CCC 2013
Locked
12345
... 8
12345
... 8
|
Probably not, I'm not really sure I want any further involvement with the media! We've had enough drama over the past year or so getting this far, and we've yet to actually start digging. The planners have already asked why the garage needed to be quite so long.............  |
|
|
In reply to this post by Timmo
I can find no reason for Pete's reply to be rejected - he has the same Member rights as the rest of us. The problem could have been a temporary glitch.
As Jeremy eluded, a 60V limit won't limit total power. With 60V and an instantaneous draw of 100 amps you have an instant 8HP motor.....those floating ironing boards will take off like a jetski! How about an ABBA class for electric propulsion? The reasoning is to demonstrate practical alternatives to petrol/diesel outboards. Miles travelled along the Thames (and hence petrol/diesel miles replaced) is more useful than a quick spin around the lake IMHO. Please no comments about rowing - nobody rows their motor boats do they? -Paul |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeremy
As this thread has got me thinking again, plus as I don't have time to play around with hydrofoils and as it seems, at least from the video clip of the windsurfer on foils that I posted earlier, that there may not be a lot of difference between planing and being on foils, I did a little paper experiment.
The sketch below is of Quackers as built at the top, and with the aft end cut off along the line of the false internal transom at the bottom. It may be that I could persuade Quack (as I've renamed the shorter version) in this form. Might need three drills and a couple of kW to do it, but I already have an alternative electric power head that I can stick on to the existing drive that might be persuaded to go to that sort of power for an experiment or two. 
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul H (admin)
Interesting thought Paul.
Takes my 'endurance' idea to an interesting place. Is there something along the lines of 'economical home built electrical systems' that can be worked up into a practical entry spec? Perhaps in parallel to the alternative human powered systems (no rowing or paddling)? Mirage drives are so expensive, would be good to see more home build innovation displayed. Chris's Pedal-Yuloh clearly giving the idea a big kick start. If there is a 'winner' it should be based on cost to boat size to range type calculations. Maybe we relieve pressure on the lake and run a course up to the lock and back, could require a passenger to be carried as well to involve more people and make sure it's real boats taking part (keep the powered surf boards on the CCC where I will enjoy seeing them planing round the lake.) Could include Pete's armchair suggestion too! Still just brainstorming. Tim. On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:18, adminHBBR [via UK HBBR Forum] wrote: > How about an ABBA class for electric propulsion? The reasoning is to demonstrate practical alternatives to petrol/diesel outboards. Miles travelled along the Thames (and hence petrol/diesel miles replaced) is more useful than a quick spin around the lake IMHO. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeremy
Looks very interesting.
I would be tempted to put a couple of strakes on the hull; mainly to create some directional stability as she skims the water at speed but also to add rigidity, the flat hull of a boat on the plane will take some stick! Tim.
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:22, Jeremy [via UK HBBR Forum] wrote: - As this thread has got me thinking again, plus as I don't have time to play around with hydrofoils and as it seems, at least from the video clip of the windsurfer on foils that I posted earlier, that there may not be a lot of difference between planing and being on foils, I did a little paper experiment. |
|
|
Strakes might be an idea for a bit of directional stability, but the foam composite seems very rigid, so they probably wouldn't be needed for added stiffness. The bottom is about 12mm thick in total, and already has some carbon fibre stiffeners laid across the mid-point.
