Sydney-Hobart 2006-Battle of the Canters

[Doug Lord]

Sydney-Hobart this year looks to be exciting wtih the great showdown between Maximus and Wild Oats and the Volvo 70 ABN Ambro.
For those that may not remember- Wild Oats is a "pure" CBTF design by Reichel-Pugh with a twin foil, 55° canting system. Maximus uses another version of CBTF with a lifting forward cannard that has a flap on the trailing edge. Maximus' secret weapon is that her canting keel strut is extendable increasing her RM a lot. I think I read that Wild Oats has already trounced Maximus once before in the Med this past summer but, if I remember correctly, it was fairly light compared to a Sydney -Hobart. The scuttlebutt is that Maximus is good on a reach.
And we know the VO70's are fast...
Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race 2006.. About the race
Address:http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/editorial.asp?key=527

[Doug Lord]

According to Scuttlebutt, the former Brunel(now Ichi Ban) will sail the Sydney-Hobart-making two VO 70's in the race.

[Mikey]

It will be intersting indeed but... Let's hope that the weather won't turn too bad, if we are to see ALL entries with canting keels finishing the race :)

Mikey

[BOATMIK]

If it looks like a real slow race will they have to ship a few extra jerry cans of fuel?

MIK

[Doug Lord]

Hope Wild Oats cleans up!
Some nuggets in this thread:
Sydney - Hobart - Sailing Anarchy Forums
Address:http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44267&pid=981601&st=100&
==========================
According to Scuttlebutt: "The Sydney to Hobart yacht race fleet has received a weather warning just six days out from the start, with possible gale force southerlies off the New South Wales coast on Boxing Day".

Sydney-Hobart fleet warned of gales - Breaking News - Sport - Breaking News
Address:http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/SydneyHobart-fleet-warned-of-gales/2006/12/20/1166290589020.html
---------------------------
More Coverage:
Sail World: Sail and sailing, cruising, boating news
Address:http://www.sail-world.com/newstext/

[Doug Lord]

Lude Ingvall's 90' Maxi "Diabetes" was dismasted while training for the SH off of Sydney in 16-17knots. Source: Scuttlebutt

[Vega]

Sorry Doug, I have not noticed this thread. I have tried to delete the other, but I was not able. I will post here and I hope Jeff can delete the other.

About the "battle of the canters", it is a pity that they don't allow multihulls in this race. It would enlarge that battle:p

3 days before the race starts the two Volvo 70 were informed they are going to have a supplementary handicap.

Something to do with the upper part of the sails (the ones they have used all the time). With 3 days spare they can not modify the sails.

Seems quite unfair to me (3 days before!). What do you think guys?

[hansp77]

a good site for following the race.
http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/yacht_tracker.asp?key=522

by the way, its been damn cold weather coming over these last two days in Melbourne.
Last week we were close to forty degrees and completely covered in smoke from statewide catastrophic bushfires.
Yesterday, Christmas, we had snow and hail throughout the hilltop melbourne suburbs- FREEZING!
christmas at lake mountain,
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/26/26_aveling1_gallery__470x346,0.jpg
Dandenong north
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/25/SNOW_myhouse_gallery__470x341,0.jpg

[BOATMIK]

Hopefully here is the article about the penalty for the VO70s.

It was a frame thingy, so hope this ref works
http://www.sail-world.com/news_w.cfm?SEid=&CkID=&srcid=0&ntid=0&nid=29750&tickeruid=0&tickercid=0

[Roly]

As of 17.00 WO 2Nm ahead of Max. & skandia. With 570Nm to go.

About the "battle of the canters", it is a pity that they don't allow multihulls in this race. It would enlarge that battle

Totally agree! If you let in canters Why not multi's......simple as that.

'Cept the canters would be blown outa the water. (Dougie rev)

The weather gets more weird every year. We have had snow as well.

UV index is the highest ever recorded! Damn the oil burners!!

[Vega]

Totally agree! If you let in canters Why not multi's......simple as that.
'Cept the canters would be blown outa the water. (Dougie rev)
!!

I don't know about that, but I do know that Doug was right when he had foreseen that the future racing monohulls would be canting keelers. I remember that most people, including me had disagreed. Facts, not only on this race, but almost everywhere give him credit.

About the multis, I think that a tough race like this one would be important to improve (or prove) their seaworthiness. I don't know how they would handle some really bad weather that is usual on this race, but I would like to see it, and I am sure that multihull skippers would be delighted and wouldn’t miss it.

[Vega]

It looks ABN AMRO is going fast and on an outside course. Maybe he is getting more wind. It looks that those polemic 30 minutes can turn out to be decisive.

That sad story about the ratings his even more unbelievable (BoatMik thanks for the link).
It turns out that it has nothing to do with the race organizers, but with the RORC and the IRC rating office’s. This story gives little credit to them:

"When the Royal Ocean Racing Club in the UK was involved with the specification of the Volvo 70 four years ago, the square topped mainsail design was well known to them.
….
Only four days before the most important IRC rated race in the world in 2006, Mike Sanderson’s ABN AMRO and Matt Allen’s Ichi Ban have both discovered their square topped mainsails have been now been penalized under the IRC ratings, used to calculate handicap results for the race.

The physical headboards are around 100mm in length but for rating purposes it seems they have a new calculated dimension of 2.3 meters.

Matt Allen, the vice-commodore of the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia, said ‘I received a new rating on Thursday morning with a rig factor change. I spent all day puzzling over it. I contact the IRC rating office’s Mike Urwin and he said ‘We did not really measure the boat correctly before. We did not measure the square top headboard.’

‘But I’ve been all the way through the regulations and there is no definition of the headboard, so I can’t see how they can measure it any way other than its actual dimension which is just on 100mm. Mike is saying he has calculated it as 2.3 meters!!

So it seems the IRC office have invented a definition.

'RORC can change the ratings if they see boat exploring either unforeseen or loop-hole type issues … but that's not relevant here because these mainsails are extremely common.

Allen said the new rating savaged Ichi Ban's 2006 chances, costing 20-30 minutes of race time, more like 30 minutes which could easily be the winning difference in Hobart.
….

What owners around the world need to understand, is that if this decision stands.. there can be a decision to penalize a particular element of the boat, …but it can be done now … without notice, so there is no chance to react. This is very very unfair.

….'If this is how the IRC Rule is going to administered then I will quit IRC Racing.'

Sanderson … said yesterday 'RORC is fully aware of the specifications. We haven't even changed anything, that's what stinks,' Sanderson said. 'They've got these sails to the millimeters on file.'

…. We are still waiting to be shown the definition of headboard in the IRC rule to allow any measurement greater than its actual dimension."

[Roly]

ABn is either becalmed or stopped for repairs.
Yacht tracker is a great peice of tech. in lieu of TV coverage!
They are back to 5kts. Hope it ain't serious. This lookiing to be an exciting
finish. The pundits were right for a tactical race.

That last minute arbitary ruling is apalling. Downright unfair.

[Vega]

Yes, you were right:( :

Maximus and ABN AMRO dismasted in 30k wind.

"Between 1am and 2am this morning, ABN AMRO ONE, which was well east of the rhumbline took the race lead from Wild Oats XI which had led the fleet since the 1.00pm start on Sydney Harbour yesterday afternoon".


http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/news.asp?key=2955

[CT 249]

I'm not sure the claim that canters are the future of mono sailing is proven yet, Vega. The big boats are performing well (when the sticks stay up) but the performance of the smaller boats doesn't seem startling (the canting Melges 24 is slower than the standard Melges in the only results I can find, the Farr 36OD canter isn't amazingly quick, the Hicks 30 canters can't beat the Mumm 30s, the Hick 40 canter isn't doing much, the Bethwaite canting sportsboat has tested and sailed slower than the normal version, etc) and really, how many boats are we talking about? The TP52, Farr 40 and Mumm 30 seem to be THE racing boats of the moment to most offshore sailors.

There was an interesting quote from Sean Langman, owner of the Open 60 Xena AAPT Grundig and charterer last year of the canting 90 Nicorette. He left the 60 on shore this year and took down a 70 year old gaff rigged 30 footer. The paper said that he was sick of running an engine and canters and big boats. "That's not what the Hobart is all about" were his words, from memory. Neville Crichton has been said to prefer the non canting 90 and is supposedly getting out of big boats to go to a TP52.

Surely if the big canters were so attractive, there would be more than three of them? I don't know any time in the entire history of sailing (war years apart) when the top end of the maxi fleet has only consisted of three boats (maybe 4 if you count Nicorette), with no new boats announced, planned or under construction. All three boats come from one corner of the world. Europe, the USA and Asia have looked at the 98s and gone "no thanks".

They're fascinating boats. They looked great yesterday. But ORMA 60s and 18 Foot Skiffs and G Class cats look great and they haven't got big numbers and aren't the future.

I don't see why multis should be allowed into the Sydney-Hobart race. Any class or type of boat should be allowed to run a race for whatever boats its likes, without being pressured. The Ronde Texel race is just for cats; no boards, no tris, no skiffs.It doesn't get pressure to let boards or kites in, so why do people demand multis be allowed into the Hobart?

There doesn't seem to be any massive pent-up demand to race multis down here. Despite the preconception that the big clubs are all anti-multi, they are not. The big club in South Australia lets multis race, but they only got one or two and they are/were a problem; how do you handicap a boat that is so different in performance? One of the big Sydney clubs let multis in; they were very welcoming to us when we sailed in their first multi regatta, but the racing was pretty weak and the multis never got sufficient numbers. The southern Sydney port allows multis in, and again handicapping becomes a problem and there's only 3 multis maximum. The big Queensland and Northern Territory clubs let multis in, and in the past there's been cooperation in Victoria and Tassy. So in most centres here, you have had the chance to race a multi, yet the numbers have not grown.

The cat clubs are just as exclusionary as the mono clubs. The culture between some of the classes is very different; merging the different cultures may just annoy people and harm the racing scene. We're already having enough difficulties comparing 98 foot canters to the 30 footers, why make the situation harder?

I'm not biased against new classes or multis; my immediate family founded one cat club and hopes to found a new cat class. But multis have no more right to waltz into a mono race than Nacras or Lasers or Macgregor 26s have to rock into a Hobie or windsurfer regatta.

[Vega]

I respect your opinion, but as you know, I have a different opinion about BIG Ocean races. I believe that in these ones, handicap racing is becoming a joke. Sure, class classifications are alright, but handicap? Who gives a dam about the oldest boat in the fleet, running in the 36th place and the leader of the race (on handicap)? For me, and increasingly for many people, the big winner is the first to arrive.

And fact is that in this race all leading boats (in real time) are canting keelers. Last year also, as well as in all big ocean races where they have raced against fixed keelers. About the Cats, I don’t think they would be concerned with handicaps, they would be more interested in winning the race, I mean in real time.

[CT 249]

It may be that the situation looks different whether you're used to looking at it from the inside or the outside. All but 5 of the boats in this year's Hobart are there for the handicap prize. The problem with having a race based on classes based on a box rule or LOA is that basically not a single place in the entire country would have a decent sized fleet of boats in any one of the classes.

And many, many people give a damn about the oldest boat in the fleet. It's already scored page 2 in our biggest paper. Last time I did the race, on the smallest boat, we scored front page on Sydney's biggest paper and in Hobart's biggest (only??) paper. I mentioned earlier about the international sporting commentator from the Uk who said that his strongest memory of the Hobart was looking at the smallest boat ever to win it. When Zeus II came close to winning a few years ago, it was quite big news. There may even be an international difference here; in Australia we tend to love the underdog. A story about an average family's beautiful 40 very old varnished boat beating all the multi-squillionaires would be headline news. In contrast, "Rich man beats another rich man in yacht race" isn't breathtaking stuff.

Why should the average sailor care about the big boats? The average sailor will never get to sail on one. They are utterly remote. The big boats were racing offshore in the 1800s, but the sport remained tiny until the small boats took over.

A similar thing is happening in Sydney. The Sydney harbour offshore fleet includes various big boats (Open 60, Volvos, 98 footers when they are home, etc) and the fleet is much smaller than it used to be. The fleet from a tiny shallow-water puddle on the south end of town has much smaller boats, and the fleet is allegedly actually getting bigger numbers than the world-famous Sydney Harbour does. Why? Because a higher proportion of people can afford to play the game. Even there, according to the commodore of one of the YCs, there's a shift to bigger boats that is threatening the growing fleet, because it creates very frustrating crew shortages.

The Bermuda race doesn't think handicap racing is a joke, and the Bermuda race is getting record fleets recently. Fastnet doesn't think handicap is a joke, and its fleets are strong.

You say the cats may not be concerned with handicaps - but in that case why do multis here race on handicap? How many small or cruiser/racer multis would bother to race knowing that they would get beaten by the bigger racing multis? It's like putting a streamlined recumbent in the Tour de France, or a motorbike. Sure it's faster - who cares? Would you put a 22 foot tri into the Mini Transat?*

In the end, I suppose it depends who you think is more important; the people who watch, or the people who actually create the race by sailing each weekend and then entering the Hobart. Overwhelmingly, the people who sail each weekend sail IRC type yachts, because they are well suited to racing in fleets that are inevitably a mixture of ages and styles, and race lengths. Do you want to take the race that they and their type created away from them??

