Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-30-2014, 11:48 AM   #1
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Shannon 46 with SRD hull fuel consumption

Anyone look at the performance numbers for the subject boat as listed in the May issue of PMY magazine? 6.9 NM/G @ 8.3 kt, 4.2 NM/G @ 12.2, 2.8 NM/G @ 15.9. 39,000 lb, 46 OAL. These numbers are for the single 600 HP Cummins. Another set for the second engine...a 220 HP Cummins powering hydraulically driven folding sail drives show even more remarkable numbers at very slow speeds. Data was taken by the testers and not given to them by Mr. Schultz.

Must be something to the SRD hull design. The trans-plane and slow plane numbers caught my eye.
__________________
Advertisement

Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 12:19 PM   #2
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,882
Mighty skeptical of those burn rate numbers on a vessel that size and weight.
__________________

Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 01:34 PM   #3
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
When I read the article could not believe the burn rate much too good to be true. I have become very skeptical of magazine fuel claims. Also remember in real life boats gain significant weight in first year after initial launching. If a boat is particularly light and has an efficient hull good burn #s are to be expected and I don't see that in this boat.The MJM is an example of a boat that gets good fuel burn based on light build. Some catamarans can also do well. There is no consumers union for marine products that will go and test this boat and give us an unbiased opinion.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 02:09 PM   #4
Guru
 
Tad Roberts's Avatar
 
City: Flattop Islands
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blackfish
Vessel Model: custom
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 707
Numbers are screwy.....you don't get 16 knots in a 46' boat using 110 HP (5.67gph). The max burn is only 20gph? That's around 400 HP......?
Tad Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 05:07 PM   #5
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tad Roberts View Post
Numbers are screwy.....you don't get 16 knots in a 46' boat using 110 HP (5.67gph). The max burn is only 20gph? That's around 400 HP......?
Yes, well, like I said "remarkable numbers". Some oddities between fuel flow between the big single and small twin prop numbers as well. The magazine says their data were taken using two way gps average and the Cummins instrumentation for fuel flow....
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 07:02 PM   #6
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
I think the reverse deadrise aft will deliver an efficiency advantage at a certain speed recouping some of the energy lost in the boat's following sea. The shape is wrong aft for FD speeds and for planing speeds but somewhere in the SD range there should be some benefit irregardless of whether these numbers are right or wrong. This certainly isn't the last word on the SRD Shannon.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 07:59 PM   #7
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Some (magazine test) numbers for the single 220 engine driving the hydraulic pump that drives the twin folding props (18x15) on the sail drives....


RPM KT GPH NM/G
1200 5.9 .6 9.8
1800 6.6 1.7 3.9
2200 7.2 2.8 2.6
2600 8.9 4.3 2.1
3000 9.8 6.4 1.5

By the way, the prop on the 600hp single is a 26x22.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 08:13 PM   #8
THD
Guru
 
City: Seattle
Country: US
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,142
Have not seen the article but at least part of the efficiency might be explained by the use of hydraulic drives. As I understand a hydraulic drive system, there is no transmission, the hydraulic motor turns the shaft directly and controls shaft RPM. The engine simply powers a hydraulic pump. Using an accumulator to even out engine/pump loads, along with the gains from no transmission friction, could lead to more efficient fuel usage numbers. That is before any effect the may come from the SRD hull shape.
THD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 09:33 PM   #9
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
The transmission losses in a hydraulic drive is greater than w gears. Pumping hydraulic fluid through the system of hoses, pumps and hydraulic slave motors takes more power than turning gears and bearings in a typical gear drive. There are many advantages to hydraulic drives but efficiency isn't one of them so it is usually not employed for a prime mover.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 09:34 PM   #10
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
I am not overly impressed with the 220 motor at 3000 rpm and burning 6.4 gal/hr rule of thumb gets you about 120hp at that burn rate. My 34,000 lb boat with a 46 ft WL and twin 330 hp motors does 9.6K for 7 gal/hr. If I drop down to 9.2 K closer to hull speed the fuel burn is between 5-6 Gal/hr. While the 220 motors #s are good why go to the trouble of the second small motor with extra props and gear when a twin on a standard hull does almost the same. Also my total hp is similar to the big motor and the extra maneuverability of a twin is a plus. The whole concept of the three props seams overly complicated.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 05:45 AM   #11
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,515
>As I understand a hydraulic drive system, there is no transmission, the hydraulic motor turns the shaft directly and controls shaft RPM.<

A std boat transmission is usually figured at a 3% power cost.(Twin Disc)

Hyd , depending on optimization will usually cost 15% to pump and another 15% , when used.

