Feature
68 Hull Design
HULLDesign
Sting in the tale
David Marsh is known to many as a well respected and highly
thought of journalist for MBY. But did you know, he played
a key part in the design of one of the most successful RIBs
currently on the market?
Theillusion
‘So, just how hard can it be to design a RIB’ I
mused. There’s no accommodation to worry
about, no champagne and oyster bar to squeeze
onto the flybridge and no Lawrence Llewelyn-
Bowen type worries about what colour of
combination microwave the builder will fit.
All you’ve got is just lots of inflated rubber,
something I’d always wanted to, err, get into -
speaking naval architecturally of course!
Chatting with Graham Jelley at the 1994
Workboat show in Port Solent, it seemed as
though I’d already achieved the most difficult
part of the process - persuading one of Britain’s
leading RIB builders to let a complete RIB novice
design a new range of RIBs from the ground up.
But I knew it wouldn’t be difficult; whiz off a
new hull on the computer, stick on the tubes,
don’t forget the deck, and most important of all,
bang the invoice in quickly. A few days work at
most, even for a designer with a complete lack
of RIB experience. Or so I thought.
Thereality
Just like any design, the starting point for the
Scorpion RIBs was a detailed design brief. How
fast? What size? How heavy? What engines? It
was at this early stage that the difficult realities
of RIB design began to sink in. Normally, a
naval architect would not consider extending
or shortening any hull more than about +/-
5%; much more and you need to start again if
you want a shape which is not compromised.
However, Graham’s brief was for a single hull
mould that could turn out everything from a
7.5 metre day boat to a 9.5 metre cabin boat
almost 27% longer and, of course, still handle
and perform better than anything else. But
this dilemma paled compared with the other
interlinked problem - loading variation. On a big
flybridge boat say, although there’s a lot more
to consider; generators, galley equipment, bow
thrusters and the like, the overall variation in
weight due to different engines is minimal. Not
on Scorpion’s RIBs though, where I was expected
to produce the consummate form that
could cope with everything from a single
100hp outboard weighing just 140kgs,
to a pair of Yanmar’s 300hp inboard diesels
weighing in at a stern-sinking 1,052kgs
with their Mercruiser outdrive legs. On a boat
weighing no more than 1,000kgs without its
engines, that was going to be a real challenge.
So where did we start? We began by taking
a look at everything else on the market. In some
ways this was very useful and encouraging.
What struck me was that despite being so small
compared to the boats I was used to designing,
so many RIBs exhibited no real attention to design
and engineering detail. Decks were frequently
no more than crude plywood structures, and
the tubes often had little support, so there
seemed to be lots of scope for improvement.
The disturbing thing for me was finding that
there was absolutely no consensus on what
constituted a good hull shape. Gazing down the
graceful, very shallow forefoot of a Revenger
hull, and then switching my attention to the
deep, ultra-sharp bow sections of an Osprey
hull, it quickly became clear that there was no
real generic optimum we could use as a starting
point. We would have to start from scratch and
develop a new shape unlike any other.
Thedesign process
You cannot design a hull in isolation. The
structure, its weight and even the quality
objectives need to be considered at the outset.
Long before the hull took on its final form, we
started debating the pros and cons of plywood
decks against a moulded glass fibre structure. The
design process was very much a team effort with
four members; Graham Jelly, Chris Peterson, and
Jonathan from Scorpion, and myself. Fortunately,
the voting went in favour of the moulded deck
option. I drew a large dish on the outboard

edge of the upstand at the edges of the deck,
exactly matching the 23cm radius of the hypalon
tubes, and it ran the length of the boat, so the
whole run of the tube was supported. It was
an expensive process fabricating an accurate
deck moulding with complex curves, but in my
opinion, it was a no-brainer; Scorpion’s moulded
decks not only provided a high class finish which
plywood decks cannot hope to compete with,
but also give unmatched support for the tubes.