People say "well, the cats should be allowed to do the Hobart because it is the great Australian classic race"; but why haven't the multis been able to create a great race of their own if they are so spectacular? Years ago they tried to get the Euro multis out for a round Australia race. Not a single one of them turned up. This place is too far from their main audience, and few of their sponsors want to sell things to a mere 20 million Aussies.

I've been asked to sail on a very fast big cat that is standing by for the right weather window to try to break the Sydney-Hobart record. As a mate (an organiser of a major multi regatta) said, it seems a bit pointless. It's like sailing in a Laser regatta on a Tornado. Sure it's faster, but who cares? If I want to get to Hobart faster I'll take a plane.

* which started out with a fairly loose rule.

[Doug Lord]

Man,I wish the crew that was injured on Maximus the best! I was really looking forward to the race between Maximus and Wild Oats. The Maximus guys had complained before the race that due to business commitments they hadn't really had enough time to prepare. I hope the guys will be ok!
Too bad as well for Mike Sanderson and the guys on ABN-Amro-losing the mast while leading-what a drag....
I see no problem in letting cats in the Sydney-Hobart-too bad the powers that be have a problem. Of course, the cat/tri sailors would have to sign a pledge that they wouldn't whine and cry when a canting keel/on-deck movable ballast monofoiler won line honors repeatedly---
they might find that hard to take.
Go Wild Oats!

[Vega]

CT, see what I mean, that old boat (1968) that was leading the race in handicap has just put out a mayday. The boat is making water.

http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/news.asp?key=2957

Now the leader of the race (handicap) is another old boat, a 1974 S&S. If I remember correctly the last Fastnet was also won by an oldie. Do you find normal that you have to have an old and slower boat to win races? It seems to me that they have an unfair advantage in handicap and that racing old boats to win makes no sense.

[Doug Lord]

SA thread-:
Sydney to Hobart - Sailing Anarchy Forums
Address:http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45297&st=300&

[CT 249]

CT, see what I mean, that old boat (1968) that was leading the race in handicap has just put out a mayday. The boat is making water.

http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/news.asp?key=2957

Now the leader of the race (handicap) is another old boat, a 1974 S&S. If I remember correctly the last Fastnet was also won by an oldie. Do you find normal that you have to have an old and slower boat to win races? It seems to me that they have an unfair advantage in handicap and that racing old boats to win makes no sense.


Yep, I find it perfectly normal to have an older and slower boat win races. It's a good thing. What else do you do with older racing boats?

So Mr Average Owner decides to go offshore racing. He probably already owns a popular boat; maybe a Beneteau. Should he have to sell the boat that he has already selected as being the right boat for him, if he is to be competitive? Why would that encourage people to enter racing? Since he has a Beneteau, and you want to reward him if he sails well, you should have a rule that allows cruiser/racers to be competitive. Such a rule will often also assist older yachts.

Assuming Mr Average Owner does sell his Beneteau, buy a race boat and do well for a season or two. Eventually his raceboat will become older. What does he do with it then? Refitting it into a cruiser can be more expensive than just throwing it on the rubbish tip. But a badly superseded raceboat is worth very little. Why would you bother to own a racing machine that cannot win races? Why bother to spend $$$$$ going to the start line when you have almost no chance of doing well no matter how well you sail?

How does it help the growth and strength of the sport to make boats obsolete quickly? If owners make enormous losses on their does it help owners to buy new boats when they make an enormous loss on the outmoded boat's resale? What happens to these outmoded old boats? Who wants them? Basically I can't see any good points in making boats obsolete. One thing that is interesting is that the UK and Australia were pioneers in age allowance, and even in dinghies, cats and skiffs they have systems that allow old boats to be competitive. Significantly, the UK and Australia have very strong offshore fleets, and the strongest development-class dinghy, cat and skiff fleets in the world (with perhaps the exception of the US 14 fleet, but they have 220 million people!). The two are linked; people cannot afford to build new boats if they lose too much money on the old boats.

Love and War, the old boat currently leading, is a beautiful yacht. She is, in some ways, superior to modern boats in the opinion of many people. I think her crew could have got on board many of the fastest boats, but they love the feel of the old boat. A rule that allows a boat like her to do well allows freedom of choice. If you got your dream cruising yacht and found you wanted to race her, you could under IRC. You could have your dream boat AND race competitively. Isn't that better than being told (in effect) you have to have a lightweight canting or water ballasted racer or you'll finish last? If you don't want to go out and sail a boat like Love and War, you don't have to. But if you want to go out and sail such a boat and win, you can. That's a wonderful thing.

Okay, a new boat will be faster. But really, why in the world would you worry about spending 4 times the cost to go 8 knots instead of 6.5? What is so terrible about sailing that you have to finish the race in 5 days instead of 6? Is it worth spending say $300,000 (representing the lost value of a boat with very low resale) to spend LESS time taking part in the sport you love? I do Hobarts because I LIKE doing a long race.

If going fast is the goal, why sail monos? Why not sail a tri or cat? Why sail upwind or in light winds? Why not just reach around in strong winds like some windsurfers?

Which reminds me; even the professional windsurfers found that too much obsolescence makes the sport prohibitively expensive. And there is basically no evidence that going faster makes the sport stronger or more popular.

By the way overall entries "Open style" races suggested for the Class 40 are; 24 for Transat J.v.; "about 20" for the Global; a strong 60+ for the R d Rhum. But these are raced only every 4 years. If their format is so good, why do they get so many fewer boats than the Hobart, Fastnet, Bermuda etc get each year or two?? Even in a "small" year, the Hobart has some 1000 sailors; why is that an inferior system to the races that have 20-60+ sailors? Sure, they are not entirely comparable, but a boat that does the Hobart each year (as many do) actually does more sea miles in the race and delivery every 4 years than a R d R boat does in its race every 4 years. Surely it is significant that the Bermuda gets twice as many boats as the R D R, TJV and Global can get COMBINED!

Basically,whenever I try to work out what is best for sailing, I look at what is actually working - the races and classes that get big and growing or strong entries is what interests me. It may seem logical that faster boats will increase the sport, but that goes against most of the evidence. It's a situation where we should test theories against what really happens, and what really happens is that most people - and most of them are intelligent, experienced people - choose to sail rating racer/cruisers or one designs. What really happens is that the big races, the ones that attract big fleets, are rating races. It could be said that the TJV and R d R etc are pro races, but there's only 20-60 pros in them. Each Hobart or Fastnet would have that many pros, probably many more.

Nor are people very conservative. Many are very fast adopters; look at the way the successful classes (IOR ton classes, Mumm 36, Farr 40, Sydney 38, Sigma 33, Windsurfer, Formula board, Hobie, etc) caught on. Sometimes it seems that people ignore what the typical good sailor wants, and then they assume that they are conservative.

PS - old boats are not generally thought to have an unfair advantage. They don't normally win. They do well sometimes, when conditions suit them, they are well equipped, and well sailed. Sounds good to me. How would it help the sport to tell people "it doesn't matter how well you sail your boat; it doesn't matter how much you spend on it; you will be beaten because we won't handicap for the age or weight of your boat. If you want to win, you must sail this stripped-out racing machine"?

It's a bit like saying to dinghy sailors "you cannot sail a Snipe, Merlin Rocket, National 12 or Laser and hope to win, you must sail an International 14 or 18 Foot Skiff or MPS". You'd lose almost every sailor, because they like the boats they sail and that is why they sail them. Class racing is not a viable answer in most places because you can't gen enough boats.

EDIT - The slow old 1973 vintage boat that was leading the race on IRC is currently 12 miles ahead of the only Open 60 in the race!

[Roly]

CT, you make good sense and based on the sociology (for want of a better word) of the yacht racing multitude.The longevity of the S34 class here is the result of strict class rules maintainance.

My thought were purely a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that engine assisted movable ballast boats were ever allowed in the S.H.

[Vega]

It may be that the situation looks different whether you're used to looking at it from the inside or the outside. All but 5 of the boats in this year's Hobart are there for the handicap prize. The problem with having a race based on classes based on a box rule or LOA is that basically not a single place in the entire country would have a decent sized fleet of boats in any one of the classes.

And many, many people give a damn about the oldest boat in the fleet. ….

Why should the average sailor care about the big boats? The average sailor will never get to sail on one. They are utterly remote. The big boats were racing offshore in the 1800s, but the sport remained tiny until the small boats took over.
….
In the end, I suppose it depends who you think is more important; the people who watch, or the people who actually create the race by sailing each weekend and then entering the Hobart. … Do you want to take the race that they and their type created away from them??

.

I sympathize with your way of looking at the situation and I was felling kind of lonely in the way I was looking at it, till I had a look at the “Anarchist” thread about the race. They are enthusiasts and they have been running a big and interesting thread about the race:

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45297&st=300&

and they don’t give a dam about the handicap leader. The only posts about the old boat that was leading the race were posted when it went down. No posts or comments about the next leader, the old S&S. The attention was and is all in the leading boats in real time and on some smaller boats that are making a hell of a race, like that R&P 46 or the Kaiko 51 or the Cookson 50. I felt a lot less lonely on the way I was looking at the race, because I was looking at the same boats. It looks that we share common interests and that there are more people looking at it the same way I look.

When the race is over, I will take a look at the International press to see the relevance they give to the “real” winner (handicap), versus the boat that arrives first in real time.

But I believe you are right about what you are saying. Obviously that race is bigger than the sailing Australian community, and I believe that it has the potential to be turned in one of the International big Ocean racing events, and that means that all the Ocean fastest boats should race it.

You have two choices, keep it local and with time the race will disappear as a major international race, or give it the conditions to attract all the fastest boats on the planet and it will remain a major event. Or by other words, keep it to the ones that have created it or turn it in a major event on the professional circuit (the one that does not exist yet, but that will be a reality in the near future).

“Why should the average sailor care about the big boats? The average sailor will never get to sail on one. They are utterly remote.”

For the same reason that an amateur touring budget car racer loves F1.

[Doug Lord]

Looks like Wild Oats is stretching her lead with "Ichi Ban" now in second after Skandia lost her forward canard. So far as I can tell none of the canters are having keel problems(knock on wood).
Go Wild Oats!
PS Looks like "Ichi Ban"( Volvo 70) is first on handicap....

[CT 249]

I sympathize with your way of looking at the situation and I was felling kind of lonely in the way I was looking at it, till I had a look at the “Anarchist” thread about the race. They are enthusiasts and they have been running a big and interesting thread about the race:

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45297&st=300&

and they don’t give a dam about the handicap leader. The only posts about the old boat that was leading the race were posted when it went down. No posts or comments about the next leader, the old S&S. The attention was and is all in the leading boats in real time and on some smaller boats that are making a hell of a race, like that R&P 46 or the Kaiko 51 or the Cookson 50. I felt a lot less lonely on the way I was looking at the race, because I was looking at the same boats. It looks that we share common interests and that there are more people looking at it the same way I look.

When the race is over, I would take a look at the International press to see what is the relevance they give to the “real” winner (handicap), versus the boat that arrives first in real time.

But I believe you are right about what you are saying. Obviously that race is bigger than the sailing Australian community, and I believe that it has the potential to be turned in one of the International big Ocean racing events, and that means that all the Ocean fastest boats should race it.

You have two choices, keep it local and with time the race will disappear as a major international race, or give it the conditions to attract all the fastest boats on the planet and it will remain a major event. Or by other words, keep it to the ones that have created it or turn it in a major event on the professional circuit (the one that it does not exist yet, but that will be a reality in the near future).

“Why should the average sailor care about the big boats? The average sailor will never get to sail on one. They are utterly remote.”

For the same reason that an amateur touring budget car racer loves F1.

Oh jeepers Vega.

For a start, your facts are wrong. My count of the posts on the last complete page indictes that there are 50% more posts on IRC than on line honours. And when the race is on, people tend to look at line honours because IRC remains in doubt for longer as it is only decided when the small boats finish. Initially, also, no IRC placings are given; they aren't calculated for some time.

IRC is harder to call because it depends so much on the weather. That's why no one discusses the IRC chances much before or early on in the race. But the sailors know who the real winner is - the IRC winner. The sailing press always says that the IRC winner is the "real" winner. I just pulled out the first two mags with Hobart coverage from my bookshelf. The first one (from the UK) referred to the handicap winner as "the winner". The second (local mag) gave more space to the corrected time placings. I admit, there has been more emphasis on line honours recently, partly driven by sponsorship. In that time, fleets have dropped.

Do I tell you about what the offshore racers of Portugal think is important? No. So please don't tell me what the offshore racers of Australia think is important - I used to have to satisfy thousands of them every month when I was a magazine editor. The best way to lose sales and get a barrage of complaints from the people who actually sail is to put too much emphasis on big boats.