Some modern expensive setups claim to cut the losses in half , to only a 15% COST OVERALL.Aircraft priced.

For systems operation , windlass , bow thruster, cruise generator, boat hoist,, Hyd is the gold standard , but never for propulsion in std type boat.

When boat numbers are 10% better , I say great design,BRAVO!

when they are claimed 200% or 300% better , I think BS , physics is physics .
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 06:26 AM   #12
Guru
 
Rogerh's Avatar
 
City: Niceville, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: At Last
Vessel Model: 1990 Jefferson 52 Marquessa
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 665
I went to the Shannon web site and looked up what numbers they advertise. At 10 knots they say 2 miles per gallon. at 15 knots they say 1.6 miles per gallon. Note miles per gallon, not knots. Given this maybe the magazine had some typos. These numbers are very good but more in the believable range for me.
Rogerh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 11:29 AM   #13
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
I just sent PMY a note suggesting that they recheck their fuel burn data. Getting fuel burn numbers wrong on a boat whose claim to fame is efficiency should be cause for concern among the editorial staff.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 01:17 PM   #14
Guru
 
Tad Roberts's Avatar
 
City: Flattop Islands
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blackfish
Vessel Model: custom
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post
The whole concept of the three props seams overly complicated.
It is overly complicated, inefficient too. Mentioning hydraulic drive and efficiency is the same sentence is silly. Hydraulics are great for moving continuous power around the boat, but there are losses. Heat, noise, and vibration are some of the issues. The sail drives are high-maintenance and added drag that never goes away.

This kind of stuff is preying on the inexperienced, selling people complexity in the name of reliability and safety. It's neither of those things.
Tad Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2014, 10:59 PM   #15
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
>As I understand a hydraulic drive system, there is no transmission, the hydraulic motor turns the shaft directly and controls shaft RPM.<

A std boat transmission is usually figured at a 3% power cost.(Twin Disc)

Hyd , depending on optimization will usually cost 15% to pump and another 15% , when used.

Some modern expensive setups claim to cut the losses in half , to only a 15% COST OVERALL.Aircraft priced.

For systems operation , windlass , bow thruster, cruise generator, boat hoist,, Hyd is the gold standard , but never for propulsion in std type boat.

When boat numbers are 10% better , I say great design,BRAVO!

when they are claimed 200% or 300% better , I think BS , physics is physics .
Agreed! - - > physics is physics!


To enable the nearly unfathomably bettered (increased) nmpg mentioned in OP of this thread would mean that the entire hull design to weight ratio of a boat, as well as energy use improvements via fantastic new propulsion system, would need to be hands down revolutionary as compared to previously available items. If those numbers [6.9 NM/G @ 8.3 kt, 4.2 NM/G @ 12.2, 2.8 NM/G @ 15.9. 39,000 lb, 46 OAL] are true... well then... there is a whole new sunrise about to dawn on the pleasure boating industry!

IMHO: Either - Something went askew in the tests / Misprint occurred / BIG ol’ FIB!

If those numbers are correct... I want one! If I like its build, design and handling capabilities that is!!

Happy Boating Daze! - Art

PS: Damn nice boats... Well worth watching videos!
http://www.shannonyachts.com/shannon_srd_videos.html

I visited Shannon Website - Nice Boats! Really good nmpg numbers that I highlighted below... probably accomplished before loaded with owners gear?? Sounds inviting. Enough improvement to set the boating industry on a BIG upswing? Well, SRD hull may help somewhat.

Quote:

"SRD Fuel Efficiency"

"Based on independent testing, the SRD hull, with a single engine or twin engines, is the most fuel efficient powerboat on the market at speeds over 10 knots/12 mph. While the SRD hull can easily reach speeds of 25 knots/30 mph or greater depending on engine horsepower, the hull provides exceptional fuel economy in the 10 knot /12 mph to 18 knot /20 mph speed range. At 10 knots, the SRD obtains almost 2 miles per gallon, or the same fuel burn found on a full displacement trawler at top speed. Traveling at 15 knots, the SRD provides over 1.6 miles per gallon, whereas a modified vee planing hull struggles to provide 1 mile to the gallon at the same speed. The fuel efficiency of the SRD hull translates into 60% less fuel burned, increased range and a significant reduction in pollution."
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 02:13 AM   #16
THD
Guru
 
City: Seattle
Country: US
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,142
Tad-I would be interested in any comments you may have regarding the hydrodynamics of the "SRD" hullform. I pulled up the Patent application and it is quite interesting (if anyone wants to see it go tot he PTO website and do a quick search on "reverse deadrise"). The actual hullform as described is definitely different. A typical deep "V" entry (55-58 degrees)from bow to about 40% of WL length. Then the :twist to a reverse deadrise that actually creates a hollow area from 40% to about 70% of the WL length. This seems to almost create something like sponsons along the chine. The hollow is said to create water turbulence and substantially decrease wetted surface friction as well as directing flow to the aft 30% of the WL length. That aft 30% is virtually flat, with a small (about 10 degrees) reverse deadrise. Together, these two features supposedly produce the lift and result in the performance using less power and fuel.

Several things stand out to me:

1. The hull form would seem to have very little directional stability on its own, there is no keel to speak of and the reverse at the chines does not seem sharp enough to provide it.

2. Very little hull volume, these have to be "picninc" type boats, the 36' draws only 2'.

3. Although the boats tested apparently had almost traditional drives, the patent states that surface piercing drives would be the best option. That makes some sense as I am not sure what effect on props and efficiency the turbulence in the hollow are infront of the props would have.

4. The design seems to really operate in a vary narrow envelope as shown by the patent app and the test posted above. That is, from about 12 knots to about 16, maybe 18 knots. At displacement speeds there seems to be little gain and there is no discussion of its ability to run at true planning speeds, say 25 knots+.

Tad, if you can enlighten us any further, I would appreciate any comments.
THD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 01:22 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Nick14's Avatar
 
City: Portland OR
Country: USA
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 141
For whatever it's worth, I seriously looked at the SRD38 a few years ago, the first SRD from Shannon (a smaller version of this boat).

I can't comment on the new 46, but THD, I noticed several of your observations. The boat was "small" for a 38, with a narrow beam and a sort of 'pinched' bottom design which resulted in a small cabin. It felt a lot like a 34-ish ft sailboat inside.

We ultimately sea trialed two different boats, one with twin engines, and one a single. Walter Shultz was very big on surface piercing drives for the boat, but both of the ones we sea trialed had conventional drives.

I personally loved the performance of the boat. It struck me as having some similar design elements and characteristics of powerboats of the 1930's - narrow beam, light weight, and as a result, more easily driven with less power. The combination of the deep forefoot and narrow beam gave them a very stable, smooth, wave-piercing ride, very different from any planning hull I've ever been on.

They both accelerated very quickly (one had twin 150 hp, the other a single 440). I can't comment on the total performance envelope, but each one seemed to comfortably cruise in the mid-high teens, and were completely unperturbed by waves and chop. It was almost uncanny, how this light and relatively small-ish boat was able to handle waves so well, and at speed. It was both a smoother and faster ride than lobster boats I've been on. That speed range ("semi-displacement", "semi-planning", whatever you like to call it) is where we like to be, so a cruise speed in the teens was perfect.

I found Walter Shultz to be delightful to talk with. He was (understandably) very passionate about and a big champion for his SRD design, I think deservedly so. He seemed very knowledgeable, and the boats showed a lot of attention to detail and seemed well-built. I can't comment on the performance specs in the magazine article, other than to say it wouldn't be the first time a magazine article had errors in some of the data they report and might later have to correct it. I seem to recall at the time the SRD38 getting about 2 nmpg at cruise speed, which struck me as about 50%+ better than either a conventional planning or a 'semi-displacement' hull. I would suspect the figures they quote on their website are the right ones.

In the end, we didn't buy one, mostly because a new SRD38 was just out of our budget. Despite the relatively tight interior, if it was less expensive, we probably would have bought one. The single engine boat we looked at was used and I thought a good value, but I moved too slowly and it sold before I could move on it.

I don't think Shannon made very many of the SRD38, maybe half a dozen? The boat is too different from what most buyers are looking for. It's not beamy with a spacious interior so it wouldn't be a good party barge or dockside condo, and the tight interior of the 38 also wouldn't lend itself to the long distance cruising many trawler owners do (it would have worked for us since most of our trips are short). I haven't seem a SRD46, but it seems like a smart move for Shannon, to make a bigger version to address one of the main design limitations of the previous 38, the tight interior.

The whole hydraulic drivetrain and second engine with saildrive seems overly complicated, unnecessary, and silly to me, for all the reasons previously discussed - the boat gets noticeably better fuel economy than others just with a conventional drivetrain, so why make it complicated? The price of the SRD46 is way out of our budget, but it would be on my short list (with conventional drive) if we ever win the lottery.
__________________
Nick
Nick14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 02:21 PM   #18
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
Yes Nick I agree that the advantages of the Shannon SRD are mostly in how they ride through the water. SD is always a hard nut to crack but retaining the soft and easy riding features of the FD hull fwd and controlling the tendency to squat is in combination is indeed IMO way ahead of the lobsterboat types even if the SRD didn't burn less fuel.

Also the fact that newer and advanced design features for SD hulls are rare IMO and the Shannon design should command a great deal of respect for that alone. PMM thought it was worth a full blown article w a cover pic included.

I don't think TAD is that thrilled w it and I question the SRD's following sea capabilities myself but it's definitely out of the box and I like and respect that.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 04:54 PM   #19
Guru
 
Tad Roberts's Avatar
 
City: Flattop Islands
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blackfish
Vessel Model: custom
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 707
I'm pretty much with Fred and Art, "Physics is physics".

The biggest factors, by a huge margin, in any boat's performance, are length on the waterline and displacement (weight). Next most important factor is getting the volume correctly distributed for the expected speed. (this is where most go wrong) Then come smaller factors like beam, depth, sectional shape, etc.

Build three boats, a Hunt style deep-vee, a round bottom Maine Lobster boat, and an SRD form. Identical length, beam, displacement, engine, gearbox, shaft strut, prop, and rudder. I guarantee performance (HP vs Speed) for all three will be within 5% of each other. And at that critical 10-15 knot speed range the Lobster hull will be best.

When the SRD38 first appeared I did some comparison with a typical lobster boat hull of the same length and weight. I could not find any huge performance gain, in fact I couldn't see any advantage at all.

If you go back a few years in Shannon Yachts history you find a boat called the Shoal Sailer. Graft a big square box with a concave bottom on the back of a Shoal Sailer and you have a SRD38. I really thought it was creative re-purposing of an existing tool.....

Manufacturers almost never (actually never) substantiate their comparison claims. "the SRD hull translates into 60% less fuel burned" really? Less than what? Which boat is it being compared to, what is that boat's weight and length, what speed are we talking about, and what are the load conditions of each test? And also are the numbers accurate?

I really don't get the surface drive idea for the SRD. I have done some high speed (like 65 + knots) surface drive boats and they make little sense at less than 25 knots. At 10 knots and lower they become (IMO) horrible.

Finally Endurance makes some comments about ride quality. That's a whole other conversation and one I can't address never having been aboard the SRD. Again from a technical viewpoint I would expect the SRD to have a quick motion, being light and shallow. Also the form will have great roll damping due to the large built-in convex damper back aft.

THD's questions.....

1. I think the drawing shows a central keel aft (ending a long way forward of the transom). But generally this boat will have minimal directional control with small keel fin and tiny rudders. But a small keel and tiny rudders reduce drag and thus fuel consumption, which sells boats. I'll guess a decent bow thruster will facilitate docking.

2. Small volume means light weight and efficiency. Having tried myself to sell small volume efficient boats I know it's pretty much not going to work.

3. See my note above, makes no sense.

4. Ideally all powerboats would be designed to operate within a very narrow envelope. That way the hull form, powerplant, and propulsion system could be really efficient at that one speed. Unfortunately that's not the way people work. For boatbuilders the investment in a hull tool is huge and they want to spread that investment as wide as possible. So they put different engines or deck or interiors on one hull, and it's less than ideal....sometimes a lot less.

If a boat is going to run over about 15 knots in any sea, it' better if it has some deadrise at the transom (IMO). I know there are big sportfishermen out there with zero deadrise at the transom, but I think a Bertram is more comfortable.
Tad Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2014, 06:22 PM   #20
THD
Guru
 
City: Seattle
Country: US
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,142
Tad-thanks for the comments.
__________________

THD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012