Whether or not it would plane is debatable. It might do, but a rough-and-ready calculation (using Savitsky's method) seems to indicate that at least 2.5hp would be needed to get over the hump. I'm not at all sure that Savitsky's method is valid down at this sort of low weight, though. The mods to the hull would be dead easy, just saw off the aft end and add a bit of extra glass over the cut edges (and a bit of paint). Most of the work would be in making a new drive head to combine the power from two or three drills to the existing drive leg. On the topic of an additional competition, then I think it would be nice to look at generating a bit of interest in a zero emission, yet eminently practical, day boat, for those who don't want to row or sail. It seems that many electric boats are still stuck in the dark ages, with most using heavy, inefficient and rather environmentally nasty lead acid batteries and brushed motor technology that is well over 100 years old. Affordable technology is available that will allow very significant efficiency improvements with electric drive. Solar panels and wind generators are more affordable than ever, and it would be nice to see if we could encourage the combination of efficient electric drive with sustainable energy generation, together with aesthetically pleasing design and practical day boat design. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeremy
I think you have just re-invented the Scanoe....we had one at the place I taught sailing years ago. It was fast, flip happy, but planed quite nicely on a 2hp outboard. Have you seen this page? www.selway-fisher.com motor canoes There's a picture of a 15' one on the plane. I will let you do some outboard spotting to guess the HP. In terms of Quack, I like your concept, but I think you've cut her too short (this is purely by eye........) Maybe just to the other end of the well? keeping the prop under the hull. The comment about being the 60V becoming an F1 event could come true. A fleet of 60V scanoes racing would be quite exciting to build, participate in and watch...... One last word about hydrofoils. If anyone remembers Bang goes the Theory, watch this clip...Bang goes the Theroy... |
|
|
Jeremy, your idea for Quackers is exactly what I had in mind for it after chatting at Beale. I hope you can find time for this along with housebuilding. Will the o/b leg and prop take the power of 2 or 3 drills?
On the general path of this thread, I think we are wanting a UK electric boat competition, something beyond CCC and Beale. USA, Holland and probably other countries already have them. I hesitated to mention this because I don't want to be the one to organise it. Does anyone else think so? |
|
|
The prop should be a better match at a higher speed, as it's far too coarse for the max speed at the moment. The weakest point would be the UJ in the drive leg, which would be running in excess of its derated (because of the angle) torque with 2 or 3 drills. However, I think that the derated torque figure is really based on acceptable wear rates, rather than ultimate strength, as the joints will take around 4 or 5 times more torque at very shallow angles. I don't know for sure what torque the prop can exert on the shaft though, and suspect that as boat speed increases the prop torque will decrease. I agree. The logical organisation to host this would be the EBA, but they really don't seem to be very proactive as far as any form of electronic communication is concerned. If the EBA had a forum then I'm sure that we could gather some interest and perhaps kick something off, but with the magazine only coming out a few times a year, and with there being virtually no other communication method within the association (AFAICS as a new member who's had one magazine since joining in June), I don't hold out much hope of being able to put something together through them. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Timmo
Tim, The electric outboards start at £80 ebay, likewise leisure batteries can be picked up for £60 upwards...but you get what you pay for. Its old technology as Jeremy said, but tried, tested and easily available. The challenge is to improve the basic components; a more efficient prop and a more efficient controller like the one I fitted to MilliBee, which both extend range. I think MilliBee hits a sweetspot for a river boat - sleeps 2 and she did 65 miles down the Thames with 2 overnight charges (about 10p each) and the solar panel on the roof. -Paul |
|
|
Millibee is a good example of what I'd like to see being developed. Look at the massive gain in practical performance you achieved with just some fairly straightforward modifications to essentially off-the-shelf parts, on a hull that probably isn't the most efficient shape possible. Imagine what sort of performance could be achieved if the whole boat had been designed from the ground up to do this sort of thing, with lower water and wind resistance, integration of the solar system into the hull, perhaps together with a small wind generator, the use of much lighter and more efficient batteries, a high efficiency control system and an optimised motor and propeller. There is so much potential to be tapped here, and I think the array of entries for the CCC has already shown that there are some capable and enthusiastic people out there who could come up with some really innovative ideas. Two stroke personal water craft and outboards have already been banned in some areas because on pollution concerns. I strongly suspect that it won't be too long before we see more pressure brought to bear to reduce the use of internal combustion engines on inland waterways, especially as more and more people seem to be commenting on the noise and smell, and the issue of pollution is beginning to rise in public awareness. Sooner or later we are going to have to look at reducing the emissions from powered leisure craft, and a competition to help show that it is possible to build affordable, non-polluting and practical boats has to be a step in the right direction. |