It is completely factually incorrect to say "they don't give a damn about the handicap leader" when the majority of posts (on the last complete page) dealing with either line or IRC were about the latter (try 307, 308, 309, 311, 316, 318, 320, 321, 325, 335, 341, 349, etc). Most of the rest are about the damage and sinkings. The maxis are there disproportionately because most of them have been in trouble.

Often, the posts about IRC contenders refer to their placing over the line, but that iis because it is a simple way to illustrate how they are going; just in the same way you may say a football team has reached the halfway line, irrespective of whether they are winning or losing.

Secondly, the R/P 46, Cookson 50 and Kaiko 50 are NOT the sort of boat that you have been advocating. The R/P 46 is an IRC racer; the Kaiko a racer/cruiser; the Cookson has different mods. The only Open type boat in the race is about 40th in line honours.

When the race is over, I wouldn't give much concern to what the international press think. They don't enter the race, they don't sail the race, they don't really matter. The local press has repeatedly referred to Love and War and the other old boats today.

I find it strange that you say the race "has the potential to turn into a major International event". It has been so for many years. Even 35 years ago, there were 3 US maxis amidst a total of 15 overseas entries! The Hobart has had vastly more overseas entries than the only time a big time "pro" multi/shorthanded race was tried here.

"The fastest boats in the planet" are not allowed to enter the transatlantic races, the Route de Rhum, the Globe, or just about any other race - why should they be allowed to race in the Hobart?

There is already a very strong professional ocean racing circuit - it consists of the professionals who are paid to race conventional boats like IRC boats, Farr 40s, TP 52s, Mumms etc. The other pro racing circuit I think you're dreaming of is a pipe dream that has been flopping for years. The VOlvo has been getting ever smaller. The Doha race ended up with no prizemoney. The singlehanded transat is a small event, a shadow of its former self.

The "international pro races" of which you write are almost all very small events, rarely run, compared to the real major races such as the Hobart, Bermuda and Fastnet. The "international pro races" are in many cases getting weaker - look at the death of the 60' tris inshore circuit. The boats in the Route de Rhum are smaller than they were when the race started - hardly an advertisement for hte "pro" route.

Any analogy to car racing is very risky, because car racing is (in the UK and Australia, at any rate) no bigger than sailing despite the fact that far more people can drive and own a car, than know how to sail. Why follow a model that converts fewer people to racing?

[hansp77]

regarding CT 249's argument

from sailinganarchy (http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45297&st=400)
(as I quote this I am supposing this queery could be from CT himself?)

Chris 249
Quick poll

Which is more important - the line win or the IRC win?


mh111
IRC of course - no question

line honours is just a question of who has the deepest pockets

cheers,

Rowdy
The winner of the Hobart race collects the Tattersals Cup. These days it's awarded to the overall IRC winner. First over the line is of only passing interest to all but the press.

interesting argument to follow.

Personally (from a amatuer's perspective) I am much more interested in the little old boats. Especially the woodies- but then I am heavily biased in this:cool:

I have been following Maluka's impressive (to me) performance
http://www.cyca.com.au/sysfile/images/sydhob06/maluka_176x192.jpghttp://rolexsydneyhobart.com/sysfile/images/d_forster_2006/startmaluka_600x464.jpghttp://rolexsydneyhobart.com/sysfile/images/peter_andrews/mallaunch1_600x464.jpg

and of course,
RIP Koomooloo
http://www.afrancolini.com/photo/Hogs04_1253.jpg

Hans.

[Vega]

I admit, there has been more emphasis on line honours recently, partly driven by sponsorship. In that time, fleets have dropped.

Do I tell you about what the offshore racers of Portugal think is important? No. So please don't tell me what the offshore racers of Australia think is ….

Secondly, the R/P 46, Cookson 50 and Kaiko 50 are NOT the sort of boat that you have been advocating. The R/P 46 is an IRC racer; the Kaiko a racer/cruiser; the Cookson has different mods.

When the race is over, I wouldn't give much concern to what the international press think. They don't enter the race, they don't sail the race, they don't really matter. The local press has repeatedly referred to Love and War and the other old boats today.

I find it strange that you say the race "has the potential to turn into a major International event". It has been so for many years. Even 35 years ago, there were 3 US maxis amidst a total of 15 overseas entries! The Hobart has had vastly more overseas entries than the only time a big time "pro" multi/shorthanded race was tried here.




Ct, I was nor proposing nor criticizing options. I have said that in my opinion that race, like the Fastnet will have a choice to make. I can be wrong and I certainly have not said what the correct choice is. That will depend on the Australians. If you have understood otherwise, I apologize.

Fact is that yacht racing, with the exception of the America Cup, are small international events. I mean, The Route du Rhum is big for the French Public but do you see there Australian boats, or has it a big coverage in Australia? Or do you have French boats in the Sidney-Hobart, that certainly is big for Aussies but, for instance, not a big deal for French, and I don’t mean sailors, but to the general public. When I was talking about international races I mean races that the best oceanracers worldwide could not miss.

I was not diminishing the Sidney-Hobart when I have said that it has the potential to be one of those true International ocean races. These races don’t exist yet in a sense that the international participations are not significant of the best boats and best sailors, nor the interest for a given race is worldwide, like in the F1 or in the American Cup, for instance.

Such a race has to be a big international event and the International Press and coverage is fundamental. Money comes from advertising and Sponsors are only interested if there is a huge coverage and a huge coverage only happens if lots of people are interested, and most of those have to be non-sailors, because otherwise it would not be a lot of people. So I think that International Press and coverage matters, unless you want that this race remains mainly an Aussie-NZ race, and that, as I have said It is for the Australians to decide.


You keep saying that I advocate some type of boat. What I would like to see is an open rule with a limitation on draft and with classes based on length. I am for fast and seaworthy boats and those boats (that you quoted) proved they were just that, showing that smaller boats can be faster than bigger boats in real time. Of course, I am also for a maximum freedom in designing a boat but that does not limit the shape or type of the boat, quite the contrary; this gives the designers a lot more freedom to produce innovative good and faster boats.

"The fastest boats in the planet" are not allowed to enter the transatlantic races, the Route de Rhum, the Globe, or just about any other race - why should they be allowed to race in the Hobart?

Yes I agree, and I think that has to change. Why not races, for instance “La Route du Rhum”, or the Sidney-Hobart open to all classes? It certainly would turn them in major events with a lot more coverage and more international publicity that is indispensable to global events and to big sponsorships.

Ct, I had the impression that I was annoying you. Again I apologize if that was the case. The fact that I would like to see this and other big ocean races, raced with more international participation and more fast boats, and the emphasis in fast, is probably a difference of opinion that does not diminish this race that I love and follow always with a lot of interest.

Regards

[Vega]

Hans, Maluka is not only a beautiful boat but it is also doing a great race (what means Maluka?).

Guys what happened to Wild Oats? They show a speed of only 4.7K on that interactive map. They have a problem?

And Berrimiglia and those two crazy old men (I have the utmost respect for them). They are only making 1.9K. Are they in trouble?

[CT 249]

Vega, the ideas of length classes and allowing almost unlimited boats to enter has been tried several times before. Look at The Race which created the G Class cats - it happened once and it seems that it will not happen again. Look at its successor, the Doha race - such a flop that it didn't even pay the prizemoney. Many of the G Class are mouldering. One is apparently being converted to a motorboat, I hear. This is NOT a success story that can match the 600 or so boats that compete in the Fastnet, Bermuda and Hobart combined.

You say that allowing the fastest boats in the planet into the Fastnet and Hobart "would certainly turn them into major events" but there is simply no evidence for that belief. The continued record of poor entries for the events that allow such boats is proof that they do not encourage participation.

Surely if the Open concept (ie no limit on size or speed, classes based on length) was such a great one, such races would be popular. They are not. Therefore it must be an unsuccessful concept.

The singlehanded transat and Route de Rhum started off with no length limit and just length classes. Both found that an overall limit was necessary. Neither is a massive success in terms of entry numbers. These races are held near the world's biggest sponsorship markets which gives them a major advantage. The Hobart is not.

Since the races that have followed the "no limit, length classes only" format have not thrived, why do want to impose such a concept on races that attract many more entrants much more often?

Yes, yacht races are not as popular as F1 in terms of spectators. You can't expect them to be - F1 is supported by one of the world's biggest industries, the motor industry. Most people in the western world drive. Only a few sail. Yet (as far as I can find out) motor racing is NOT more popular in participation terms than sailing, so why does it make a good model?

About "When I was talking about international races I mean races that the best oceanracers worldwide could not miss." Most of the ISAF Sailors of The Year who do ocean races, have competed in the Hobart (and Fastnet or Bermuda). Few of the ISAF Sailors of the Year compete in the big Open style races. The current ISAF sailor of the year was skippering in the Hobart this year. It seems that the Fastnet/Hobart/Bermuda style is actually much MORE successful in attracting the best oceanracers worldwide.

You say "I would like to see is an open rule with a limitation on draft and with classes based on length" but I say again, most of the fast medium-sized boats are quite different from the sort of boat designed for a length class. Look at Merlin - she does well under IRC because while she is fairly fast, she also rates fairly low because she gets a rating advantage from having an interior and a comparatively small sail area. She would not be competitive on a pure speed-for-length basis because her small sail area and accomodation slow her down, yet she is a lovely boat that does very well under IRC. She is the sort of boat that is competitive under IRC but not as competitive under speed-for-length. She is the sort of boat that your concept would throw on the scrapheap. Same with Secret Mens Business, Yendys, Wot Yot, Challenge, and most of the other top small boats. Not one of these is the fastest boat for its length that could be devised, yet as you say they still go fairly fast. Why throw them all away for a concept that has been proven, time and time again, to be less successful?

Let's look at the top medium-sized boats on line honours; the owners of the top two started racing on Beneteaus and had enough success to encourage them to move to a custom raceboat. The owner of the third started with a Swan, which was successful enough to encourage him to buy a custom raceboat. The owner of the third started with an old racer, which thanks to age allowance was successful enough to encourage him to get a custom raceboat. The owner of the fifth (Olympic gold medallist) has had custom raceboats but prefers to own cruiser-racers that can be competitive because they get a reduced rating because of the extra weight of the furniture. The owner of the sixth started with an old racer that was competitive because of age allowance.

So did the owner of Wild Oats....the other maxi owners were dinghy sailors or crews at first.

So just about all of the top owners started on old boats or cruiser-racers. They were all encouraged by the fact that their cruiser/racers were competitive. If they hadn't been encouraged like that, I bet they may well have dropped out of the sport (and I may add I have spoken to most of them about such things).

Surely, if we are looking at the future of the sports, we should be following the ideas that work (ie the ones that get 70-200+ boats out each year or two) rather than the ones that do not (ie the ones that get 7-70 boats out every four years). I think some rethinking is necessary to get the Hobart fleets back up, but going to more expensive boats certainly isn't the right way as far as I can see.

[Mikey]

The CNN trailer said "Boat sunk in the Sydney - Hobart race" yesterday but I never got to hear which one it was, was it Koomooloo?

[hansp77]

The CNN trailer said "Boat sunk in the Sydney - Hobart race" yesterday but I never got to hear which one it was, was it Koomooloo?

yes it was,
apparantly she 'fell off the back of two backless waves' and was soon after taking on a lot of water. After much effort they couldn't find the leak(s), the bilge pumps were not keeping up, and the skipper decided that for the crews sake they had to abandon. I heard a salvage boat was sent out but didn't have the right equipment or gear (what ever that could be?) to save her.

[CT 249]

Yep. There's a lot of mourning going on. She was such a lovely boat, and so much loved by the family her owned her.

[Mikey]

Koomooloo - One of the most beautiful boats ever to sail the oceans, a sad loss indeed

[CT 249]

More about Hansp's favourite, Maluka. From the ABC site;

"One yachtsman who's made his name through speed, Sean Langman, won't be at the helm of his maxi this year. He's competed in 17 Sydney Hobarts, but his experience last year led him to question where technology was taking the race.

SEAN LANGMAN, SYDNEY-HOBART COMPETITOR: Everything ran off power. We had a computer technician and a full time engineer just to keep the boat running. We finally ran out of fuel a mile to the finish and I went, "Wow, now we've got to sail the boat to get it to the finish", and my feeling when I stepped off was, this isn't what the race or sailing is about to me.........What I have found over the last few years by going faster and faster and faster is you don't really get a chance to look around. The difference here is charging towards an albatross doing 28 knots, the poor thing is trying to get out of the way. Now it's going to turn around and have a look and a wave. It is really about communing with the sea again."

From the Manly Daily (paper); "Langman, who once said push-button sailing had sucked the life from the sport, could have taken the easy way out and reached Hobart inside three days aboard a slick maxi.

But he has no regrets - yet.

``I'm glad I've got back to `sailing' sailing,'' he said.