Computer Aided Design (CAD) provided the
solution to the two main problems - changing
length and hugely varying loads. The advantages
of CAD are well documented; accuracy beyond
your wildest dreams, scorching speed, and
the near-instant calculation of hydrostatic and
stability data. For us, however, the principal
advantage was the ‘What If’ abilities of CAD.
What happens if we change that single 200hp
outboard for a pair of 300hp diesels? What
if we lengthen the hull from
7.5 to 9.5 metres? How
deep will the boat sink?
How will it trim? And
so on and so on, ad
infinitum, often at the
cost of no more than
a few key-strokes. This
‘what if’ potential was
indispensable because the
Scorpion team were obsessed
with getting the height of the tubes spot on,
irrespective of loading. Too low and they would
drag in the water at speed, too high and the
boat would feel unstable when you stepped
aboard. CAD was instrumental in ensuring
that the Scorpion performed well in so many
different disguises.
Thehull shape
However useful CAD is though, it does not
generate even the most basic shape for you,
let alone one as successful as the Scorpion.
When I started, my CAD screen was just as
empty as a blank sheet of paper. Under normal
circumstances this would not be the case. My
hard disc is full of generic shapes - the typical
45 foot 30 knot flybridge boat, the generic 30
foot long keeled sailing boat, and many more
besides. But no RIBs. So what did we use in
Photo:David Marsh’s Scorpion Hull design in action
69
these virgin-like circumstances? That’s right,
gut feeling. I drew a basic deep-Vee shape that
‘felt’ right. Then we all stared at it, pondering
and discussing. I tweaked a little here and a little
there, modified the chines in places, refined the
spray rails, lifted the tubes a few millimetres,
and then tweaked a little more. Then I looked
at the hydrostatics again. But, ultimately, we
put aside the prismatic coefficient, ignored the
transverse metacentric height, and shunned the
longitudinal moment of inertia – because it was
when we all ‘felt happy’ that we lit the blue
touch paper and started building.
One of the joys of working with Graham
and his Scorpion team was that they were all
pedants. They were prepared to pay heavily,
with time and money, to achieve the long term
benefits of the tiniest design refinements. For
instance, the area above the chine rolls gently
round until it meets the tubes, so that when
the boat lands heavily, water peels smoothly off
the hull rather than slamming into the tubes.
And as this water streams across the bottom
of the tubes, it doesn’t try and rip off the strip
connecting the tubes to the hull because the
bonding strip has been recessed flush into the
shallowest of rebates in the hull mould.
The constant tweaking and refinement
continued throughout the design and building
process. And even though the basic 7.5 to
9.5 metre models remain, the development
continues today with new moulds, improved
engineering and better detailing in evidence.
Scorpion used the existing models as the basis
for the development of their new 10m RIB,
widening the original by 12% and extending it
to 10 metres.
Compared with lots of big cruising boats,
RIBs appear to be simple things, but the
challenge they present to their designers is no
less demanding - just different. Ask a flybridge
boat designer to cope with a 100% change of
load, and they become hysterical. Although the
hull shape may have a disproportionate effect
on the success of a RIB, just as it does with big
boats, it is the quality, attention to detail, and
sound engineering that make the difference
between success and failure.
DavidMarsh
 Feature
70 Hull Design

HULLDesign
‘Deep Vee or Round Bilge’?
That is the Question...
Paul Lemmer has had more experience than most when it
comes to understanding what determines a sound hull design.
For some thirty years, he’s raced them, broken them, built
them, established records with them, flown them out of the
water, driven them under the water, repaired them, stuffed
them and as many of you will know, continues to this very day,
to sell them. For good reason then, we ask him to elaborate on
the question, ‘Deep Vee or Round Bilge?’

Hull design on RIBs -
well there’s an emotive
subject if ever there was one!
I cannot keep track of the number of times I have
been asked which is the best RIB hull design but
on every occasion, the answer is the same; ‘it
depends on what your requirements are, how
fast you want to travel, whether load carrying
or high speed is more important to your needs
and most importantly, on the size of RIB you are
contemplating’.
  Back in 1998 I was asked to produce
a paper for RINA (Royal Institute of Naval
Architects) regarding the development of RIBs.