|
|
Hello all,
Pleased to see that others too have started thinking about CCC2013. Its going to be an exciting competition! On the new rules discussion, I would tend to agree with those suggesting that 3 18V tools is still a lot of power to harness - it has tempted to me to attempt to make something which would satisfy both competition. However, I think I'm more interested in making something cool than just trying win both competitions, and I've been considering all sorts from hovercraft to hamster wheels. Thinking down this route has led me to expect that the 60V class will attract the speed machines, and the 600 catagory will attract the slightly crazier entries who require a few more tools - an example being the crowdpleasing Ayrspeed - 6 drills! The competition has matured now and I look forward to seeing what people come up with.... Joe |
|
|
Hi All
I admit that I was one who requested a power limit for the CCC but thought that my proposals had all points covered. " Limit the plated watts of the boats: Number of drills X drill voltage X battery Ah to less than 110 watts." AirGlider For 2013 I am building a small planing boat, the Airglider which is similar in plan view to Quack. Size 1.79 l x 1 w, weight of the totally bare hull 15 kg and will be driven by a single 24 v drill via a Mike Duff style long tail. This I am hoping to be the fastest of its type but no one has attempted a planing boat before. Dennis |
|
|
That's a sensible way to limit power, Dennis, by limiting the total available energy. Had the rules adopted your suggested total energy limit then I think it would have set a more interesting technical challenge, one where efficiency would be far more important than brute force. It would also have been easy to check, as all battery packs seems to be marked clearly with their voltage and capacity. As several of us have now worked out, limiting voltage doesn't really limit power effectively. If anything it seems to make the supposed low voltage category may be the one where the fast boats be, I think, with the more expensive multi drill high voltage category being the one where some of the more eccentric machines may end up. I'm not sure if that was the intention in wording the class rules like this or not. I suspect that there may have been an assumption that battery voltage determined tool power, when the reality (based on a few tests I've done) seems to be that some of the lower voltage tools are just as powerful as the higher voltage ones. In fact, one of my 18V tools was around 20% more powerful than a 36V one I borrowed to test! |
|
|
In reply to this post by GregHBBR
If I can stick my oar in (groan - well what's wrong with rowing?)
Whilst the competition as it is is great fun and interesting it does have the disadvantage that those who can afford the greatest number of high quality cordless drills/batteries are likely to win. One of things I like about the cordless drill idea is that the drill is detachable. I'd like to see the competitors turn up sans drills but with a shaft ready to connect a drill(s) (supplied by Makita?) too. At minimum it'd only need two drills (but quite a bank of batteries), but could be for more. I think this would make the winners the ones who had come up with the best boat design for the course* rather than the ones who might have got hold of the best drill and batteries. John *Interesting that someone showed Team Emirates New Zealand. There's probably a lot to learn from the tactics they use. It's not all about max straight line speed. |
|
|
As is probably quite apparent
Electrons and I don't really think alike, but I do agree on the horses for courses notion and have had some thoughts on hull design for the CCC. Any master of the electronic world who might like some watery sorts of ideas? Answers by e-mail, not to let the cat out of the bag? Did I say cat? CW |
|
|
OK, John Hesp took me up on the challenge....
And we had an extended e-mail swapping session, at the the end of which we have decided neither of us has the necessary energy or knowledge to see it through. We mentioned Jeremy, but I know he's all housed-up at the moment, so here are the e-mails, enjoy: From John: Okay Chris, I'll take the bait. Perhaps we can work something out as a group. Do you think there's any mileage in throwing an anchor out ahead and then winching yourself forward with the cordless? It's got to be efficient if nothing else. (And there is nothing else). Not sure about a cat. Unlike their namesakes I don't think that cat's are very good at fast sharp turns and there a few sharp turns on this course. How about a submarine? No wave making drag, and don't they use electric motors? Or is it nuclear power? Perhaps we could compromise with a submersible cat. I don't know how fast the current winner is, but if it's not planing I'd have thought we just need to keep adjusting a basic hull in my hull design program until we get enough speed (given the power available) to beat the current speed by a small margin. In the spirit of the America's Cup (which this competition resembles in many ways - match racing - biggest $ is likely to win) we could have a high efficiency prop cnc