``This will be no easy ride and we'll know we're alive out there.

``This is what sailing is all about. I'm happy to do it this way but I'll let you know when we get to Hobart whether it's been a good move or not.''

By the way, last year he sailed a 90 foot canter; before that, an Open 60 lengthened to 66 feet. Yet his first offshore boat was a modified production quarter ton type. Once again, he shows that the big boat owners are often guys who start with competitive smaller production racer/cruisers; boats which we should encourage to create more owners.

[Doug Lord]

Wild Oats, one of the largest CBTF ocean racers ever built has taken line honors and according to the Rolex Sydney-Hobart site the first back to back victory since 1964 and only the 6th in history.
This boat continues to demonstrate the capabilties of a well designed( Reichel-Pugh) CBTF(Canting Ballast Twin Foil) technology as well as the power of movable ballast.
Congratulations!
Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race 2006.. Breaking News
Address:http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/breaking_news.asp?key=523

[Vega]

Great racing on Ichi Ban. I know that Skandia had a damaged canard, but even so...

It is a pity that ABN-Amro had broken its mast, otherwise we would have had a close fight for the winning in real time.

The Volvo70's are incredible boats. They have succeeded in maintaining the pace with almost 30ft bigger boats, and not any boat, but boats that are supposedly the state of the art, in what ocean racing concerns.

It seems also that canting keelers have reached maturity. Lots of them in the race, and no problems related with keels.

[Doug Lord]

Ichi Ban-Volvo 70 squeaks by Skandia-so it's first second and third to canting keel boats....

[SailDesign]

Ichi Ban-Volvo 70 squeaks by Skandia-so it's first second and third to canting keel boats....
No, Doug - it is first, second and third across the line are the largest, lightest boats in the race - no big surprise.
Now, if one of these was a 40-footer, THAT would be worth mentioning.
NEWSFLASH! Formula One car wins race against Ford Focus! Naah - that would never sell newspapers.
Steve

[Mikey]

But it is typical that after all the discussions we have had recently that none of the canting keel boats had failures but one of the oldest boats in the fleet went down, isn't it?

Sad, I'm still mourning Koomooloo

[Doug Lord]

According to Sail-World Ichi Ban( VO 70) has a chance of winning on handicap:
Sail World: Sail and sailing, cruising, boating news
Address:http://www.sail-world.com/newstext/pda.cfm?Nid=29914&RequestTimeOut=180
-----------------------
First , second and third to canting keel boats is an undeniable fact; I'm all for the handicap boats having a nice "race" but no one should try to diminish the great job done by these boats representing the highest (current) technology in monohull ocean racers. ACTUAL first, second and third have meaning to some people.....

[CT 249]

"Actual" first second and third places go to the top IRC boats.

The very press release you just quoted refers to Itchy as "the boat to beat on corrected time and to win the most coveted trophy of the race, the Tattersall’s Cup, given to the boat that sails closest to its ultimate ability."

There you go....according to your own source, the Tattersall's Cup for IRC corrected time results is "the most coveted trophy of the race"; the actual winner. First to finish is only first to finish.

The Notice of Race and Sailing Instructions - the official documents - say that the Overall winner is on IRC corrected time. The list of winners on the race web page says the corrected time winner is the "Overall" winner. So officially and in the judgement of your own source, you're wrong. If the use of quotation marks for "race" is an attempt to imply that IRC is not the real race, you are dead wrong.

Actually in my last Hobart we took one of the line honours prizes for first boat of our length to finish. It was a bit embarrassing really, we'd just been the first boat of our size to finish because we had the newest and fastest boat our size. The guys who did well were further back on older, slower boats of the same LOA. Winning because you have the quickest boat for its LOA is not what the Hobart is about, it's about IRC; they've downgraded the trophies for the first Under 40, First Under 30 etc over the last couple of years I think.

[RHough]

“Why should the average sailor care about the big boats? The average sailor will never get to sail on one. They are utterly remote.”

For the same reason that an amateur touring budget car racer loves F1.

I love fast sailing boats as much as anyone, but the amateur racer <> F1 analogy is completely wrong when looking at the powered boats that are getting line honours.

Compare my street car to a F1 racer:
In addition to having a gasoline engine, and 4 wheels with rubber tyres ...
Computer controlled engine management on both.
Traction control systems on both.
Passive aerodynamics on both.
In some ways the systems on my street car are more sophisticated than those of a F1 car. I can see a direct link between F1 technology and the car I drive. I can relate to F1.

Compare my sailboat to one of the powered contraptions that some people think are the shape of things to come:
Except for having a sloop rig and floating, my sailboat shares very little with the line honours boats in the S-H.
My boat has one moving appendage ... not three.
My boat does not require external power to move ballast or trim sails. These systems are clearly not legal under the Racing Rules of Sailing (2005-2008).

51 MOVABLE BALLAST
All movable ballast shall be properly stowed, and water, dead weight
or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or
stability. Floorboards, bulkheads, doors, stairs and water tanks shall
be left in place and all cabin fixtures kept on board.
52 MANUAL POWER
A boat’s standing rigging, running rigging, spars and movable hull
appendages shall be adjusted and operated only by manual power.

Like many sailors, I have been racing for over 40 years. I used to be able to relate to the boats that win ocean races. Now all I see is a rating rule that first allows boats that would be DSQ'd in any race where the rules are enforced, then does such a poor job of handicapping them that they can win on corrected time.

There is NO WAY that a new boat should be able to win against a boat that has a track record. Anyone that sails, knows that it takes time to extract the maximum level of performance form a boat. Any racing team should be faster in their second and third season. Since handicapping rules assume a fully optimized boat that is sailed perfectly, how can a new boat earn first place on corrected time? We know that it is not fully sorted out and it's performance will improve with time, if it wins first time out, the rating rule is seriously flawed.

Thus from my personal experience, the IRC rule is a joke, the handicaps for the canters are a gift, and ocean racing bears very little resemblance to the racing that goes on at the local level.

Production cars have more in common with F1 than production sailboats have in common with the motorboats that are winning ocean races.

The powered canters are so far removed form the reality of everyday sailing that they will be the death of the sport. If F1 used technology that was completely different from production vehicles, it would die too.

[Doug Lord]

Sorry guys but the canters were first second and third over the line-and one still has a chance under handicap. Movable ballast is a tremendous advance in fast monohull's and is here to stay-not just in canting keels either...
Mr. Dude: quoting only part of the rule(s) is a silly excercise in futility!

[Vega]

That last minute arbitary ruling is apalling. Downright unfair.

Yes and it will end up to have a major and decisive importance in the attribution of the best corrected time winner and on the attribution of “the most coveted trophy of the race.”


“Allen’s Ichi Ban crossed the finish line in second place at 1.42 am today to set itself up as the boat to beat on corrected time and to win the most coveted trophy of the race, the Tattersalls Cup, given to the boat that sails closest to its ultimate ability”.

http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/news.asp?key=2983

Those unfair and unjustifiable 30 minutes penalization can be the difference between victory and defeat. I believe that if it is the case we will hear more about this sad affair.

[wet feet]

I think it would be enlightening if Doug were to enlarge on his notion of the way in which the rules should be interpreted.Normally,a clear breach of a single rule is quite sufficient to bring about a penalty.

[Roly]

Different strokes I guess.
Given your background Doug, I find it little wonder you would allow that paraphanallia on a sail boat. (If, you were on the IRC)

Thank god you are not, for it is not such a leap in (your) logic to have the crew in a control station below.(Or onshore)

Last minute rulings that don't give the participants time to respond is unfair
in any sport;this is the kind of leadership we can expect from the current IRC.

'In the last 24 hours, we’ve discovered the IRC rating office proposed to the Technical Committee this change back in October, but were rebuffed. Now it seems that at the last minute, without us having any chance to modifiy sails, they have made a unilateral decision.'


Not that they should be competing anyway. (ichi ban) Unless they move that keel by hand.

[Doug Lord]

That ruling is plain insane-I'd never support such foolishness-everybody knew the VO 70's had square top mains from the get go-unfair penalty; unfair decision making...
Movable ballast is here to stay-get over it!

[Doug Lord]

I think it would be enlightening if Doug were to enlarge on his notion of the way in which the rules should be interpreted.Normally,a clear breach of a single rule is quite sufficient to bring about a penalty.

----------
WF, unfortunately, I only have the 2004 book and in that book the rules quoted by Mr. Retro Dude are modified by Class rules and /or Sailing Instructions( Rule 86"Rule Changes", 86.1 (a), (b), and (c) making the boats 100% legal under the racing rules. Quoting only part of the rules to push an agenda is an old, bankrupt tactic which serves no purpose in the discussion of the legality of movable ballast.
Movable Ballast is a fact of life on fast monohulls, period.

[RHough]

----------
WF, unfortunately, I only have the 2004 book and in that book the rules quoted by Mr. Retro Dude are modified by Class rules and /or Sailing Instructions( Rule 86"Rule Changes", 86.1 (a), (b), and (c) making the boats 100% legal under the racing rules. Changing any part of the rules to push an agenda is an old, bankrupt tactic which serves no purpose other than to exclude faster boats that don't break the rules.
Exploiting the rules by rich owners is a fact of life on fast monohulls, period.

Fixed it for you Doug :)

BTW- The 2005-2008 rules are on-line ...

The boats are NOT 100% legal under the Racing Rules, they are only "legal" under modified class rules or sailing instructions. In other words they race using a loophole.

Finding loopholes, and using the letter (rather than the spirit) of the rule, has always been good sportsmanship if you are on the side that gains advantage. If you happen to have a faster design that breaks no fundamental rule, you can expect those with vested interests to find a way to keep you from racing. This sort of behavior has been part and parcel of yacht racing as long as there have been rules.

[Vega]

This is always like that? After all who won the race?

They don't have an obligation to announce the winner(s) in a reasonable period of time?

[Roly]

Movable ballast is here to stay-get over it!


The crew is movable ballast....what are you on about?
If engine assisted movable ballast is "here to stay", it will be
a travesty.
I have no objection to movable ballast.

Anyway,as usual, money will do the talking.

[Doug Lord]

I have no objection to movable ballast.



So it's ok on a Moth, 49'er, Laser, etc. in fact it's ok unless the amount of ballast is too big or has to be moved too far to do it by hand, right? So you would totally eliminate one of the most spectacular avenues of monohull design and development,is that right? I have a design in development for an 18 footer that would use electrically powered "on-deck" ballast in combination with a canting keel to allow disabled people the opportunity to go very fast-you'd nip that in the bud too ,eh?
Damn technology gets in the way of pure sailing every time.....

[Roly]

In competition, adhering to the fundamentals is is more likely to maintain fairness and keep interest alive.

[Chris Ostlind]

Doug, what kind of car do you drive?

Is it a Porsche Carrera Twin Turbo? A Ferrari perhaps? ... might be one of those new Aston Martin's as seen in the latest James Bond movie?

No, you say, none of the above? Does that mean you are content to drive at sedate speeds all the time, not having the cash or the skills to drive any faster than your current vehicle would allow?

OOOPS! I've made my point.

Not everyone has to have some wave burner techno monster to feel the joy of sailing, the wind in their face and the simplicity of ownership afforded by a less hip ride. It's a fact of life, Doug. Apply the paradigm across the board at will.

It's a tiny, tiny element of any sport that truly opts for the ultimate go-fast solution. When you do get that, finally, you'll have started on your way to the understanding of what it will take to market a product that has some tiny bit of potential for commercial success.

Best of luck on the realization process.

Chris

[CT 249]

This is always like that? After all who won the race?

They don't have an obligation to announce the winner(s) in a reasonable period of time?

The winner isn't known yet, and won't be for another 15 hours. That is the time required to see whether Maluka will come home before the north-easterly breeze in time to win overall.

I put up a poll on the SA thread you referred to earlier; not many replies, all of them said the IRC winner was the real winner. And at the moment there's a lot of exultation on the thread now that Lou Abrahams on the Sydney 38 One Design has broken Itchy's time and ensured that a boat without power-operated mechanical systems has won. No one dislikes the Itchy crew, who are outstanding sailors and good blokes, but there is widespread concern about the effect such boats are having on the sport.

Yes, the big canters are spectacular, but just about every big boat is spectacular. The biggest stir among the 1000+ people where I was sitting watching the start came when a massive 140 cruising yacht came past before the start, not when the canters came past. Maximus in particular looked good coming off the line, but then again so did Bumblebee III in 1979, Ceramco NZ in 1980, NZ Endeavour (actually she probably looked better with the ketch rig), Shockwave 2000 (very pretty boat).

Spectacular yachts is not what makes this race, for the sailors or for the spectators on shore. What makes it is the bulk of the fleet, made up of very very good sailors, including an enormous number of pros, who compete for IRC honours.

Actually, the boat with the greatest number of camera boats chasing at the start was Maluka, the 75 year old 30 foot gaffer. She's probably had more column inches than Wild Oats in the pre-start period, because "man dumps canting maxi to lovingly restore 75 year old 30 footer" is a much better story than "big boat owned by squillionaires turns up to race again" (no disrespect to the Oatleys who are very fine people).

