Trans RINA, Vol 154, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Jun 2012


advancements in yacht design have been somewhat slow and restricted.


Much current literature concentrates on the engineering and mathematical aspects of yacht design (that is, science). With the drafting


development of computer-aided techniques and modelling software which


predicts the performance of hull and appendage shapes, research has concentrated on the fields of fluid dynamics and aero-hydrodynamics, including wind-tunnel and tank testing. Concurrently, current yacht design literature is dominated by works by engineers and academics and lacking in


describing actual design methods and processes. This is perhaps


because


works by practising yacht of


concerns about


Eliasson concede that “Yacht design is an iterative, ‘trial and error’ procedure” involving a design spiral, “where the designer runs through all the design steps and then returns to the starting point, whereupon a new ‘turn’ begins.” [6]


designers, commercial


sensitivity and the accompanying desire to keep specific processes “secret” in a competitive environment. Another aspect restricting the availability of detailed explanations of design theory is the inability of many designers to articulate their tacit knowledge in an explicit form; Schön notes,


Designers are usually unable to say what they know, to put their special


skills and


understandings into words. On the rare occasions when they do so, their descriptions tend to be partial and mistaken: myths rather than accurate accounts of practice.[4]


While science can play a significant role in design


development, successful yacht design must continue to blend this empirical knowledge with experiential wisdom and artistic input, bringing intuitive processes to the endeavour. As Skene states,


It must not be inferred that science is not an important aid in designing any kind of a yacht, but with it must be blended natural genius, imagination and much practical experience in handling and building boats. [5]


This paper defines a new methodology for performance yacht design, blending the disciples of engineering and mathematics with the art of the designer’s eye and past experience, design intuition and an inherent sense of what is right.


2. DESIGN METHODOLOGY


As mentioned above, the process of yacht design is complex and draws on a


design endeavour but, along


expertise. The blending of art and science is apparent within the


range of knowledge and with the


amalgamation of theory and practice, is not always articulated well by yacht designers.


The design method for the development of the Shaw 9 metre needed to acknowledge these complex dynamics within this practical and iterative process. Larsson and


Figure 1: The yacht design spiral (Larsson and Eliasson, 1994, p. 5).


2.1 THE ACTION RESEARCH METHOD


The iterative nature of the design process lends itself to action


research, as this method accommodates the


cyclical process of identifying problems, analysing them and taking action to address issues before evaluating the results and moving into another cycle (Swann, 2002). Each iteration of the process adds to the theory.


The history of action research can be traced to the 1940s; however, many iterations of it have emerged since then. Elden and Chisholm [7] state that there should be five characteristics present: acknowledging that the researcher is engaged (and therefore may have some bias); focusing on solving real-world problems; the systematic collection of information;


the researcher participating in the


research problem and process; and the sharing and dissemination of knowledge.


As skills normally associated with trades have become more widely articulated, professionalism has extended to yacht designers. As part of this process the notion of reflection [8] has become valued to describe the way in which designers think about and refine their works. Professionalism brought with it the need to justify and defend decisions and this logically led to an emphasis on gathering information and testing practice.


There are a number of challenges to action research as a method, including its incompatibility with some concepts of positivist science [9]. By its very nature action research values intimate engagement of the researcher in the process and the iterative process, so it is therefore counterproductive to analyse it with reference to a


C-28 ©2012: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64