machined. Titanium? John ps. Hydrofoils = Wild Goose Chase (Unless you've got a LOT of power and are going to be going in the same direction for some distance). From Chris: OK John, first come first served; which makes you it. I agree that there are two ways to go that aren't, hydrofoils definitely and planing that probably isn't worth the biscuit. And no, not really a 'cat'; that was a bit of a come-on. It leaves you after the longest waterline on the narrowest, lightest hull, having the least wetted area. What is the maximum LOA, sixteen feet? Then the least wetted area for a given displacement, is half a circle if surface piercing, which is how I sort of see it, or a whole circle if submerged, which I feel would probably be too complicated to arrange in this lifetime. That leaves you with two more problems, stability and manoeuvrability. Consider the current course and any other, that comes back to the start point and does not involve deliberately crossing your own track, such as a figure of eight, in which there is a danger of colliding with your opposition, so is not really on. This leaves you having to turn a total of one hundred and eighty degrees one way or the other; there is an inside and an outside to this turn. Note in this context, the current dog leg cancels itself out. How about turning an disaster into an opportunity and putting a single outrigger on the inside of the turn, to create the necessary stability and providing drag to help getting round that one hundred and eighty degrees. To really improve the manoeuvrability it would be feasible to have a smaller forward rudder, possibly even negating the requirement for an aft one at all. The crew could be ensconced, lying on a dish-platform-pod above the waterline with just enough lateral room to control the relative immersion of the outrigger float, to assist turning. This does assume a fixed prop aft, but with something like Jeremy's rotatable prop-on-a-leg fairly far forward, even the rudder might become superfluous. I wasn't going to advertise these notions, as keeping things under wraps then pulling 'cats' out of the bag has a certain appeal in competitions like this, the same as the America's Cup you mentioned.... But it's up to you; your move next. Chris From John: To be honest I've only been mildly interested in the competition so don't really know the details. Is there a 16' LOA max? I remember a plan of the course being shown in Watercraft magazine - it was an L shape as you describe. My first instinct on seeing that was that because the first turn is a left turn the boat starting on the left has an advantage - the boat on the left (inside) hasn't got as far to go round the mark (assuming they both reach it at about the same time). Not sure there's much you can do about that though. But what about the hull. True, a longer LWL will allow a greater max speed, but that's provided you have enough power to push it to that speed; I'm not sure a cordless drill does. I don't know how many watts can be got out of these things and the only answer I can find so far is 100w. That's not much, but in the ballpark of a human being I'd think. Do these boats go that sort of speed? Anyway, one of the troubles with increasing the LWL is that the wetted surface area increases too*, and if you're only going slow this is significant. Another trouble is that it becomes harder to turn the boat quickly. The weight might also increase. So I think the questions are - How many drills or how much power is allowed? I don't think there's any improvement you could do to the shape of the boats already built which would be as effective as chucking a few more drills in there. Problems syncing them? A differential. How fast are the top boats at present? Design a hull which beats this given the power available. That might mean a longer LWL but: Where are the top races being won (or lost) - on the straights with (lack of) speed, or on the bends with (lack of) manoeuvrability? If at the end of that it seemed a good idea to use as long and narrow a hull as possible then I think your outrigger idea might be a good one. * As you say, a semi circular section has the least area, but if you look at the length as well a hemisphere has the least surface area, not that that's very practical or fast. True, a longer LWL will allow a greater max speed, but that's provided you have enough power to push it to that speed; I'm not sure a cordless drill does. Having said that - a rowing scull has a very long LWL and the power can't be that much more than a cordless. John From Chris: Well John, I’d say that LWL is pretty vital if the submerged cross section is semi-circular to keep the wetted area down. I don’t know if you were watching last year, there was some fairly speedy stuff going on. This is King Canute, driven by a single drill and is she planing? Difficult to say, I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnVNEAHqumI Now this year it was won using four drills driving through a single gear box, fitted with a home-made, four-way differential: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXgnDZwzV48 However, you have now come back to my original point – it’s no good discussing power-plants with me, which is why I asked for an elexpert.... I am the original pre-electrolyte; bring me an engineer? Chris From John: Wow!! Your certainly up against it Chris, although having said that it's not quite the America's Cup is it. Their going quite fast but in the first video it certainly seems the boat to get a long time round the far mark. They also all seem to be quite short. But I can't imagine any of them are