View Single Post
Old 01-19-2015, 04:48 PM   #52
Marin
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Marin wrote;
"Absolutely. If the boat won't sell, then it's a bad design. It's that simple."
I can't believe you (one of the smartest guys here) said that.
.

That's why I'm one of the smartest guys here.

Our (Boeing) design engineers have come up with some really cool and extremely good designs over the years that have never seen the light of day. Why? Because the airlines or the military didn't want them. To them, they were bad designs. Why? Because they didn't do what they wanted to do.

You have two major flaws in your beliefs and position. One, you assume the only good design is what YOU want, which is a glacially-slow displacement boat with very low power. You do not represent the vast majority of the power boating market. In fact, I would say you represent a very tiny fraction of the power boating market. That is easily proven by looking at what sells and what doesn't. How many Willards and Coots have been sold vs. how many Bayliners, Grand Banks, Californians, CHBs, Flemings, Sabres, Eastbays, and the list goes on.

Two, you assume that a theoretically good design is all that is needed to make a good product. You repeatedly claim that a Grand Banks, for example, is a bad boat because they didn't use the design theory you adhere to of very low power and a displacement hull. This is way, way wrong. A truly good design is one that combines the theories of what make a good, efficient design with the practicalities and realities of what make a desirable, producible design.

By focusing only on the theoretical and not the practical, your arguments have no meaning or application in the real world. Which is why most production boat builders would totally ignore your definition of good design if they were exposed to them.

I know you like theory over reality, but that makes for a very lonely position. We've had some excellent engineers here over the years who insisted on following theory and said the customers would simply have to accept what we produced. We know best, they said, because we have aerodynamic or structural or whatever theory on our side. These engineers, as smart as they were, didn't last long at this company because they refused or were incapable of understanding that customer requirements and desires and producibility trump pure theory every time. These engineers were incapable of adapting their theoretically perfect designs to the reality of producing a product the market wants.

The same is true of production boat building. If a designer or engineer cannot accept that the number one objective is to produce a boat design that the customers want and is producible to a certain cost point, but insists instead on giving priority to the theories of hull design, power to weight, etc. regardless of customer desires and production cost, that engineer will not have a very long career at that company.

You say you're surprised a "smart" person would not accept your ideas about design theory. In a career first in television producting commercials to sell products and services to a market, and then in aerospace helping to sell incredibly expensive products to a market comrpised of extremely picky customers, I can say with extreme confidence that focusing on design theory alone is not a smart approach to success. Focusing on customer requirements, production cost, serviceability and design theory is a smart approach.

And if you do that, the end product will be a very good, very smart, very successful design.

PS- My post #25 was a direct response and reinforcement to what Peter said in his post #18.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote