I have to admit, I haven’t been keeping up with their latest videos. I think the last I saw, they had fairly recently left Svalbard. So I have no opinion about “Uma 3.0,” but I was impressed with their various electric drive systems on the older iterations.
I really only watch cruisers during their refit periods, so I have been paying attention. They gutted it and then built foam stringers and completely gassed the inside. Like, built another hull inside the boat. They were all proud that the boat was so strong now they wouldn’t need any bulkheads. Then they proceeded to put in plywood bulkheads. And a plywood dodger. And so many G10 backer plates on everything, bedded with massive gobs of thickened epoxy. All this isn’t bad in isolation, but it all adds up. They haven’t even started installing the systems yet and it seems heavy. Next they’ll put 7 thousand pounds of batteries. Really interested to see it launch. But they’re quite good at showing only what they want seen so it might not be the big reveal I’m waiting for.
Well, at least it’s a monohull and not a catamaran so (to some extent) more weight just means less ballast needed and doesn’t really hurt… but the real test will be how high the center of gravity ends up being. Having it sit low on its lines at launch would be obviously a disaster, but even if it doesn’t it could still lack stability in a storm if it really ends up as overbuilt as you say it will.
I’m certainly not a naval architect, but I haven’t heard them say they’ve talked to one. They haven’t removed any ballast yet to my knowledge, just keep adding more stuff. The proof of the pudding will be in the floating.
IIRC they met at architecture school (regular architecture, not naval), so it may be a situation where they think they know just enough to be dangerous.
I have to admit, I haven’t been keeping up with their latest videos. I think the last I saw, they had fairly recently left Svalbard. So I have no opinion about “Uma 3.0,” but I was impressed with their various electric drive systems on the older iterations.
I really only watch cruisers during their refit periods, so I have been paying attention. They gutted it and then built foam stringers and completely gassed the inside. Like, built another hull inside the boat. They were all proud that the boat was so strong now they wouldn’t need any bulkheads. Then they proceeded to put in plywood bulkheads. And a plywood dodger. And so many G10 backer plates on everything, bedded with massive gobs of thickened epoxy. All this isn’t bad in isolation, but it all adds up. They haven’t even started installing the systems yet and it seems heavy. Next they’ll put 7 thousand pounds of batteries. Really interested to see it launch. But they’re quite good at showing only what they want seen so it might not be the big reveal I’m waiting for.
Interesting.
Well, at least it’s a monohull and not a catamaran so (to some extent) more weight just means less ballast needed and doesn’t really hurt… but the real test will be how high the center of gravity ends up being. Having it sit low on its lines at launch would be obviously a disaster, but even if it doesn’t it could still lack stability in a storm if it really ends up as overbuilt as you say it will.
I’m certainly not a naval architect, but I haven’t heard them say they’ve talked to one. They haven’t removed any ballast yet to my knowledge, just keep adding more stuff. The proof of the pudding will be in the floating.
IIRC they met at architecture school (regular architecture, not naval), so it may be a situation where they think they know just enough to be dangerous.
I haven’t watched the build either, have they mentioned anything about weight as they build it?
I hope they don’t Dunning Kruger their home to the bottom of the marina.
I haven’t seen them mention it. I don’t think they’ll [Vasa](http://www.vasa.com/ (ship) - Wikipedia https://share.google/gOopi0rHsXYjGNy6M) but they might SV Seeker.