"Damn technology gets in the way of pure sailing every time.....". That's just what Sean Langman has been saying! That's why his powered boat (and I do love Xena, she's cool and great fun to sail) is sitting on a dock and he's sailing his non-techno boat.

To say someone wants to ban mechanical aids from normal racing does not mean that they mean it has to be banned from disabled racing. It's exactly the same as disabled in racing wheelchairs being allowed to compete in marathons; one rule for the disabled, another rule (ie use your feet) for the able-bodied.

Of course mechanical aids are required for some disabled. Our club was the first place in the world where a ventilated quadraplegic went sailing, a wonderful moment as she'd never been able to do a sport in her life. Of course she uses machinery - but that doesn't mean the able bodied people would ever consider doing so.

[Doug Lord]

SA: "Wild Oats crushed the fleet on elapsed time going to Hobart. An impressive win by an impressive boat and ,perhaps, an equally impressive program."

[RHough]

SA: "Wild Oats crushed the fleet on elapsed time going to Hobart. An expensive win by an expensive boat and ,perhaps, an equally expensive program."

Fixed :)

Wouldn't it be easier just to post on SA than to keep linking to the threads there? If we want to know what the posters at SA think about something all we have to do is read for ourselves. Searching SA for Maximus, CBTF, or lawsuit is very enlightening. :P

[Doug Lord]

Actually, you should read more carefully: that was an editorial comment not a comment by a poster.And WE are afraid you might not WANT to read it so WE posted it here for your enlightenment.
As to "fixing" the commentary: you simply can't change the fact that ,in winning the Sidney-Hobart, Wild Oats crushed the fleet and did it with movable ballast -it just plain won't go away no matter how much you distort the editorial content from SA!

[Vega]

The winner isn't known yet, and won't be for another 15 hours. That is the time required to see whether Maluka will come home before the north-easterly breeze in time to win overall.


I understand your point and even agree with most of what you say, but I believe that for the general public, the winner is the one that arrives first.

I believe that the opinion you have about the future of your race is the opinion of the majority of the Aussie sailing community.

If the international specialized press see the winner as the first to arrive, imagine what is the opinion of the general public and the mass media ( See the picture).

I did not want to be intrusive or rude and I did not continue here that discussion about the future of this (great) race. After all it is your race, but I have expressed my opinion here:

http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15257

mass-media:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/wireless/story/0,8262,10-20985070,00.html

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2006/12/28/sport/wild-oats-wins-rare-back-to-back-hobart-titles.html&template=/sport/feeds/story_template.html

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20983425-5001023,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200612/s1819035.htm

http://news.sawf.org/Sports/31203.aspx

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SPORT/12/28/sailing.oats.reut/index.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20985070-2722,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/12/28/1166895400181.html

Regards

[Chris Ostlind]

Oh, Douglas.... wake up honey, it's dinner time!

From out of the dream state of the late afternoon comes Doug, convinced that the "special boat" over in Australia had just crushed the opponents as if it were sent by none other than Conan, himself to blow by Thulsa Doom's pitiful fleet.

Clearly, too many comic books in one's youth will do that sort of thing.

All kidding aside, Doug, the only substantive support you have for the whole crushing thing lies in the fact that almost all the other big, Steroid engined boats had been screwed out of their masts within sight of land. This simple fact allowed Wild Oats to have a clear shot at the finish line with nobody else on the water as big, or as technical as she.

That's not a crushing, Doug, that's simple luck through DNF.

Get these same fiddly pigs out there on a day when they all have their little bits in order and see if crushing is a word that can be used. Then and only then can the term apply (except in the halls of comicbookdom where any extravagant expression is not only allowed, it's expected)

Now from where I sit, the really big unanswered question of this whole affair is: Why did so many of these nasty superior machines all of a sudden decide to dump their rigs? Was it attributable to a similar, connected cause? Were they all just a freakish collection of totally separate situations with no common causality?

And what about that 30 year old, decidedly low-tech boat taking the Tattersall's Cup? Chris, didn't you say that the real prize in this race was that award?

Crushing... I think not.

I'd love to see what the finish would look like with a pack of hungry, maxi-multi's clanking around out there like Orange II or even Ellen's B&Q tri. Since you mentioned crushing...

[RHough]

Actually, you should read more carefully: that was an editorial comment not a comment by a poster.And WE are afraid you might not WANT to read it so WE posted it here for your enlightenment.
As to "fixing" the commentary: you simply can't change the fact that ,in winning the Sidney-Hobart, Wild Oats crushed the fleet and did it with movable ballast -it just plain won't go away no matter how much you distort the editorial content from SA!

I can and do read SA. One of the nice things about SA is that they seem to have run off the posters that blather on about some subjects. Like the editor(s) at SA I don't much care who doesn't like or agree with my opinion. IMO, the editor(s) of SA are not a source of news. I have no idea what your motive is in posting his crap here.

You cannot change the fact that Wild Oats and her ilk require running engines and altered rules to compete at all. You also cannot change the fact that the high tech whiz-bang Rube Goldberg creations that you are so enamoured with are about 20% slower than boats that don't break those rules.

At one time Sean Langman was one of your hero's ... his trimaran trying to be a mono hull was one of the designs that represented the future of sailing ... When one of the people that has been there, done that, decides for a real sailboat instead of a motor-sailer it should tell you something. When the people that re-wrote the rule to allow W-O and the other power assist boats then turn around and change the handicap of the VO70's to favour W-O, who to you think is running the show? The little guys or the big bank-rolls?

It should come as no surprise that the biggest, most expensive boat should take line honours. That the "little" VO70's were able to stay in touch with boats almost 30 feet longer should say something about the quality of the CBTF designs ... a 98 foot boat *should* pull a horizon job on a 70 foot boat. The big boat should be 20% faster. W-O should have averaged 12.2 knots to Ichi's 10.3 ... Does CBTF slow her down? How can a good 98 foot design be only 0.7 knot faster than a 70 footer? 11 knots for W-O is a S/L of 1.11. 10.3 knots for Ichi is a S/L of 1.23. That would indicate that CBTF is not such a great idea. Skandia also averaged 10.3 knots ... only 1.04 S/L.

These are not remarkable numbers. Yendy's managed a S/L of 1.18 ... better than W-O and not CBTF. Might even have a fixed keel ...

Biggest, most expensive boats winning line honours should not be news.
Boats that average only 1-1.2 S/L are not great advances in design.

But if you and the editor of SA say they are ... I'll consider the source.

PS. The winner was built in 1973 and averaged 1.07 S/L ... CBTF boats at 1.04 to 1.11 hardly seem to be advancing the state of the art by much.

[Doug Lord]

Congratulations to "Love and War" for winning on handicap!

[CT 249]

The national radio has just had the third live cross about the IRC honours within about an hour........plenty of interest in the media. Rob Mundle, who has been going around the world following the Volvo as a journo, reckons that if the rule wasn't working so well the fleet would be only half the size. So that's the word from a mass-media sporting journo.

[gggGuest]

You cannot change the fact that Wild Oats and her ilk require running engines and altered rules to compete at all. You also cannot change the fact that the high tech whiz-bang Rube Goldberg creations that you are so enamoured with are about 20% slower than boats that don't break those rules.

I am no fan of craft that need to turn on the engine to tack, and its quite legitimate to discuss whether there ought or ought not to be an exemption permitted by class rules or whatever to allow such things to race. But the fact is that such things are permitted.

And as something like 75% of active racing sailcraft - all dinghies and all sailboards for example - "break" one or more of the series of rules to which exemptions like that are allowed, then I think your point about them being rule breakers is pretty much nonsensical. Its not really very far from saying that its breaking the rules to travel by train, because the rules say you can't travel by train unless you buy a ticket, and buying a ticket is evading the rules that say you can't travel...

[RHough]

I am no fan of craft that need to turn on the engine to tack, and its quite legitimate to discuss whether there ought or ought not to be an exemption permitted by class rules or whatever to allow such things to race. But the fact is that such things are permitted.

And as something like 75% of active racing sailcraft - all dinghies and all sailboards for example - "break" one or more of the series of rules to which exemptions like that are allowed, then I think your point about them being rule breakers is pretty much nonsensical. Its not really very far from saying that its breaking the rules to travel by train, because the rules say you can't travel by train unless you buy a ticket, and buying a ticket is evading the rules that say you can't travel...

75% of active racing sailcraft require altered rules? I don't think so. Care to expand on that point?

One of my concerns is that the powered maxi-boats are so different from production boats and are so obviously are not pure sailing machines, that regular sailors don't relate to them. The number of boats in the maxi class is dropping. The costs are escalating with the new technology. In the case of the S-H, the powered canters did not prove themselves to be much faster than conventional boats when you compare S/L ratio averages.

Why should we embrace technology that does not improve the boats? Change for changes sake? The racing would be better with more boats. There might be more boats if they didn't require such a large investment in systems. When a 30+ year old boat can average the same S/L performance as the powered CBTF monsters, can a case be made that re-writing the rules has improved anything?

To compare the performance of the altered rule boats to standard boats does a disservice to the boats that don't require the exceptions to race. To exclude boats that race under the unmodified rules and then award records to to boats that do is hypocrisy.

CBTF has been around for over a decade, if the technology is so good, why don't we see production CBTF boats? Why don't we see CBTF dominating every level of mono-hull racing? Why was a non-CBTF VO70 faster (based on S/L ratio) than all but one of the CBTF boats?

Allowing powered systems has tainted the sport for little or no gain.

[Doug Lord]

Allowing powered systems has tainted the sport for little or no gain.
----------------------
Just ridiculous! I imagine that by now every major ocean race has been won by a boat using movable ballast and many records have been broken by movable ballast boats-production and custom-and will continue to be.
When confronted with the undeniable results of the incredible power and speed of these magnificent sailing machines the "anti-techno's" led by the by the self proclaimed Chief"Retro Dude" come up with a concoction of absurd,twisted fantasy "facts" to show that the boats really aren't that fast afterall.
Unbelievable! And I do mean unbelievable....

[gggGuest]

incredible power and speed of these magnificent sailing machines

Having said that Doug if I have to cart a damn engine around then it might as well earn its keep properly and drive a propellor. Similarly if I'm going to dangle ballast off the side of the boat to keep it upright then I'll put it in low drag air rather than high drag water, make it hull shaped, call it a multihull and go street faster than any canting keeler. Other folk's opinion differs, and that's fine by me.

But the power rot set in with the long distance stuff invisibly - when it became normal to drag an engine and fuel around in order to drive the electrics, navigation equipment, water maker etc. Once that was accepted - and I don't really remember it ever being controversial - then using the engine to drive ballast as well was just a change in degree, not a step change. If folks want to ban engines then be consistent and ban them for everything...

75% of active racing sailcraft require altered rules? I don't think so.

Yeah, rereading the rules not 75% any more since 49 now permits toe straps where not excluded by lifelines, but by rule 86racing rules 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 may all be legitimately changed by class rules. Sliding seats, trapezes, arguably harness lines on sailboards, certainly pumping by sailboards, pumping being allowed in some weather conditions by other craft, use of "lifelines" to "hike" ie dangle from on some inshore keelboats, and jibs with roach are all examples... Bearing in mind how many more sailboards there are than anything else on the planet, even if they're not raced, and the use of propulsion exceptions in so many dinghy classes then it probably does get near 75%...

[BOATMIK]

Hi All,

In the end I couldn't resist and have to say something.

For 100 years or so the definition of "sailing" has not involved engines. By allowing engines they have virtually eliminated the possibility that alternative systems will be developed.

If they had not been allowed there would have been a good chance for people with the big momey to develop a method of canting without them.
___________________________

Doug: "every major sailing race has been won by canters"

This is misleading.

We all know that a 40ft multi would get to hobart first in the conditions of most Hobarts at a fraction of the cost and complication of the canters.

The Yachting Officials involved (I was tempted to write "the bozos that administrate our sport") have been happy to monkey with the definition of "sailing" to allow the canters but still refuse to allow the tiniest of changes to allow proper, seamanlike, well proven multihulls.

And the multihulls are still proper sailing boats.

Michael Storer

[BOATMIK]

One of my concerns is that the powered maxi-boats are so different from production boats and are so obviously are not pure sailing machines, that regular sailors don't relate to them.

The real reason that regular sailors don't relate to them is simpler than that.

It is one pure moment when the engine is turned off and the boat starts to move silently under sail.

The best moment in sailing.

MIK

[RHough]

----------------------
Just ridiculous! I imagine that by now every major ocean race has been won by a boat using movable ballast and many records have been broken by movable ballast boats-production and custom-and will continue to be.
When confronted with the undeniable results of the incredible power and speed of these magnificent sailing machines the "anti-techno's" led by the by the self proclaimed Chief"Retro Dude" come up with a concoction of absurd,twisted fantasy "facts" to show that the boats really aren't that fast afterall.
Unbelievable! And I do mean unbelievable....

