see something that is very pleasing to my eye or out and out fugly, I will say "Great design" or The designer should be shot". When referring to function, I usually qualify the word 'design' by stating "that's a great 'engineering' design". But I come from Brooklyn and English was always considered a foreign language - go figya.

 

[Marin]

And Marin I hope you haven't called me a dog and if said dog wants to speak French just let him.

Not at all. I was just expression my frustration when people don't know how the language works.

 

[Marin]

Drop dead ugly. Looks more like a littoral combat boat than a luxury motor yacht.

No argument there.

 

[Marin]

Truth be told, a design engineer is the worst person to ask for a solution that is elegant in form. Engineers will always draw a straight line and meet your spec as closely as possible.

Very true. The original design of the 7E7 (787) was stunning. Absolutely gorgeous plane and it would have had the same impact on the world as the 747 did in terms of elegance and instant recognition. I produced a bunch of marketing films featuring that design.

Then the engineers got hold of it and the 787 is the boring, straight tube you see on the ramp today. Actually, I think the 787 is most boring, uninteresting airplane design Boeing has come out with yet, outside of the wing which is beautiful. And the reality is that an airplane is all about the wing. The fuselage just keeps the wind out of your face and provides a place to store the booze.

But...... there were very good reasons for what the engineers did. The original fuselage design, while amazingly elegant, would have been very difficult--- which means extremely expensive--- to stretch or shorten. And the airlines made it very clear at the outset that they wanted several capacity choices with the 787, not just one. So for that to be practical and cost-competitive, it dictates a straight tube. To do anything different would be a very expensive mistake and would have given an advantage to our competitor right at the start.

Every product, be it a jetliner, car, boat, or washing machine, has to be compromise between design aesthetics and engineering practicality/reality.

And Eric, I completely agree that a material--- wood, fiberglass, etc.--- is not subjective. The material is just the tool chosen to execute the design. The choice of which material to use is, I believe, both subjective and objective. There are usually practical and aesthetic reasons for choosing one over the other. And these can be in conflict sometimes so you have to decide which one will affect the product's success more.

And whether the final product is considered beautiful, utilitarian, or just plain ugly is all in the eyes of the beholder, so is totally subjective.

 

[skipperdude]

I would think form follows function.

A boat is designed to function in a way that gives the greatest use for what it was intended.
As a canoe stern is good in a following sea.
The form is based on the function.
A hard chined canoe stern would not perform the function as well as a more rounded one.
Nor would the symmetry be a pleasing to the eye of a straight and chopped one .
The human mind follows summitry and is drawn to it
That is why the symmetry of a persons face denotes beauty.
If a computer were to design a boat or airplane both would probably work but the design would be unappealing.
Either that or I am wrong.
Sd

 

[Underway]

Drop dead ugly. Looks more like a littoral combat boat than a luxury motor yacht.

See the similarity?

Indeed it does look like a weapon...or a starship on the water...which is of course exactly what the designers were after. My point is that they wrapped a look around some brilliant functional elements. I think of Dashew's power boats when I look at this PJ. Check it out in more detail at www.palmerjohnson.com By the way, I didn't use the word beautiful, I said stunning.

 

[BaltimoreLurker]

Since we're still flogging this topic:

Thomas Heatherwick on design: Opportunities not to be missed | The Economist

 

[SomeSailor]

Not at all. I was just expression my frustration when people don't know how the language works.

In that case... expression is a noun. (typo gotcha)

I'm generally not here for the semantics of the language. I have two postgraduate degrees and got my fill of that in school. I do enjoy discussing design and engineering. The problem solving it takes to produce elegant solutions is a lot of fun to both watch and participate in.

 

[Marin]

In that case... expression is a noun. (typo gotcha)

No, not a typo. It's the G-damn word replacement function on everything nowadays where the computer thinks it knows what you want to type before you do and automatically inserts what it thinks the word you want is. Half the time it's wrong but the bozos who wrote the applications make you tell it it's wrong. If you're typing real fast and don't see it, it goes ahead and puts the wrong word in.

 

[Northern Spy]

It's the G-damn word replacement function on everything nowadays where the computer thinks it knows what you want to type before you do and automatically inserts what it thinks the word you want is.

Hmmm. Sounds like a design problem.

 

[Marin]

It is, probably because the kids who design the applications can't spell and don't have a clue about grammar so they want a machine to do it for them. Sort of a blind-leading-the-blind thing.

 

[SomeSailor]

Hmmm. Sounds like a design problem.

Form over function again.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Skipperdude,
Yes form follows function (fff) but almost everybody misunderstands what function is.

First of all most people believe (because of that clever saying fff) that if a design is faithful to it's need the following form will be beautiful. And they mix this up to conclude that that beautiful things are much more likely to be good design that ugly things. A lot of the time to most of the time there's no connection unless it's a yacht or a luxury car like a Jaguar. Bolts, garbage cans, shovels, pistons, keys and thousands of other things have no need to be beautiful or attractive. Ther'e form is following their function but any beauty is an accident. Look at the Rocna anchor. Butt ugly. But the swoopy lines of the graceful Bruce don't seem to do it much good in the opinions of many especially here on the forum.

So if your'e going to follow the thinking of fff be well aware that probably most of the time beauty or even attractiveness is totally unnecessary and not sought in any way. Many people think design is the process of making beautiful things but most of the time it has nothing to do w it.

Dude, "The human mind follows symmetry and is drawn to it". Really??? I minored in art and don't recall that at all. Actually in photography I often (or even most of the time) try to keep symmetrical elements out of the picture. They aren't as interesting. Symmetry is for bolts and wheels. But symmetric implies rest or often correctness, especially in the case of bolts and wheels. I violated a general rule in my avatar. I put the boat right in the middle. When you take a pic of a vehicle one is supposed to "leave a little space for it to go so you leave more space where the vehicle is going (actually or just visually). As in Marin's avatar. But his unsightly fenders dangling down still bothers me. But I wanted to make my boat as big as possible since the avatar is so small. But in the case of my hull it has asymmetrical elements but they oppose each other (cabin and hull). But I chose this pic mainly because the almost black mtns in the background and the white hull in the sunshine has extreme contrast and will draw attention to the small picture. Marin has done the same and both pics work well as avatars. Symmetry has it's place. In a picture of a person directly facing the camera focuses the attention on the subject. Same w a tombstone. But if the person is facing a bit left one should leave some space on the right (of the pic) but I can't put the reason into words. Anybody care to try?

The Racna/Booce blurb was a joke for free ... mostly.

 

[OkSkipper]

Design is the "glue" that holds styling and engineering together.......

 

[Phil Fill]

Indeed it does look like a weapon...or a starship on the water...which is of course exactly what the designers were after. My point is that they wrapped a look around some brilliant functional elements. I think of Dashew's power boats when I look at this PJ. Check it out in more detail at www.palmerjohnson.com By the way, I didn't use the word beautiful, I said stunning.

Now that is my kind of boat!

I like the hull design/idea as when the boat is at the dock sitin in the water its has a wide beam to be stable, but when up and running it’s a deep V so it can go fast. Our 1970 Chrysler run about looks like that from the bow. Very stable when sitting in the water, and also very stable when up and running because of the Deep V. A 200+ lb slalom skier can not pull the stern around, its that solid. The hull also has a step which breaks the adhesion of the water. Great design.

 

[Nomad Willy]

OkSkipper,
Only if styling is an element of the design.

 

[Nomad Willy]

SkidGear,
Those boats are designed to express power, action, manliness, vogueness and uniqueness to attract buyers that are attracted to same.

 

[Underway]

SkidGear,
Those boats are designed to express power, action, manliness, vogueness and uniqueness to attract buyers that are attracted to same.

So? Like a trunk cabin trawler isn't designed to meet virtually the same schtick? The difference is that PJ is coming at the efficiency, space, stability issues with some very interesting functional engineering solutions. I'd bet those sponsons (which provide a very wide beam aft on upper decks) have some active stability systems...in addition to a huge gyro, of course. Skinny center hull for efficiency. Light weight strong materials. Forget the phoney "green" BS like solar power. Here's a style/function exercise that takes some old ideas and packages them into a bold statement that probablly scales down in some areas. It should be applauded....actually, it is being applauded.

 

[Nomad Willy]

skidgear,

"packages them into a bold statement"

You said it.

It seems you equate the extreme boat to be a bit like the Dashew boats. It is. They are both extreme and extreme things are very popular now. I just don't like things that look like a mad bull. I do like the Dashew boats. They are sort-of an overpowered sailboat w/o the rigging.

SomeSailor,

Very well put and great pic.

 

[skipperdude]

Dude, "The human mind follows symmetry and is drawn to it". Really??? I minored in art and don't recall that at all.

There was a recent discovery channel show on what constitutes beauty or attractiveness in a persons face.
The jest of it was that if a persons face is symmetrical we find it more appealing or more beautifully. The more symmetrical the prettier.

If you designed a boat that had one side different than the other it would not be considered beautiful.

I am sure it took a lot of generations to design a boat with a flared bow as compared to building one that was just a box which would be easyer to build but ugly and non functional or almost so.

Therefor the form follows the function.

The function of a flared bow is to facilitate easy transition through the water.

Given enough power a brick can fly but the form of the fusalage and wings allow it to do this much easyer.

sd

 

[markpierce]

I wonder if the Ulstein X-bow is practical/effective on smaller (most our sizes) motorboats. Haven't yet decided if they're aesthetic.

 

[Underway]

skidgear,

"packages them into a bold statement"

You said it.

It seems you equate the extreme boat to be a bit like the Dashew boats. It is. They are both extreme and extreme things are very popular now. I just don't like things that look like a mad bull. I do like the Dashew boats. They are sort-of an overpowered sailboat w/o the rigging.


I equate the PJ exercise to the Dashew boats because they both take innovative design approaches to the efficiency issue, not because they look "extreme".

That said, I believe the Dashew boats look ..functional...workboat-like....utilitarian to the extreme. Nothing wrong with that, but they're not particularly attractive. The PJ designs are over the top, in your face, take that plebians, Captain Nimoy's Nautilus in carbon fiber. If you don't at least admire the chutzpah it took to build one of these beasts, I grieve for your creative soul. Why are we discussing airplanes when a benchmark in naval architecture is about to be launched....

 

[Nomad Willy]

Yes form follows function but usually it dosn't have anything to do w beauty. And sometimes beauty results from functional form w/o any effort in that direction but only w certain products like cars and boats is it a part of the design. And w the commercial airplanes I have no idea if they put any effort into making them attractive. Hardly any reason for it. When a person books a flight I don't think he or she cares one twit what the airplane looks like.

 

[Peter B]

Drop dead ugly. Looks more like a littoral combat boat than a luxury motor yacht.

See the similarity?

Sorry, coming in a bit late here, but point of order Somesailor - rather poor choice of comparisons there as the boat in the top picture is in a way a combat vessel. That is the 'design' (note a noun, not a 'process' in this case, Eric et al - 's'ok, just yankin' chains a bit), we use as the main coastal protection vessel by our navy here in Oz. They actually used one (re-named Hammersley), in the TV production "Sea Patrol", made here in Oz, so we saw quite a lot of that design. You could however say that they are a good example of form following function. They need to be very seaworthy AND fast.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...WMeudiAeL64C4Cw&ved=0CEEQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=607