Philm

I would be interested in trying a small section that would stick to the pad and up to the first strake rear of the step of my kryptonite. Dimples, not bumps. I think it would work.

But then again I have been drinking since noon.

scarabman

Dimples and textured coatings were tried on surf board bottoms in the 80s. I say just sand the rear portion of your hull w/ 220 and call it a day. It works!

zemaestro

I remember watching a t.v. show about some bombs that we made, dimpled em' and dropped them out of a plane. They skipped across the water in a perfectly calculated manner and hit their target, a damn. Not related but it was very interesting. How bout sum HHO injection on boats, better wear your kevlar.

Raylar

Aerodynamics and hydrodyanmics are two totally different sciences (animals) and what works on golf balls and clay covered cars on Mythbusters does not work at the same efficiency or way that it would work on the bottom of a hull that is wet or in water. Many hull design engineers have played with hull surface textures over the last 100 years and what we have in many high efficiency hulls now is pretty close to the best thing you are going to achieve using the old "Cost versus Benefit" measurement and results that current technology is providing. Got a "Jillion Dollars" and want something better, have at it, just remember you have to develop it, make it and sell it and hopefully make a profit on the cost of development, manufacture and sales! That's the real tricky & difficult thing to do successfully.

Best Regards,
Ray @ raylar

LostinBoston

Golf balls fly becasue they are rotating. Boats dont rotate. Aerodynamics and Hydrodynamics follow the exact same fluid dynamic laws, they just have different density and viscosity. Boats deal with both as well as the freesurface.

innerrage

+1

aquafun

Disappointing to read this thread I had the same thoughts 10yrs ago, however it was not by looking at a golf ball, it was through something else which worked this way, and then as you assumed the next most obvious choice was to shape it as you have suggested ... However I do hold a patent on something non boaty although that is also racking up the costs on development and like many things may not come to fruition

On the boat idea,I had never done any research to find out if this had already been put into practice, all I knew is I'd never seen a boat hull with these ideas down the boatyard, but what I think is true to say with nearly 7Billion people on the planet it starts to become less likely to think of something that nobody else has ever thought of

MidOcean

The Coandă effect is what is going to make this an inefficient idea. Water will travel the bottom and follow any curves, crevices...etc. This is why any trailing edge has to have a clean break... it's also why, when tabs are even with the trailing bottom, you can raise the bow with negative tab. Steps work because they are ventilated and have clean breaks.

As far as Hull patents. Anyone can patent a hull design but, as those who have tried to enforce these patents will tell you, protecting those designs is another issues all together. Theoretically, aero and hydrodynamic principle designs are by nature discoveries. This falls into a fine line between what is created and what is simply reacting to the laws of physics. Many aircraft design patents are not enforceable because of this very fact.

Good luck with your ventures.

T

speicher lane

It's amazing how a new concept can already be construed almost 100 years prior - in a time when the automobile was in its infancy.

About 18+ years ago when I was in school, I had a few semisters of Naval Archeticual design. This would have been about the time when APBA was on tv.....I had the same idea of dimpling the wetted surfaces or even above the water line if the concept would have worked. Long story short, quickit1 and Raylar on spot on the money.

I had the opportunity to speak with two major golf ball mfg'r engineers about the principals of the air flow of a golfball and the direct impact of the shape/ depth and surface texture of the dimples.

One engineer was a "blow boater" and knew what I was pondering. On a displacement hull ( such as America's Cup) positive dimples could somewhat would improve performance as the variables of water flow across the surface of the hull are MUCH different that that of a planing hull. The cost of technology would have been outragous to find the ideal surface profile to suit an america's cup boat.

With planing hulls, this engineer pointed out that there is no way to defeat the increased drag on the wetted surface unless you could guarentee that you could encapsulate an air pocket within each dimple - the increased surface area created by the dimple would create a larger wetted surface area than a smooth hull. Areodynamic vs hyrodynamic....

Golf balls supposedly decellerate much quicker hitting the water than a smooth ball....

As mentioned golf balls are also travel in an arc and tumble. This path of travel has had million upon millions dumped into the dimple design just to gain a few feet farther than the next company's ball.. One last tidbit, the round dimple is not the most efficient but the least complex and most repeatable in a mfg process so if comes down to cost vs gain.

It was some very interesting phone calls - still remember the bill and possible may have some of the documentation that the companies sent kicking around in a box......and yes there definitely are existing patents. The most cost efficient gains from a hull are to Blue print the bottom and add more HP!

SVL-WARLOCK

I have seen a few bottoms this way. There was a guy in Florida who was building a Mirage ccopy of some sort. He had dimples in the bottom. He also had a twin prop surface drive from merc on an outboard. The idea from a bravo 3. thing was a screamer. I also believe that HTM had a 24sr with dimpled bottom.