aren't we.Admittedly I posted with slight "tongue in cheek" humour, but two down votes and counting ....
Its not an opinion piece but physics, down vote indicates either ignorance or arrogance of the topic. Constructive would be a counter view to say why you see it in a different light.
For those interested or enquiring, if you place the front of the boat level with the front axle line of these current F1 cars, then the flow line going down into the water and rising gently again toward the stern offers a FLUID representation of displacement .... in exactly the sidepod shape we see most successful in this rules set. The high point near cooling entrance, the enhanced "bellies" of sidepod underside, the gentle recovery in taper as the frequency of disturbance starts to diminish in it's energy.
Even to the point of how it levels out at the stern just where the beam wing sits.
Notice also that the lighter than water craft is being sucked down into the notional Fluid level as it does this.
Sometimes said that certain designers can "see" the flow, amusingly some on here can't acknowledge that even in this most visual of representation.
Wear your "ignorance is bliss" moniker with pride springs to mind.
Or come on here and put into words your construct for us to appreciate.
It's the car comparison thread, good reason why they are all effectively falling in line with this sidepod architecture.