It was presented at a forum in conjunction with
the inaugural RIBEX boat show in Weymouth.
Part of this paper touched on the subject of RIB
hull design, and it is interesting to look back at
my comments and see what progress has been
made.
  Basically, size generally determines comfort,
but not necessarily seaworthiness; the bigger the
vessel, invariably the more comfortable and drier
it rides, although it never ceases to amaze me
just how wet some of even the larger RIBs ride!
  One of the most comfortable and seaworthy
hull designs of any type of conventional non-RIB
craft in the last decade must be the semi-
displacement Thornycroft designed ‘Nelson’
range of cruisers, pilot boats and harbour
launches. These round bilge hulls are known
as semi-displacement because they fall between
displacing the water, like slower conventional
vessels, and planing, which is the term used
for a craft that lifts itself out of the water and
‘skims’ (planes) across the surface. Because the
semi displacement hull is cutting the waves and
shouldering them out of the way rather than
bouncing from the top of one to the other, it
seldom bangs although it does roll around a fair
amount and usually throws up a considerable
amount of spray. In all probability, this design
is the most comfortable in bad seas at speeds
up to around 25knots, but here is a down side;
due to the round bilge hull, the efficiency tails
off very quickly at anything over 20knots and it
requires a significant amount of power to drive
this design any faster. So there are not very
many, if any, semi displacement RIBs because,
although comfortable in a seaway, they are slow
by comparison with planing hulls, and very wet
under way.
  Wave piercing hulls are a relatively new
concept and there are currently some new RIB
versions being tested. The advantage of this
new concept is that, like the semi-displacement
design, the hull is designed to cut through the
waves rather than ride over them, however,
that is where the similarity ends. Whereas the
semi-displacement hull is usually heavy and
relatively slow, the wave piercer is very light
and capable of very high speeds. A number of
modern fast ferries use a form of wave piercing,
mostly catamaran designs, but a small number
use monohulls and it works very well. However
it would appear that it is difficult to get the
dynamics right on smaller craft, and it will be
interesting to see if the enterprising builders
currently working with a new type of wave
piercing RIB can succeed.
  So onto the ‘V’ hull configuration that is
used by 95% of the RIB industry. The term ‘V’
is used to describe the angle of the hull sections
at the transom, from the keel to the chine that
borders the beginning of the topsides, just
below the buoyancy tubes. There are a number
of different terms used when describing this
angle, but generally they are known as, shallow
‘V’, medium ‘V’ and deep ‘V’. Usually a deep ‘V’
should be an angle of no less than 20 degrees
and may be as steep as 26 or even 28 degrees
in certain radical designs - but all too often the
term ‘deep V’ is used to describe hulls that are
only moderate ‘V’ and in some instances almost
flat at the transom. On small dinghies it is not
uncommon to see a flattish hull at the transom,
which increases to a shallow ‘V’ in the bow and
this system works quite well. However, once
the RIB gets above 4 metres in length, the ‘V’
at the stern should increase so that the shape

Photo:Paul Lemmer’s Round Britian record breaking hull design shown above
of the hull cuts through the waves as the speed
increases. There is no set angle that is considered
to be the optimum as there are far too many
other imponderables that cloud the issue of hull
design. As a rule of thumb however, the flatter
the hull, the harder the ride, the deeper the ‘V’
the smoother the RIB rides at speed but a very
deep ‘V’ can have certain drawbacks - and so
on it goes! There are a great number of RIB
manufacturers trying to tell you that their hull
designs are the best and assuming you have
already decided that you like the look and layout
of a particular RIB, then take it on a test drive
in the environment and conditions you expect
to use it. You will soon learn which hulls work
and which do not. Also try speaking to existing
71
owners for their views and if still in doubt as
whether a hull design is suitable for your needs,
why not give the RIB International editorial desk
a call to see if they can advise you or supply you
with a review from the Magazine’s archive?
PaulLemmer
Next Issue Part 2 - Expert Info on Hull Design
from Lorne Campbell and Tony Lee-Elliott.