planing. As for the electrics, what is there to know? As far as I can see you chuck your cordless onto a shaft and away you go. The battery and motor and electrics are already sorted for you. Of course, if you want to spend £400 per cordless instead of £40 you'll likely get more power, but as for electrical problems - I don't see any. Do you have any questions I could help with? I'm no electrician, but did study it enough a college that some of it got lodged permanently in my head. Power=Volts x Amps and that sort of thing. Power = revs x torque as well (revs in radians/sec), but note that a electric motor doesn't produce max torque at max revs - quite the opposite, as you'll know if you've ever got a powerful drill stuck in a bit of wood or a wall - it'll try and break your arm off as it stops. So whilst manufacturers give max revs and max torque these two don't occur at the same time. What would really be interesting is torque at max revs, or a graph of torque vs revs. But in my experience the more expensive reputable brand names produce more power than the pound shop drills and a drill which is stated as having a high torque is likely to have a high torque at max revs (although we wouldn't know what that torque would be so we couldn't calculate power which would be useful for other calcs such as max speed and the best shape for the prop that needs to be custom machined [I'm not entirely joking - I do have a cnc machine]). My expert summary (the result of a long and expensive education) - buy the most expensive Bosch or Mkita drill and then buy another. John From Chris: John, I was wondering how much of our previous boffins’ stuff you have read through? All way through the ‘CCC 2013’ topic , then further back through ‘General Discussion’ – ‘Electric Outboard’ topic. Also the ‘Best electric bike....’ in Technical/Eco Forum. Then skim through ‘Four Candles 2012’ and ‘A duck punt for the cordless canoe challenge’ one below the other on the older pages of ‘Builds in Progress’. Jeremy seems to be the lead, but there are several others, all of whom show my engineering up for the unrefined axmanship that it is – hammer and hand-drill stuff. These guys are making their own bearings and props and and talking about power ratings in ways that leave me looking like a monkey’s uncle. This latest quibble as to whether the ‘new’ rules are going to simplify the CCC, or accidentally produce a class of superboats is beyond me. Nobody stands a chance unless they get this sort of top-notch technology into the drive system. If you understand it, you can try and explain it to me.... Meanwhile, what would you think of me sending my hull ideas to Jeremy? Chris From John: Chris, I've not had a chance to wade through all that stuff yet, but by all means send your ideas to Jeremy, he certainly seems to be an innovative engineer. Just what's needed I'd have thought. And after all, they're your ideas - I haven't contributed anything so far. John From Chris: Actually John, I’m not that interested either, I have a load of other stuff I’d rather be up to. I know Jeremy is preoccupied with housing, so I’m inclined to throw our whole correspondence up onto the HBBR site and let people fight over, or ignore it as they will. Yes? Chris From John: Hi Chris, Yes, why not? Meanwhile, if you can spot a fruitless-discussion competition anywhere I think we might make a good team. John |
|
|
I don't think any of them were anywhere near planing.
Windsurfers are built for it....and from my experience in the 80s need to go much faster to plane. Modern windsurf boards are much wider, possibly to make them more stable and appeal to beginners. It would be interesting to know if they plane better than the older designs. BTW I still have my F2 racing board - a lightweight could balance it around the CCC course. Define a canoe! -Paul |
|
|
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 3:40 PM, adminHBBR [via UK HBBR Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, the modern wide boards plane much earlier. This is mainly because they can carry a much bigger sail for their length than a low volume board of the same length. Sailing a 270 -280 board with 10 m^2 is the norm in light winds. They'll plane in less than 8 knots wind with some imaginative pumping. They'll then plane on their apparent wind if you can be bothered to nurse them along. Of course once we get to 15 knots wind, everyone wants to be back on something tiny flying 6m^2 and having real fun... Cordless power tools? Yes they do have a place in boats - I find them useful for cutting wood, drilling holes and sanding. Pete |
|
|
Last year I got a good indication of the speeds and what you need to win this year.
Fast 3 was the 2nd fastest and achieved just below 7 mph but was slow on acceleration and could not turn tightly at the 180 buoy. It would be easy to fit a second drill and smaller propellers which would increase the acceleration and top speed but due to the very narrow boat 190 mm wide, the turning would not be improved. Joe's boat, the winner was I guess 30% faster that me but this could not turn at that speed at the 180 buoy either. To win a top speed of around 10 mph is needed but a very good turning circle is critical. Jeremy boat was the best at turning as he cut inside of me at the buoy but was not fast enough to hold his lead. From these thoughts I have concluded that a planning boat could win the 60 v class if I can achieve 10 mph. Airglider is slowly taking shape and should give me some fun testing it out. Dennis |
«
Return to General Discussion
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |