This Revolutionary Design Will Change The Appearance Of Ships

Fast yachts, huge tankers and fashionable liners make it seem like modern ships achieved perfection and are impossible to improve. But there are companies that are following a different path and their developments might surprise you. Today, we will learn about what a bulb is, why it's needed, how the Vikings are influencing modern shipbuilding and you'll see one of the newest and most unusual yachts in the world.

[@jimfrazier8611]

There is no "one-size-fits-all" bow solution for every ship in every sea state. Ullstein X-Bow ships are great in the worst North Sea weather, but it's slow compared to something like Incat's wave-piercing bow in calm water. Just like almost everything else in engineering, everything is a compromise solution for it's intended use.

[@hahmmo]

is there better monohaul than x bow? also maybe cat can use x bow design.

[@tnexus13]

Good discussion on bows, especially comparing axe Vs X bows, and he's got other videos on the subject. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5bIoaiVpNx5fqs

[@TheFrontyer]

My experience is that xbow bow is awful in the north sea compared to a traditional bow. Thats my personal experience though. Obviously other factors play into this aswell.

[@noahway13]

Why is it called X-bow when it is modeled after ax?

[@sjoroverpirat]

It's also not very good with a lot of wind from the side.

[@3204clivesinclair]

I have no knowledge of boats and the design of them. But as an engineer for over 40yrs, I do know that everything has downsides. Strange, I didn’t see any mentioned. A perfect design that most ship designers have ignored for many, many years?

[@phogol]

dont forget the test was using a fair conditions and balanced load. Its like putting a kid on your shoulders to dunk the ball.

[@TROOPERfarcry]

Just brain-storming, but the distance below the surface may be a concern for this type of hull-design, so cargo vessels or oil vessels that have relatively large differences in depth before-and-after being unloaded may have relatively different performance parameters.... whereas something like a cruise ship which doesn't alter it's depth too much might be a good candidate.

[@OrIoN1989]

high quality displays and cameras and 360 degree movment.

[@phogol]

@@TROOPERfarcry that's basically how it works. The only Naval vessels I worked on that had the bulb were the carriers and other large ships that were equipment movers. Anything with a cruiser, destroyer or frigate had a normal v hull. I've seen other countries ships(UK, Canada) have different designs above the water line, but not so much below.

[@markmoreno7295]

Clive may be right. I wonder how the ship does in a following sea? Making the ship more of a double ender, as in trans-Atlantic row boats, may be needed as well as an overall lower (above the waterline) profile to reduce windage.

[@oak8728]

This guy has the engineering prowess of my 8 year old.

[@zweispurmopped]

It's very kind of you to make such compliments. …unless your 8 year old has a troddler's brain, which I doubt.

[@chriscrilly8807]

And, I'm afraid, the writing skills of a poodle.

[@arthurwright8827]

I can’t force myself to watch this a second time but I didn’t see any correlation between a Viking ship bow and an “X” bow. They seemed completely different to me.

[@stianberg5645]

they are similar along the waterline. The way they sail is more akin to longships.

[@grondhero]

"Vikings had ships. Vikings had axes. X bow sounds like Axe bow." That's pretty much what I took from their "information."

[@audunberntsen5963]

Look up the Oseberg ship, an almost intact Viking ship found South Eastern Norway. You’ll get where the X-Bow got it’s inspiration from.. Most Viking ships nowadays -for some reason - get drawn/depicted with their bow sloping forwards. Whilst in reality, their bows either were curved upwards to a almost vertical line (see the Gokstad ship), OR sloping forwards, then in a slight backwards curve, then coming forwards agan (Oseberg ship).

[@audunberntsen5963]

*found IN South-Eastern Norway..

[@jamesaron1967]

@@audunberntsen5963 The X-bow doesn't look like the Viking ships you're referring to all that much. It is far more reminiscent of the 1800's dreadnoughts and ancient Mediterranean bow designs. Where the viking ship bows slope towards the stern is well above the waterline. They resemble more like traditional bows where they appear to have made the most contact with the waves, especially in calmer waters. To me the similarity is superficial not functional, but that's only my opinion.

[@PRH123]

It would be interesting to hear from one of their engineers what the design choices were. I’m pretty sure it’s not a case of “no one ever thought about it before,” naval architects have scientifically tested and analyzed every possible configuration for almost a century.

[@zweispurmopped]

That's pretty easy: In vertical motion, this bow produces little drag, even in highest seas. It also splits waves gently. The bow thus enables the ship to take on way higher seas without risk and goes through medium height swell way more gently tan the older designs. And that's it.

[@Swansniff2]

Total guess here, but during most of the steel ship era construction is done by rivited design. Basically lots of metal plates riveted together. It's much harder and more expensive to create large rounded metal parts. Today with composite metals and modern techniques it's easier. I would also guess fuel efficiency wasn't that important and saught after. Lastly it's probably due to tradition and available construction ability. Why spend millions on new research, training and equipment when there are proven designs? Most of development probably have gone to more effecient engines, propellers and fuels. Which also have the benefit of upgrading already running ships. Ships have a quite long life, which makes development slower compared to for example airplanes or cars.

[@zweispurmopped]

@@Swansniff2 In shipbuilding, rivets went out off use around one hundred years ago.

[@carlosandleon]

Many old battleships have kinda inverted hull designs.

[@wadethimbey8596]

I´m a merchant marine engineer. This is a good design if the superstructure is already intended to be on the bow of the ship. Problem here if the ship is needed to carry bulk, oil or containers, this design would restrict cargo capacity. Best place for superstructure is above the engine room, because you cant fit cargo under superstructure. Best place for a engine room is aft of the ship, because of screw shafts, rudder machinery and smoke stacks. If you watch this video, every single X bow ship is carrying deck cargo like passengers, roll in roll off and subbliner materials, so that the superstructure can be on the bow.

[@ivancvrljak9382]

After 20 years working on various ships with classic bow I have been working on x-bows for last four years px-105 and px-121. In high seas x-bows are superior, faster, and less pitching. Far more comfortable compared to classic bow

[@TheFrontyer]

I have the opposite experience.

[@JokerInk-CustomBuilds]

looks like a giant canoe... they sail well in calm waters... lol

[@evonnechi7029]

@@TheFrontyer the x-bow is far superior to the classic bow or the axe-bow.

[@TheFrontyer]

@@evonnechi7029 Definetly not true. The xbow hull is awful in big waves. Being in the north sea during storms and 15m waves was far more comfortable in a classic hull ship then xbow ships. For calmer seas the xbow hull is quite nice though

[@evonnechi7029]

@@TheFrontyer what is it about the xbow that does not handle large waves well? How do the large waves affect the ship with the xbow? What do you, as a passenger or captain, feel when riding those big waves that makes the xbow so bad? Hence, what is the downside to having an xbow in large waves?

[@Hallands.]

I don’t see the slightest resemblance to the bow of a viking ship though?!

[@Mohrrunkel]

It's about the soft round bottom, which is probably more hydrodynamic or whatever, not the upper part. All in all the X-bow's main properties are not about the inverted upper part at all, apart from rough seas and maybe a little bit of aerodynamics.

[@gerrys6265]

What I wanted to see was actual footage of the new bow performing in big seas so one could get an actual idea of its benefits...overall not very informative I'm afraid.

[@staaleho]

Check this video Bourbon Orca 13 knots the other 9 knots, wich one would you be onboard? The whole video here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6LGoZhrltqSba8

[@hubster4477]

@@staaleho not that rough of seas.

[@kiereluurs1243]

The bows of Viking ships are totally UNRELATED to these inverted ones.

[@OrIoN1989]

The physics dont care if its year 9xx or 20xx. Its not unrelated at all. A shape that made ships stable back in the day and today

[@smorris7435]

I'm a marine engineer. Whoever scripted this is seriously ill-informed.

[@crazydrifter13]

You need to explain why.

[@DARIVSARCHITECTVS]

@@crazydrifter13 I am also a marine engineer and sailed ships for many years. There is no relationship between the new inverted bow and the Scandinavian longship bow. It is apparent that the two are vastly different. Ships have had a bulbous bow for decades, and the inverted bow is just an extension of the same idea. The bulbous bow reduces the bow wave, which creates lots of water resistance. The inverted bow additionally removes much of the upward force which would, in addition to buoyancy, would lift the bow from the water. Cyclical lifting of the bow also increases drag on the hull so it won't move as easily through the water. Ancient Greek rowed vessels with rams have no relationship to the inverted bow either. The ram was usually just above the water, and thus did not act as a bulbous bow. It's function was only as a weapon to break other hulls. All the similarities made by the videographer are incorrect and demonstrate no knowledge of hydrodynamics. Hope this helps.

[@crazydrifter13]

@@DARIVSARCHITECTVS oh thanks 😀

[@slavenpilepic4620]

Been working on an x-bow PSV in North Sea, it still knocked the shit out of us during the bad weather. While being knocked arround, we moved as fast as an army reservist snail

[@lordraven1991]

I really can't say that I have seen any real benefit of X-bow over standard bows, aside from the usual benefits awarded by less resistance which is similar to knife edge bows. They both move the same way under heavy sea's, I have found that X-bows dip even lower into following waves than standard bows do, due to their overall thinner design. When this does happen then waves tend to break over the top of the ship rather than just over the top of the fore deck. Though it can be seen as an improvement over the knife edge bows, which had a tendency to submerge under waves rather than rise over them. A feature that has lead to some ships being crushed under the sudden unexpected dive into waves that put them several meters underwater. Viking era long boats aren't X-bow designs, they are curved standard bows with high wave guard walls. The reason they were so effective wasn't because of some ground breaking design choices, it was because they weren't gigantic in size. A group recently built the largest Viking ship in history (which was much larger than any known historical examples to date), and it was a-wash for pretty much all of it journey from Norway to the America's. Even in light weather it was taking on water over the bow. Had the ship been a third smaller (closer to the known largest ship designs) then it would have perfectly fit within the wave length they encountered, but would have been a bit rougher trip.

[@HandleMyBallsYouTube]

Not to mention the ''Vikings'' operated a variety of ship types, not all of which had the pronounced bows like the ones found on the Oseberg and Gokstad ships.

[@ultra_axe7812]

Crew vomfort i drastically improves with the X-bow

[@lordraven1991]

@@ultra_axe7812 That's what it says in the video, but I guess the crew would be more comfortable in an X-bow that is at dock rather than out in the open ocean with 40ft waves. You know, the weather that most offshore companies have no choice but to send a ship out into if they want to keep their rigs running. That is kind of the argument, standard bows are cheaper to maintain than X-bows, operate in a much higher severity of weather, usually have much more deck space, and have higher buoyancy the further under the water they go. I have never seen a video of an X-bow ship operating in the same sea states as standard bows are when they are having their bulbous bow tips being launched out of the water. Where is the on-board footage of an X-bow ship staring at a literal wall of water moments before impact like all the videos we have of standard bows being smacked in the pilot house by a breaking wave?

[@ultra_axe7812]

@@lordraven1991 ive worked on the Scandi Vega, Troms pollux, Troms Fjord, and bourbon mistral, the X-bow was designed for crew comfort i rough weather and surprisingly for noone but you apparently they do it wonderfully The X bow is ment to cut deep into the wave so, so the ship stays as level as possible in rougher seas

[@petercrossley1069]

Not “superseded” all expectations. It is “exceeded”.

[@alexhammerbekk]

worked at ulstein shipyard in 2006, remember walking into the drydock seeing the full structure of the ax-104 prototype, thinking it looked like a spaceship. there was nothing like it back then :-)

[@norml.hugh-mann]

I think the only ones so in love with this design are the ones who like to use their small models of the ships for uhhhh.....insertion.......at home

[@bosatsu76]

'Superceded all expectations"? What? "Surpassed" is what you probably wanted to say.

[@wickedcabinboy]

Sounds like the copy writer has a limited grasp of English and no one edited the copy before recording this video.

[@737MaxPilot]

You beat me to it! Exceeded would have worked well also.

[@davidanalyst671]

i know the basics of the Xbow, but this video makes me feel dumber for watching it. Why not just go in depth and tell us about it instead of feeding us news for stupids

[@D1it4FN]

This is the type of video they would show a grade 7 class

[@randeaux3090]

Ax bow?

[@petercolquhoun2086]

I was hoping for some technical detail; this was just fluff.

[@josephinebennington7247]

I’ve been following Ulstein x bow vids for years now. Technical discussions are on YT if you search for them. Including the cons of x bows, there are some. Sorry, can’t give you links.

[@davidanalyst671]

exactly. why was this video just a bunch of videos with no details

[@wickedcabinboy]

@@davidanalyst671 - amateur video to make a bit of money.

[@TroyBlake]

Ulstein has a promotional video on their website that does a very good job of explaining the X-Bow design and why it is a preferred choice for modern ships. It is purported to reduce onboard movement and noise, induce less sea spray, improve fuel efficiency, ships are easier to build, and reduced structural stress on the ship.

[@YTho-ev1ej]

It would have been good to hear some criticisms of the inverted bows (nothing’s ever perfect)

[@tzenophile]

Try Makita next time

[@deningman]

This story lacks adequate details on the facts, particularly on the reason for ships having bulbs.

[@taz2051]

Amazing improvement.

[@SuperJellicoe]

X bow? Ok, its a sales pitch. It looks like a canoe bow.

[@chrisburn7178]

I'm surprised that there was no mention of the dreadnought class battleships from the turn of the 19th century. Far more closely related than any Viking ship. That kind of bow is even known as a "dreadnought" bow.

[@zoolkhan]

since the vikings were the first doing that, the dreadnoughts are only worth a footnote. And why would norvegians stray from their own past so they can give a hurt english ego some stroking?

[@2adamast]

@@zoolkhan Vikings didn't make ships going inwards from the waterline. Don't make them look like village idiots

[@billybuckholson3578]

You’re right, Chris…

[@chrisburn7178]

@@zoolkhan I'll be the first to admit the English (of which I'm one) have a serious superiority complex, which is partly why we've allowed some political idiots to stoke our natural xenophobia with the Brexit vote, and not helped by "victory" in two world wars. But I never had any thoughts of the British superiority in this sense, as although the name came from a British ship, the eponymous concept was produced by many naval nations including Germany, France, Russia, Italy etc. Please stop assuming every view that differs from yours is based on an ideological, political or sociological need to better everyone else. It may just be, as in this example, a view that there are other avenues not explored by the source media.

[@horationelson2440]

Well, more used on Pre-Dreadnoughts. The french really liked it, and the Russians used some similar designs too.

[@wickedcabinboy]

3:27 "The inverted X bow is more efficient in calm waters by decreasing the strength and frequency of the water." What does this even mean?

[@heuhen]

If you look at conventional hull, when they hit a wave, they slam and being thrown up, for the fall down in the next wave with force. While a X bow, due to the hull shape, it reduce the movement and the force it hit those waves. you can test it in the sink, by using a bottle. if you force the bottle down, while holding it at an angel, notice how water slam into the underside of the bottle (bow), then for x-bow, just hold the bottle straight up or in an opposite angle and notice how water can't slam on to the bottle (since the hull is not hanging over the water)

[@johnscrimgeour4888]

Wow! It's simple enough, the inverted X bow is more efficient in calm waters by decreasing the strength and frequency of the water.

[@villageblunder4787]

@@heuhen CALM waters have no / little waves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@edwardbernays8514]

@@johnscrimgeour4888 🤣😂

[@paulh7589]

And always remember "If it flies, floats, or f**ks, rent it".

[@jamesmoore9511]

You might have a look at the battelships of the 1880 and 90's. They had inverted bows (for ramming) but still had inverted bows that made for a more stable gun platform.

[@MrSvenovitch]

You might have a look on how 'battle' is spelled.

[@quantuman100]

sooooo.... everyone later in ww2 just sort of said "meh we don't like having stable guns"?

[@falinrichard1394]

@@quantuman100, gun stabilizers. Also, inverted nose makes the ship somewhat slower in calm weather compared to ships with modern noses given the same engine power and hull forms (excluding the nose, of course).

[@JohnJ469]

@@quantuman100 You have to remember that this was the time when ships were moving from muzzle loading smoothbore to breech loading rifled cannon. Smoothbores were notoriously inaccurate and so you could sacrifice some speed or manoeuvrability for stability. Once the change had been made and especially after the HMS Turbinia things could really progress in ship design. Interestingly the Turbinia had a Dreadnought bow so there must have been a reason for the change. The only thing I can think of is that the modern bow resembles the "Clipper" bow of the sail era. Clippers were fast ships and speed became important.

[@phinhager6509]

@@quantuman100 no, they just decided reserve buoyancy was better than sloped armor on the forecastle, and besides all of this is irrelevant on post dreadnought capital ship hull with their long narrow buoyant bows that behave very differently from these stocky ships.

[@InYourDreams-Andia]

The bulb on conventional bows creates a low pressure zone before the main bow, where that low pressure zone then collapses into the length of the hull, and reduces friction. If there was no bulb, a high pressure zone will stick to the full length of the hull, creating massive resistance. The xbow suffers this high pressure zone, unless it has a hidden bulb (probably does). I'm not a ship tech by any means, but I know going by interest and other YT vids what the deal is here 😀

[@markm.9458]

"This revolutionary design will change the appearance of ships" This happened before the narrator was born. How amazing.

[@RS-cs9wf]

i love the 3-5 second pause in the middle of every sentence

[@mactcampbell]

We need videos of Xbow ships running off before the wind and side on. Heading into it, it looks pretty impressive. It would be interesting to hear from the skippers of these vessels.

[@Rog5446]

I think you got something mixed up about the yacht owner. He's not an Israeli Billionaire from Monaco, he's a Monaco Billionaire from Israel.

[@deltreka]

ypur knowledge of what a boulbous bow is for is zero

[@kiereluurs1243]

English please.

[@victoryfirst2878]

Nice that you showed how wise the people of yesteryear actually were.

[@flt528]

I want to watch this but the background noise is unbearable.

[@gbjoo8]

I work on the northsea and x bow is brilliant in calm weather, but it have some giant design limits, that's why we only use it for dp and calm weather. So in open water is not a good idea at all

[@TheFrontyer]

Same exact experience.

[@corneliuselbourne1044]

Makes sence, to me it looks like an aerodynamic design the air cutting through would make it want to go down due to the air pressure on the surface, maybe a combination of the two might be ideal.

[@MaxMarcotics]

For anyone wondering, the game @ 5:26 is Stormworks: Build and Rescue.

[@trukr817]

Look at Battleship Texas, she's over 100 years old.

[@jasonkrzanowski9196]

This reminds me of the 100+ year old tumblehome design, which is exemplified by the Zumwalt destroyer - narrower at the deck than at the waterline all around, including lacking the bow flare.

[@maraqu]

The game at 5:26 is called "Stormworks: Build and rescue"

[@Mr91495osh]

I would like to see the new bow in rough water.

[@AaronCarr]

Lots of dreadnought type warships had inverse bows

[@Ericvl2102]

warships in early 1900's also had axe bows. it's hardly revolutionaire if an idea exits and is used for at least 100 years earlier.

[@sarcasmo57]

My next yacht will have an X bow.

[@freddieclark]

I worked on X-Bow vessels for several years. In the North Sea, North Cape, North Atlantic, Caribbean, South Atlantic, Pacific and South east Asia. I found them to be a better riding vessel in all cases.

[@1984Phalanx]

It's already been said by other comments but I'm sure this isn't a case of "nobody ever thought of it before." I'm sure it has it's place but there must be some downside, otherwise all ships would already be designed this way.

[@jamesg2382]

The Viking connection looks tenuous at best. Thanks for the vid. Very interesting

[@timmotel5804]

Excellent. Thanks

[@tubefreakmuva]

That's was great thanks

[@theechoholic]

If something is theoretical... it's not a guess. If it were a guess it would be hypothetical.

[@Rigel_Chiokis]

Interesting video. I've never seen these ships before.

[@pontuswendt2486]

AMAZINGNES!!! Reminds me of 1900s cruise ship concepts

[@louiearmstrong]

It's like a Cab Over van, for the sea.

[@Jaws10214]

I was hoping for footage of the new bow "cutting" instead of "breaking" waves, but all your clips of them in stormy waters looks like it was shot on a potato.

[@jimnash526]

Excellent !!!!

[@nourmasalkhi9004]

Am I the only one that doesn't see the similarity to the Viking ships shown? Their bows look pretty standard to me.

[@RogerOnTheRight]

"... by reducing the frequency and strength of the water." Eh? How does water have frequency? And what exactly is the measure of water "strength"? Do you mean surface tension? Density? Something related to hydrodynamic effect? This sounds like gibberish, please clarify.

[@paultonkin256]

Pretty sure that "frequency" and "strength" refers to wave period and height.

[@Mike_Dubayou]

@@paultonkin256 yeah maybe worded a bit odd, but that is 100% what it means.

[@Sectormann]

forming waves makes you lose energy. I think what he means by strength is the amount of energy you put into the wave

[@StreetTwinRider]

This dude sounds EXACTLY like Mark Ragusea

[@KTo288]

Such hulls were very common in early ironclad warships and not just those classified as steamrams. If I remember rightly one of the reasons it and the associated tumblehome hull were abandonned is because if it sustained damage, such as combat damage, they can take on water, become unstable and sink much quicker and easier than what is now a conventional bow.

[@truck6859]

It's great seeing what mankind can create.

[@kristoffermangila]

In the Philippines, we have an X-bow ship operating today, it is M/V Filipinas Agusan del Norte of Cokaliong Shipping Lines.

[@richardmattingly7000]

When the era of of iron-steel warships began in the mid 1800s the race was on to see what the new tech. could provide when it came to hull and bow designs. Many vessels used what was called the Tumblehome design of having their hulls angle in from the waterline so enemy fire would skip off. Indeed by the time what was called Ram Fever in design arrived just decades later ships like the preserved USS Olympia had a version of an X Bow over a century ago. It wouldn't be until after WW2 before the benefit of a ship piercing below water ahead of the vessel returned with the bulbous bow and what's old is news again as they say. An X Bow owes much to the Tumblehome design of the past as well as the rams returning on warships during the latter Victorian period and you'll find commercial vessels in that era as well using unique hulls that it didn't credit..

[@captainswoop8722]

They owe nothing to the 'tumblehome' design or to ram bows. They were built for completely different reasons.

[@roywhiteo5]

@@captainswoop8722 ram bows are designed for ramming , correct?

[@Tuck-Shop]

@@captainswoop8722 But they were still built.

[@markanderson4163]

you can see reverse bow designs on pre WWI battleships

[@edwardbernays8514]

…..the British Dreadnoughts of ww1 had inverted bows….how come no mention of them here…?🤷🏾‍♂️

[@grondhero]

Probably because they didn't do much research.

[@edwardbernays8514]

@@grondhero I think A guy named Kirby is absolutely right….

[@bowdoin5063]

The newest U.S Navy destroyer has a tumblehome bow, which is what you are talking about

[@peetsnort]

The original viking bow was because the sailors were in the water and another unseen action of the Hull is its flexibility. Obviously hard to replicate with a huge metal ship but certainly worth considering because it will reduce the cost of the fuel and improve agility

[@Sheddweller419]

I saw the Olivia b in corfu last month , even odder looking in real life . Reminded me of the Nautilus lol

[@trumpisacrybabydictatornar914]

So like I said in my last comment which I will add it is unbelievable it took this long for designers to come up with this design

[@BasedHadrian]

What’s up with the random pauses

[@8307c4]

Well if the Vikings had it I wouldn't exactly call it revolutionary.

[@terrenusvitae]

Ramming fell out of fashion way before artillery and torpedoes, in fact the advent of torpedo armed submarines actually brough ramming back as an (admittedly risky) tactic.

[@thereaction18]

Good to see ramming will be back in fashion.

[@Tuck-Shop]

A 10'000 ton ship ramming a 1'000 ton sub had disastrous consequences to the sub. Not so much for the ship.

[@ThomasStephenForster]

This design was first revived in the French pre-dreadnoughts more than a century ago. Which helped create a stability for their guns and a speed edge over their competitors.

[@thehaprust6312]

Yeah, but didn't it also give them stability problems if they took on water in bow?

[@brentdallyn8459]

The tumbledown bow was employed on Dreadnoughts right up to the 1920s

[@grondhero]

Congratulations on uploading a fluff piece that's very ill-informed! Your greatest arguments in this (non-)"revolutionary design" are 1) it's more efficient in calmer water; and 2) a military ship that isn't efficient enough to be produced any more.

[@andrewthomson]

Nevermind the narration

[@Angelsilhouette]

The Zumwalt's Tumblehome hull does have a pretty big bulb below the waterline unlike the X bow hull design.

[@bowdoin5063]

That would be the sonar dome

[@grantharriman284]

Did you just mention torpedoes as a reason that naval ramming tactics became ineffective? Are you actually kidding me? Those are about a THOUSAND YEARS separated.

[@shaniamonde7341]

Pre-Dreadnought battleships from the late 1800s had inverted 'ram-prows' so you dont have to go all the way back to a medditeranian trireme for inspiration.

[@glywnniswells9480]

The x Bow does go alot easier into massive North Sea waves... But almost all other conditions not so much

[@hvalour1]

Bourbon orca is 15 years old.

[@captainswoop8722]

bulbous bows work better at lower speeds, High speed ships do not have bulbous bows.

[@telinoz1975]

Nimitz, later version and new Gerald Ford nuclear class all have bulbous bows and are well above 30knots.

[@captainswoop8722]

@@telinoz1975 But the bow will be optimised for their most common cruising speed. For a given design they only work at a relatively narrow speed range. Carriers spend the vast majority of their time at the same cruising speed. As for 'well above' 30 knots, the speed of a hull can be calculated from it's length. It can't sail faster than it's own bow wave or wake. Maximum velocity in knots = 1.35 x the square root of the waterline in feet.

[@captainswoop8722]

@@telinoz1975 They are optimised for the cruising speed that carriers spend most of their time at. A bulb will only work efficiently in a certain narrow speed range that it has been optimised for. As for the top speed of a carrier. It is tied to the length of the ship. It can only sail as fast as it's own wake and bow wave which is tied to it's length. The formula is maximum velocity in knots = 1.35 x the square root of the waterline length in feet. So you can work it out yourself for any given ship.

[@Sectormann]

@@captainswoop8722 There is no "maximum" speed for a ship. you can go faster than the bow wave but then the bulb would be useless and you would go from a displacement hull to a planing one. What i think he means by "high speeds" is that a bulbus bow is only useful for ships with a high froude number that is still not planing.

[@captainswoop8722]

@@Sectormann Maximum speed for a displacement hull I should have said. You won't find a planing tanker or aircraft carrier.

[@connor5136]

Sammy ofer died in 2011 and was from Romania but moved to Israel in 1923 as an infant with his family.

[@paulreuben2526]

Hey, that scene at the :11 second mark is in Portland, ME, no?

[@joeydepalmer4457]

What about fearies? still like to know if you could take a super yacht out in the ocean about halve way across from north america to europe/africa and just sit there for several weeks or monthes (moving only to keep out of bad weather)

[@crimsonacidfrost]

I was surprised to a see a Stormworks (video Game) version in this video.

[@hollyweihl7294]

same

[@toshi-ki6016]

@2:32 thereabouts, the video can do better with short explanation on how the bulbous bow reduce water resistance - it has got to do with creating a interference wave as I understand it. Else, this is simply just another entertaining video in my humble opinion.

[@Sectormann]

Yep its interference

[@lechkenassh9008]

the rogue wave takes down all ships not watching for them!!!

[@huntera123]

I saw a ship with this type of bow recently. It was quite surprising. So the question is, what about the wheelhouse vulnerability due to heavy seas breaking on the glass windows

[@ShamanKish]

Dreadnoughts were like that.

[@DutcherDog]

How come this design has been out for 15 years and no one has a good video of it performing in high seas ?

[@TheFrontyer]

I have bad experience. Sailed in the north sea probably 10 meter waves. Not a good expereince. A traditional bow was better in my opinion.

[@jeffborders1146]

So what it really means is "ancient ship design still works great."

[@daanbos5918]

5:27 Just in case you want to know that’s a game called stormworks and to build something like that could take multiple weeks

[@kmoecub]

Looks a lot like the front of a traditional Eastern canoe.

[@Odonanmarg]

Interesting.

[@kiereluurs1243]

Instead of this idealising, Wikipedia seems to better, yet briefly, sum up both disadvantages and advantages. Look at Inverted bow.

[@id10t98]

when you can buy a $200,000,000 yacht...is when you know you have waaaaaaayyyy too much money.

[@obliviouz]

Isn't this just a rounded tumblehome bow? French battleships used this in WWI/II, and even the US LCS uses this design.

[@Margarinetaylorgrease]

By decreasing the frequency and strength of the water... What?

[@nicholasbecker9983]

Esvagt has a couple of Them!

[@michaelg8193]

Pandora: "X-bow is revolutionary because I mentioned Viking more than 5 times."

[@MrJlaklak]

Slower but more stable during rough seas