Yup ... the title "Retro Dude" is one that Mr. Doug Lord gave to me after I failed to embrace one of his flights of fancy. If the antics of Doug Lord are the future of sailing, it is a title that I wear proudly!

As always, Doug attacks the poster and does not address the facts.

Skandia with it's power assisted systems manages 1.04 S/L while a 1973 S&S design sails the same course at a S/L ratio of 1.07 ...

I thought that if C A Marchaj finds comparing trends in S/L ratio speed has merit, it might show how fast or slow the powered contraptions really are. I suppose that D Lord should have no problem disputing the theories and opinions of C A Marchaj. Instead we see him state that Marchaj's comparision of S/L ratio speed is "a concoction of absurd,twisted fantasy "facts" to show that the boats really aren't that fast afterall."

D Lord knows more than C A Marchaj ... who knew?

GGG...

Powered systems that increase safety through more accurate navigation and communication are in no way comparable to powered systems that supposedly increase boat speed. I would have no problem banning internal combustion engines for generating electrical power. It would spawn lower power requirement systems, more efficient water, air, and solar charging systems, and smaller, lighter storage systems ... all good things.

[Doug Lord]

From the Notable thread(due to it's relevance here):
---12.75' Moth foiler-max speed (so far): 27.9 knots-uses movable ballast.
---Aussie 18-max speed-(so far): 30 knots-uses movable ballast.
---VOR70-max speed-(so far):40.6knots; 23.45 knots for 24 hours-uses movable ballast.
---Alfa RomeoII(sistership to Wild Oats)-max speed-(so far):35 knots-uses movable ballast.
---Open 60-max speed-so far-30 knots-uses movable ballast.
------------------
And this is just the begining: movable ballast applied to big boats in much the same way it is applied to dinghies is revolutionizing monohull speed-now just 10% below that of the fastest multies. And those fast multies use hydrofoils! When mono's begin to use hydrofoils in combination with movable ballast that gap will go away.......
===============================
Happy New Year!

[CT 249]

I'm not quite sure that going from engine-powered instruments and lights to engine-powered systems is just a change in degree. The engine came along as a safety and convenience item long before there were electronics in offshore racers* and when nav lights were oil-burning. I think the first set of electronic instruments in Australia, for example, were installed when the Aussie team went over to the UK for the 1965 Admiral's Cup. Long before that, engines were mandatory offshore here. As late as 1973, I think, the French still didn't have engines in boats as big as the 40' Finot Revolution.

Since engines were already there, and nav lights were already there, it was no great change in the sport to link the two. And there was a fair bit of controversy over electronic aids to navigation like Loran when they first came in, but the obvious safety aspects were a factor that made them hard to keep out.

Watermakers were a line call as far as improving performance, I think, and only apply to trans-ocean racers.

So the use of engines for lights and electronics wasn't a big leap. It really made life easier and safer without making the sport fundamentally different. When I started ocean racing at 16 it was all sextant work (no Loran here, no radio beacons between Sydney and Noumea), shifting to GPS is incredibly cheap and hasn't changed the basics of the sport.

Just in my opinion, there's more than a change in degree in using the engine to move parts of the boat, rather than move electrons. The change in moving the gear into "forward" when you're charging the batteries is minute in some ways, but it has an enormous effect. Same with canting, or it's not a revolution.

Even if it IS a degree change, it's still the old slippery slope argument, isn't it? Sometimes you must stop changing things by degrees, or we'd be sailing to Hobart with coach boats giving feedback on sail trim, we'd roll the boat all the way through calm patches, we'd have full routing and tactical advice over the radio all the time rather than just weather reports, etc. It's only a matter of degrees (many degrees, but just steps) between having a big RIB and 240 foot powerboat around as a tender for your maxi, and having your 240 foot powerboat smoothing the seas in front of you......

It's like pumping, a certain degree of latitude doesn't change the sport but unlimited use does. Which brings me to the (very valid) point about exclusions from other rules. Since windsurfers brought in pumping, they have (1) found the numbers competing have gone into a massive decline, despite the fact that the boards go faster, thereby indicating that sometimes you MUST take a stand; (2) can no longer race against craft that don't pump as they used to. Actually theoretically we can, but it would be totally unsporting since some boards rate like Lasers but can beat Tornadoes in very light winds. A Laser could also beat a Tornado if they changed their pumping/rolling rules by just degrees, and it would destroy the class. So a change by degree can have enormous impact, as we all know.

Interestingly even a forward-thinking guy like Phil S. sits on his foiler Moth and says that "air rowing" (windsurfers pumping in light winds) isn't sailing, yet again it's just a change in degree from normal pumping, and less of a change in degree than using engines to cant ballast. And the latest windsurfer class has banned pumping totally, yet another of the many, many examples of people banning technology for the good of the sport.

Canters break records, but I tend to agree with the guy who wrote "Every time we read "record smashed," it is almost hilarious. It takes a 100 ft canting keel maxi to "smash" the record established by a 60 ft sloop in the Sydney Hobart race. Check each major race around the world and you'll find new hyped, but meaningless records. Records in sailing should be about tremendous human achievements, performance, achievement and courage. We must get back to meaningful records. Just like in golf: The record on any course is meaningful. Certain technologies for balls or clubs are banned."

So how do we increase publicity? "People watch golf on the tube because people play golf. There are no crashes, multi-million dollar machines, adrenaline rushes.
Golf is a participation sport. The same should be true with sailing: We'll get TV coverage when we grow participation and people watch, like they watch golf."


RHough, I agree that the S/L ratio of the big canters isn't that fast compared to small boats, but canters are quick for their size. The S/L ratio of all big boats is slower than that of comparable small boats, canters or not, as we all know. The funny thing is that some people want to allow for the physics that make big boats comparatively slow, yet they don't want to allow for the physics that make cruiser/racers, old boats, cheap boats or small-rigged boats comparatively slow.




* I think there were no electronics offshore then. And I know that an offshore-size boat with no workable engine is a PITA from bitter experience.

[BOATMIK]

A second though (thats good for me in one day)

Doug: "every major sailing race has been won by canters"

With the Hobart, aren't they considerably larger than the biggest conventional boat?

Is this the case for other races?

And any except the smallest canters are still not sailing boats by the standard definition - so they don't count.

(just thought I'd re-emphasise the point) :-)

MIK

[BOATMIK]

Skandia with it's power assisted systems manages 1.04 S/L while a 1973 S&S design sails the same course at a S/L ratio of 1.07 ...

Hey Man,

I think you may be onto something here.

I know Love and War (the 1973 boat) quite well - it is a veteran of races when they were set up to be tough tests of skill and holding the boat together.

It is a veteran of the Fastnet, many Sydney to Hobarts and perhaps more importantly all the little gnarly offshore races that used to be up and down the NSW coast - which in some years were a real test of boathandling and seamanship. You could break a boat as easily in them as you could in the Hobart

Most were overnight or a bit over 24 hours.

But they have all been discontinued - the big boys didn't like them I believe. Expensive because of the gear breakage and no newspaper headlines.

But back to the point - well built, maintained and sailed boats like L&W will handle virtually anything that the sea can toss at them.

But I wonder how much the latest speed freaks have to slack off to avoid breaking the boats in conditions that some of the older boats were considering "moderate" (at least two of the crews in contention for handicap honours mentioned this)

The S/L ratios might indicate something of the type is happening. The canters are perhaps too heavily optimised for speed in ideal conditions?

MIK

[RHough]

From the Notable thread(due to it's relevance here):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Lord
---12.75' Moth foiler-max speed (so far): 27.9 knots-uses movable ballast.
---Aussie 18-max speed-(so far): 30 knots-uses movable ballast.
---VOR70-max speed-(so far):40.6knots; 23.45 knots for 24 hours-uses movable ballast.
---Alfa RomeoII(sistership to Wild Oats)-max speed-(so far):35 knots-uses movable ballast.
---Open 60-max speed-so far-30 knots-uses movable ballast.
------------------
And this is just the begining: movable ballast applied to big boats in much the same way it is applied to dinghies is revolutionizing monohull speed-now just 10% below that of the fastest multies. And those fast multies use hydrofoils! When mono's begin to use hydrofoils in combination with movable ballast that gap will go away.......


===============================
Happy New Year!

It had no relevance there either.

AFAIK Moth's and 18's do not use ballast (moving or not) .

Equating crew weight with ballast shows that you have no grasp of the concept.

[Doug Lord]

VOR 70-4.85
Alfa Romeo II(sistership of Wild Oats)- 3.62
Open 60-3.87
---------------
These are easily attainable S/L's for modern monohull ocean racers and virtually unheard of in the good old days-and thats progress. Basing S/l ratio's on race statisics that include periods of lulls, head seas etc. and that don't(didn't) apply to all boats in the race equally has absolutely no value at all.Basing an assesment of the state of the art on such voodoo is,well,voodoo.

[BOATMIK]

VOR 70-4.85
Alfa Romeo II(sistership of Wild Oats)- 3.62
Open 60-3.87
---------------
These are easily attainable S/L's for modern monohull ocean racers and virtually unheard of in the good old days-and thats progress. Basing S/l ratio's on race statisics that include periods of lulls, head seas etc. and that don't(didn't) apply to all boats in the race equally has absolutely no value at all.Basing an assesment of the state of the art on such voodoo is,well,voodoo.

But in real sea conditions what happens?

The smaller and simpler a boat (to a point) is the closer it can sail to these s/l ratios.

But as the retrodude pointed out an almost 40 year old ocean racer managed a better speed to length ratio than the winner. So what is the theoretical performance worth if the high tech boat has to be nursed all the way in real conditions and retire as soon as the conditions get a bit nasty.

If it had blown up to 50 or 60 knots for several hours the results would have been completely different - and that's what you have to bank on with ocean racing.

It is not about finding a 24 hour window of "nice" weather for a blast down to Hobart.

And the canters are not sailing boats unless they get stop running their engines to enable the boats to sail.

They don't deserve to be in the Hobart and the only thing that has put them there is dollars.

How can they avoid something as fundamental to our sport as:
42.1 Basic Rule
Except when permitted in rule 42.3 or 45, a boat shall compete by
using only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her
speed. Her crew may adjust the trim of sails and hull, and perform
other acts of seamanship, but shall not otherwise move their bodies to
propel the boat.

It takes dollars to get around such obstructions.

MIK

[Doug Lord]

How can they avoid something as fundamental to our sport as:
Her crew may adjust the trim of sails and hull, and perform
other acts of seamanship, but shall not otherwise move their bodies to
propel the boat.

It takes dollars to get around such obstructions.

MIK
=========================
So, are you saying that the sailors of Moths, Lasers, 49er's,Lightnings,Thistles,Hobies,windsurfers etc,etc are violating the basic premise of sailing???
They must have a lot more money than I would have thought.....
---
Hold it-maybe they don't propel the boat when they move their bodies so they're legal,huh? Maybe the boat would just sit there if they moved their body with no wind? Maybe it's actually the WIND that moves the boat whether it's a 16'Hobie or 98' canter?
Maybe it's all just great ,spectacular sailing?

[RHough]

VOR 70-4.85
Alfa Romeo II(sistership of Wild Oats)- 3.62
Open 60-3.87
---------------
These are easily attainable S/L's for modern monohull ocean racers and virtually unheard of in the good old days-and thats progress. Basing S/l ratio's on race statisics that include periods of lulls, head seas etc. and that don't(didn't) apply to all boats in the race equally has absolutely no value at all.Basing an assesment of the state of the art on such voodoo is,well,voodoo.

I'll forward your opinion to C A Marchaj, I'm sure that he will find it amusing. He'll be glad to know that the pages he devoted to such comparisons are voodoo because D Lord says so.

The only speed that you posted that carries any weight is the 23.45 BDR for a VO70 (S/L = 2.80). The other speeds are not backed by data. Some dude with a GPS claiming xxx knots is indeed voodoo. My Catalina hit 12.4 knots (10 second GPS average) for a S/L of 2.48 ... I guess Catalina 30's are almost as fast as VO70's (foot for foot)?

The fact is that YOU are the one claiming that modern mono's with their hinged keels and powered systems are faster. Evaluating the overall performance of the boats over ocean race distances is valid to support or dispute the claim of relative speed. Dubious claims of top speed don't win ocean races.

If you want to compare outright speed you have to show that the brave new breed is faster outright ... you can't, because they aren't.

You try to claim that they are fast in the ocean, yet the hard data available to anyone with an Internet connection does not show that to be true.

You tout Wild-Oats' performance in the S-H as being some great achievement made possible by the technology you worship, but the data does not support that either.

What you can prove is that boats with engines are faster than boats without engines, but anyone born in this century knows that.

Instead of addressing facts, you claim voodoo, call the ideas and posts of others rubbish and cite unsubstantiated claims of speed as your defense.

And you have the gall to whinge about personal attacks.

[Doug Lord]

Wrong again,dude: all the facts I quoted were from or derived from the September 2006 Sail magazine.......

[RHough]

=========================
So, are you saying that the sailors of Moths, Lasers, 49er's,Lightnings,Thistles,Hobies,windsurfers etc,etc are violating the basic premise of sailing???
They must have a lot more money than I would have thought.....
---
Hold it-maybe they don't propel the boat when they move their bodies so they're legal,huh? Maybe the boat would just sit there if they moved their body with no wind? Maybe it's actually the WIND that moves the boat whether it's a 16'Hobie or 98' canter?
Maybe it's all just great ,spectacular sailing?

You can't even read english.

"Her crew may adjust the trim of sails and hull ..."

The crew can adjust hull trim, but moving ballast to do so is not legal.

[RHough]

Wrong again,dude: all the facts I quoted were from or derived from the September 2006 Sail magazine.......

"Facts" because some editor in a magazine took someones word for a speed claim?

Derived from ...? Like, "When viewed through my rose coloured glasses"?

Where is the data? :P

[BOATMIK]

=========================
So, are you saying that the sailors of Moths, Lasers, 49er's,Lightnings,Thistles,Hobies,windsurfers etc,etc are violating the basic premise of sailing???
They must have a lot more money than I would have thought.....
---
Hold it-maybe they don't propel the boat when they move their bodies so they're legal,huh? Maybe the boat would just sit there if they moved their body with no wind? Maybe it's actually the WIND that moves the boat whether it's a 16'Hobie or 98' canter?
Maybe it's all just great ,spectacular sailing?

Doug I think you are being a bit narrow here.

You KNOW these rules don't cause probs to conventional boats or even shifting ballast boats.

But they do cause problems for boats running their engines for the purposes of basic seakeeping.

Best wishes

MIK

[CT 249]

=========================
So, are you saying that the sailors of Moths, Lasers, 49er's,Lightnings,Thistles,Hobies,windsurfers etc,etc are violating the basic premise of sailing???
They must have a lot more money than I would have thought.....
---
Hold it-maybe they don't propel the boat when they move their bodies so they're legal,huh? Maybe the boat would just sit there if they moved their body with no wind? Maybe it's actually the WIND that moves the boat whether it's a 16'Hobie or 98' canter?
Maybe it's all just great ,spectacular sailing?

Hiking on 49ers, Lightnings, Thistles, windsurfers does NOT violate the rule Boatmik posted.

One thing that I don't get is why, if canters and movable ballast and foilers excite you so much, you don't go out and sail one. If they don't excite you to just get on a plane or bus and go up to hop on board Maximus or a Z86, why would they excite other people so much that they will cause a "revolution" (ie 5,700 boats/year like the Laser; 400 boats/yr like the J/24; up to 1 million boards/year)???? If foiling doesn't excite you enough to encourage you to get a foiler Moth and experience the state of the art, why should it excite other people enough for them to get a foiler?

Remember, other "revolutions" made enormous changes in the sport, in numbers of boats launched, within a very short time

If you want to come out here. you should be able to get onto a movable-ballast boat; after all it's no big deal. It's quite fun to drive a movable-ballast maxi under assy, you should try it some time*. You can watch a fleet of foiling Moths, and maybe see if you can sail one. Why not try it?

PS - Frank Bethwaite and Rob Brown, multi 18 Foot Skiff world champ, Australia II crew member etc, put the 18's speed as 35 knots. And in S/L terms, windsurfers and kiteboards make everything look a bit slow.

* but the extra fun isn't enough to warrant changing the rules.

Tell me, how exciting does this look, really?

[BOATMIK]

VOR 70-4.85
Alfa Romeo II(sistership of Wild Oats)- 3.62
Open 60-3.87
---------------
These are easily attainable S/L's for modern monohull ocean racers and virtually unheard of in the good old days-and thats progress. Basing S/l ratio's on race statisics that include periods of lulls, head seas etc. and that don't(didn't) apply to all boats in the race equally has absolutely no value at all.Basing an assesment of the state of the art on such voodoo is,well,voodoo.

But you are doing the same thing here.

These boats have managed these speeds at one point in their career.

But they have spent the rest of it at lower speeds.

As retrodude points out - the canted keel "winner" barely managed a S/L over 1.

I have a proposal - simple but effective.

We remove half the ballast from all the boats you mention.

It will improve their ultimate S/L

So I have improved the "state of the art" as you define it.

But really it comes down to real boats in real conditions.

If the wind had come up to 50 knots I would be betting real money that none of the canters would have made it.

But Love and War still would have - she has done exactly that in the past.

The canters like wild oats seem to be built around the premise that they will get a perfect 24 hour window and blast down to hobart in that time.

Even Love and War has better rounded performance than that - whatever the wind condition she will finish and do well in the placings.

The narrowness of the performance data you are presenting here is misleading.

A reasonalbe 40 ft multi would clean them up upwind or reaching and probably downwind in real sea conditions.

It's not sailing "state of the art" by any reasonable measure.

And I would continue to argue that it is not sailing anyhow - as soon as that engine is ticking over to get basic seakeeping ...

MIK

[CT 249]

Is this really all that boring?

Would you really say that people will look at a pic like Alfa (above) and then look at a pic like this of fixed-keel no-movable ballast Pegasus 77, and go "Gee, that Pegasus makes sailing look really boring - but that Alfa makes it look so good I'll get into the sport!".

Is there really THAT much difference in terms of attracting attention and creating visual spectacle, between canters and non-canters? Sure as hell there isn't.

Most of the people who watch the race don't know a canter from an IOR maxi. The media gets no more excited about the latest canters than they got about the latest IOR maxi, or the latest IRC maxi. They get excited about maxis regardless, and they get excited about little boats.

PS - and using the Open 60 S/L figure as proof of the success of shifting ballast boats ignores the fact that in light winds, around a short course, or upwind they are slower than a fixed keel IRC racer, as demonstrated by Xena; by Hugo Boss in the Hobart before this one; by Gusto this Hobart; and by several Opens (40s, 50s, and 60s) in the last Fastnet, and in other races. So S/L in perfect conditions for the boat does not necessarily translate to a boat that performs well all-round.

[Chris Ostlind]

My dearest friend Doug Lord,

You are once again at the precipice of losing it, grandly, in the face of far superior logic, statistics and just plain old seamanship. My most sincere suggestion would be for you to completely drop out of this discussion while you still have some semblance of skin left on your body.

These guys, as collected, have vastly more sailing intellect than do you, their cumulative sailing/racing experience would squash you like a bug and yet... there you are waving your magic pistol of "the newest high technology" as if you can sustain the hit from a 20 foot shorebreak wave while you stand, making sand castles on the beach, as if you were an immune 10 year old with a shovel.

Dude, back out now while you've got a chance to save this twinkling moment of integrity.

Your most considerate friend,

Chris

[Alan M.]

To me it's simple : if they have to run an engine to make the boat work then it isn't really a sailing boat. And the Sydney - Hobart is supposed to be a race for sailing boats .

[Torvie]

Dear All,
I can't help the feeling that some people seem to have forgotten why we enjoy sailing (and racing). There is little point in competing in an event where the playing field is so uneven you haven't the faintest hope of doing well. CT 249s comments make sense to me. I accept that the fastest boats (monohull) at present are 30m canting keel maxis. No doubt a 60m version would be faster still for those that could afford it.

So lets have an "open" race. That would attract a field of about 6. The interest and mystique of a classic ocean race would be gone (forever). I am not sure what American yachties would do in this situation, but I think that the Australians would say "stuff this" and we would arrange our own race where everyone could compete and enjoy. This is the sort of schism that kills sports and it would not be good for sailing.

Comparisons with F1 are meaningless. It is viable only because of the budgets and vested interest of the major carmakers. Incidentally, it is one of the most tightly regulated of sports. Any undesirable trend such as the ground effect cars (that although faster were thought to be "too fast" and not safe) is regulated out of the sport (canting keels?).

Most of us who race also like to use our boats for socialising and cruising. Extreme race boats although faster when fully crewed, are harder to sail, less forgiving and less seaworthy than less extreme designs, especially in the smaller sizes. Conditions off our coast are not always easy and I am not prepared to have a boat that puts my family at risk when the weather is less favourable. I also can't afford to loose a mast or have a boat that is uninsurable. Likewise, I can't afford to build a new boat every few years when my old one is no longer competitve (and therefore worthless). Racing rules that restricted entry to the latest extreme racing design would be a sure way of ensuring most of us didn't race.

I don't think there is too much wrong with an event that every year attracts a field of nearly 100 yachts with local and overseas entries in a country as small as ours. I think that it is great that the favourites ranged from small to large, old classics to the latest maxis. Remember that under IRC you have to sail very well to win - Love & War's elapsed time was pretty good for a boat her size, regardless of age or handicap. Sailing to me is a participation sport and needs to be kept that way to be enjoyed (and to thrive long term). Those who prefer to spectate can always watch the F1 on TV.

[wet feet]

Novel technologys have been applied to sailboat development for a very long time.The good ones tend to remain in use and be widely adopted.Canting ballast may have its uses in the interest of extracting boatspeed,but conceptually its not too different to the sandbaggers of old.They had to use muscle power to rearrange the ballast because the internal combustion engine had yet to be invented.
Its difficult to see CBTF being used for anything other than well budgeted racing boats.The recreational sailor may not appreciate the constant droning of the engine and the resultant reduction in the boats range to the distance achievable on the boats fuel reserves.Given their record of fragility in normal use,why would the sailor who is afloat for recreation accept the potential vulnerablity?I would imagine that almost all sailors of keelboats have nudged the bottom once in a while,what happens with a CBTF configuration?
The evidence seems to be that extreme boats are either paid for by a sponsor or a very wealthy individual.They have no thought for the resale value of the boat and the boat is unlikely to be easily adapted to any other role.This does not only apply to seagoing keelboats,the extreme designs used on the Italian lakes for the Bol d'or are really spectacular but not likely to pop up anywhere else.

[Doug Lord]

Movable ballast is without question the future of fast monohulls: from canting ballast, to water ballast to combinations of the two. Heres a rundown on some of the major technologies in use for canting ballast:
-----------------
Canting ballast is being used in several different ways on racing and cruising boats.The major differences revolve around the way the boat generates lateral resistance.With back to back Sydney-Hobart victory's and hundreds of thousands of safe miles on canting keel boats it is a technology that is here to stay. It will only get better, faster, and safer:
=====================
1)From CBTFco: CBTF™ - The Sailing Revolution
Today, we are seeing CBTF being incorporated in designs for both high performance racing boats and fast, comfortable CRUISING boats. CBTF has a bright future as designers from around the world are finding new ways to take advantage of this technology.
Canting Ballast Twin Foil™ (CBTF™) technology is an elegant yet practical and effective solution that incorporates the significant advantages of movable ballast into CRUISING and racing sailboat designs. A canting strut with a bulb of ballast at its tip provides righting moment quickly and easily. Because of the advantageous position of the ballast, a CBTF design needs only about half of the ballast required for a conventional keelboat and can be achieved at the touch of a button rather than the efforts of a large crew.
The CBTF patents cover sailing yachts using a canting keel or ballast with fore and aft controllable foils or rudders to affect changes in side force and/or maneuvering, including sections with trim tabs and jibing daggerboards.
*
The One-Design Class Schock 40 dubbed "Boat of the Year 2001; by Sailing World Magazine
**The One-Design Class Yacht is CBTF's complete solution. At 40 feet long it is a perfect mid-size sailboat for all. With Canting Ballast Twin Foil Technology™ built into the design from step one, these boats represent the next generation in sailing.
---------------------------
2) WINGS- Andy Dovell is a pioneer in this technology as was the much older Procyon . The new Backman 29 and Julian Bethwaites 79er all use versions of this technology. The use of wings on the keel bulb instead of a forward rudder or daggerboard(s) opens up lots of interior space and may be the simplest form of canting ballast. See the "Notable" thread for info on Andy Dovell's Radical 40....
-----------------------
3) Retractable daggerboard(s)-Perhaps the most widespread system used on canting keel boats twin asymetrical daggerboards are used on VOR 70's and Open 60's and others.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Engines: many of the boats using CBTF or other forms of canting ballast don't run engines to move the keel: Schock 40, Backman 21,79er, Open 6.5's and others.
As pointed out earlier almost EVERY ocean racer runs it's engine! It's a disingenuous argument that some "anti-techo's" use to emotionalize their position - singling out movable ballast boats as big bad boys for running their engine is unfair
and wrong.
As power supplies like fuel cells become available; as battery technology improves the need for any boat to run it's engine in an oceanrace will be reduced or eliminated. Thats what the future holds-movable ballast moving even on big boats without engine power at all.The future is here in many boats up to around 40' -and some larger.And the future of fast mono's is MOVABLE BALLAST-not just canting ballast. The anti-techno's and some uninformed people use the engine argument in a
lame onesided, unfair attempt to demonize canting ballast. Believe me, those same people will come up with another argument why movable ballast is evil even if the engine was not used.
----------------------
Movable ballast on big boats is NO DIFFERENT than movable ballast on dinghies: if you say that Wild Oats is a "power boat" then you must also say that every trapeze dinghy is HUMAN POWERED. And many of us know that both of those positions are absurd.....
----------------------

[CT 249]

Doug, on several occasions, you have been asked direct questions. In the spirit of discussion, could you consider answering those direct questions rather than merely repeating yourself and once again insulting those who do not agree with you? For example, is the pic of Alfa Romeo I recently posted really that much more exciting to the general public and the average sailor than the pic of Pegasus 77?

That's a fairly simple question.......is there any particular reason why you don't want to answer it?

And if movable ballast boats are so significant, exciting and breathtaking, why haven't you hopped on a plane and got onto one?

Would you like me to see if I can get you a ride? I haven't tried to get on one for a while, but it used to be easy; just tell me when you can get here to Sydney and I'll see what I can do. I'm out of the loop these days ( I haven't sailed with a canter skipper for about three weeks) but I'm willing to try despite the fact that my obvious best shot has lost its stick. Come on, this is (you say) a revolution. Why not take part in it rather than peering from the sidelines?

[Doug Lord]

......... once again insulting those who do not agree with you?


And if movable ballast boats are so significant, exciting and breathtaking, why haven't you hopped on a plane and got onto one?


---------------
CT, I have not intentionally insulted anyone who disagrees with me! And I apologize to anyone who was inadvertantly insulted.
I have ,however,'returned fire' in a manner(I hope) consistent with the approach taken toward me personally and my position by certain individuals.
-------------
I have invested years in developing movable ballast systems for RC Yachts and am putting thousands of dollars and much of my time into developing a full size movable ballast system particularly for disabled people and others in my X18T.
The tendency by several people in this thread has been to attempt to obfuscate the issues involved in the application of movable ballast by trying to tie it to the use of engine power. The same individuals who do this know that only a small percentage of all canting keel boats use engine power to move the keel-yet they persist.
The same individuals involved in attempting to dinigrate the performance of Wild Oats and others know that movable ballast is used on almost every sailboat in one form or another-most especially on dinghies.These same individuals are well aware that almost EVERY ocean racing boat runs it's engine at some point! And ,as I said earlier: if you call Wild Oats a "power boat" then you must call a 49er "human powered"-they both use movable ballast to generate more power to carry sail and both are awesome sailboats-powered exclusively by the wind.
Calling Wild Oats a "power boat" is completely ridiculous-as ridiculous as saying the 49er, Moth, Laser ,Aussie 18 are "human powered".

[Chris Ostlind]

First of all, Doug, it's not a BS argument, this business about using engines to manipulate structural components of a sailing craft for purposes of advantage. Further, comparing these engine powered, ballast devices to anything human in nature, such as hiking out on conventional boats is, as you would typically say, "ABSURD and SILLY"

This specious argument is every bit as dumb as comparing a high-powered, NASCAR vehicle with a Soapbox Derby car that runs on gravity alone simply because they both have wheels and a driver.

Human beings have been an essential component of sailboating and sail racing since the very beginning. In your effort to selectively compartmentalize the argument so you can sway opinion, you have conveniently left out that part of the equation. Or, to further your line of thinking and take it into the realm of your toy boats... perhaps what you are really trying to get at, through any means possible, is the potential for unmanned, full scale boats in the future?

Yes, there are canting keel-equipped boats in which no engine is present. I don’t believe that anyone has attacked that representation of the technology in any way shape or manner. The fact that you choose to bring that part of the non-issue into the discussion shows that you are defensive and protective of the entire engine assist argument. Further, it completely supports the principal argument that engines are really not necessary for boats of this type. I do want to thank you, though, for making that such a valid additional argument in this discussion.

If you can manage to put Wild Oats (and her type) out on the racecourse with a human powered, canting keel, I will quickly remove my objections, as would a whole bunch of other guys here. Just because it is possible to install an engine and call it fair, or worse, make hideously foamy claims about crushing exercises over non-engine equipped boats, does not make it appropriate for a sailing event. Technology exists today to allow for a full set of turbine powered jet engines to be mounted on a sailboat deck with but the tiniest of vestigial sails for "the rules". I suppose that under your total gooey love affair regime with all things techno in nature, you'd find that adaptation just dandy.

Since you are so adept at coining trite, meaningless phrases regarding these new, gooey technologies for boats, Doug, why don't you take a few minutes to come up with an appropriate, trademarked phrase that describes the defined separation of engine supported sailboats as a wholly new class that has no business having their efforts being registered alongside those of more traditional craft that do not use engines. The world will be a better place for your efforts and two hundred years from now, sailing historians will make a place for your name in the annals of the sport. "Here strode Doug Lord"

From where I sit, the owners and designers of engine powered canters made a significant departure from the norms of recognized sailing technology when they chose to go with a full time engine-on strategy to simply move the keel about. This is not the same as the sandbaggers of yore, hiking crew on hundreds of existing designs, trap wired crew or any other human based process and never will be. Industrial Revolution is a more apt comparison.

I really liked Chris Thompson's point about you not addressing any posed question if it creates too much difficulty for your pat answer process. When will you address that for which you have no answer, Doug? Is proper conversational interaction so difficult for you... or is it more about the fact that you have run out of clever retorts and you now stand naked in front of the gathered audience? EEEUUU! Check that, I really don't need to see your form naked before us at all. Perhaps hoist on your own petard would be a better phrase.

Come on, Doug, simply and efficiently answer the points as posed over the length of the thread and get yourself a measure of respect from the gang in the process.

[RHough]

Movable balast is without question the future of fast monohulls: from canting ballast, to water ballast to combinations of the two.

Moving ballast, in classes that allow it, certainly has been proved to increase performance. IMO water ballast has great potential to improve the performance of cruising mono's also.


1)From CBTFco: CBTF™ - The Sailing Revolution
Today, we are seeing CBTF being incorporated in designs for both high performance racing boats and fast, comfortable CRUISING boats. ... blah ... blah ... blah ...

The CBTF patents cover sailing yachts using a canting keel or ballast with fore and aft controllable foils or rudders to affect changes in side force and/or maneuvering, including sections with trim tabs and jibing daggerboards.
*
The One-Design Class Schock 40 dubbed "Boat of the Year 2001; by Sailing World Magazine
**The One-Design Class Yacht is CBTF's complete solution. At 40 feet long it is a perfect mid-size sailboat for all. With Canting Ballast Twin Foil Technology™ built into the design from step one, these boats represent the next generation in sailing.


Marketing hype does not prove anything. There is no requirement to prove that something works to get a patent.

Getting dubbed BOTY is no guarantee of success either. All it takes is a few minutes with a search engine to see that many "BOTY" are no longer in production less than 10 years after "winning" the award. The Schock 40 One Design is a good example of BOTY "success". The information on the manufacturers page links to Dynayacht (http://www.dynayacht.com/), since that link is a dead end, what conclusion would someone draw? Looking at the site they delivered about 6 boats, the last race results are from 2001-2002. Compare this to the numbers of other 40 foot boats built and delivered in the last 6 years. It is ridiculous to call the Schock 40 a success.

I tried to find examples of successful CBTF production boats and I was unable to find any, perhaps I was not using the right search terms. I was unable to find any CBTF boats in production, some custom or semi-custom designs in the 50+ foot range, but nothing that would indicate that CBTF is a commercial success.


2) WINGS- Andy Dovell is a pioneer in this technology as was the much older Procyon . The new Backman 29 and Julian Bethwaites 79er ...
-----------------------
3) Retractable daggerboard(s)-Perhaps the most widespread system used on canting keel boats twin asymetrical daggerboards are used on VOR 70's and Open 60's and others.


Yes, several systems are in use to provide lateral resistance. The twin daggerboard system has advantages over CBTF in that the dagger boards only add drag when they are needed, asymmetric foils are more efficient than symmetric foils when lift is required, and they require no complex linkages to adjust. During VO70 development, a forward rudder, canting keel design was compared to a dagger board, canting keel design. The forward rudder system was superior only when leeway angles were high. The performance of the VO70's is higher on a foot for foot basis than the CBTF examples that I am aware of.


Engines: many of the boats using CBTF or other forms of canting ballast don't run engines to move the keel: Schock 40, Backman 21,79er, Open 6.5's and others.
As pointed out earlier almost EVERY ocean racer runs it's engine! It's a disingenious argument that some "anti-techo's" use to emotionalize their position - singling out movable ballast boats as big bad boys for running their engine is unfair and wrong.


Here we go, you can't bring yourself to say, "In my opinion ... " , you don't set a tone that invites discussion, you set a tone that invites argument. Then you complain about personal attacks when people argue with you!

There are two or three arguments here.
1. Moving ballast is not the same as moving crew. The RRS are very clear in this respect. Ignoring this fact undermines your position, so you ignore it. Moving ballast is not legal under the RRS, *unless* the RRS is modified by class rules or sailing instructions.

2. Manual power (human). The RRS are very clear here also. Rigging, spars, and hull appendages must be adjusted by the crew using manual power. Systems that use other than manual are not allowed, *unless* the RRS is modified by class rules or sailing instructions. This is not limited to engines, batteries, and bungee cord powered systems are not legal either. Powered winches and autopilots are also excluded.

3. Comparing the performance of widely different boat types is very difficult. IMO, this is the valid reason for not racing multi-hulls or ULDB's against traditional boats. The performance polars of the three types are very different. ULDB's and Multi's are more similar to each other than either is to a traditional displacement boat. This is a good argument for placing Multi's and ULDB's in separate classes from traditional boats.

Comparing the performance of a VO70 to Swan 65 is ludicrous. Just as comparing a AA/Fuel Funny Car to a Coupe de Ville is ludicrous. They don't compete under the same rule. When claims are made that the moving ballast boats have beaten records held by conventional boats, the claims are hollow. It would be news if the moving ballast ULDB's were not faster than their conventional cousins. Why people cannot accept the fact that the new boats race under different rules escapes me. Climbing Mt Everest without supplemental oxygen has been done on several occasions, there are also tours that stop just short of carrying you to the summit. Is it fair to compare the two?

I don't have a problem with new classes and alternate ways to enjoy sailing. I have a huge problem with people that think different = better. I have a problem with people that spout hype and are unable or unwilling to back their outrageous statements with verifiable data.

It is a fact that powered systems allow performance that is not attainable using human power. The natural limit of human performance has been a cornerstone of the sport for 100's of years. What benefit to sailing in general is the result of allowing moving ballast and powered systems?

Powered system boats have to race against other powered system boats. Since all the boats have the same systems, the racing would be just as good or bad without the powered systems.

Racing is about comparing the performance of your boat, your crew, and yourself against others. It is not necessarily about ultimate speed. What pride can you have when you bring a gun to a knife fight by comparing your performance to boats, crews, and skippers that do not need special rules to compete?

Moving ballast and powered systems are not revolutionizing sailing. Compare the change from full keels to a fin/rudder combination to the change to moving ballast. In the space of ten years, the majority of production designs adopted the fin/rudder configuration. We see no such "revolution" with moving ballast on production boats. Why is that?


----------------------
Movable ballast on big boats is NO DIFFERENT than movable ballast on dinghies: if you say that Wild Oats is a "power boat" then you must also say that every trapeze dinghy is HUMAN POWERED. And many of us know that both of those positions are absurd.....
----------------------

Ah yes grasshopper ... the RRS allows human power, but bans other powered systems. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that simple fact?

BTW, the ideas are not new ... here is a cartoon from 1983 :

[BOATMIK]

Hi Randy (RHough),

Good points all well argued.

Thanks

Michael

[RHough]

Hi Randy (RHough),

Good points all well argued.

Thanks

Michael

Thanks mate. :) I doubt that any eyes have been opened or any minds changed. I just can't seem to let what I consider BS of the highest order to go unchallenged.

I could wake up one day and see a marina full of Schock 40's instead of Catalinas, Beneteaus, and Hunters, but I doubt it. If that day ever comes I will be the first to pat Doug on the back and admit the error in my thinking.

BTW. I helped commission a Riptide 50 this month. Built down your way (NZ). It is a very impressive boat. 12,000 pound displacement with water ballast and a lifting keel that reduces the draft from 13 feet to 9 or so. All carbon hull, rudder, mast, and boom. Navtec PBO Rigging and the whole lot. During sea trials it sailed = to wind speed up to 12-15 knots. Should be quite the terror on the VARC circuit next year.

Happy New Year!

Randy

[BOATMIK]

Hey,

I just had a thought!

Given the current penchant for diesel electric in commercial boats which allow the engine to be placed anywhere within the boat (as it is only connected to the drive unit by a couple of wires) ...

perhaps the canters could also use the engine to pull the engine up to windward.

Then you'd just have the much lighter weight of the drive unit static on the centreline.

Maybe this could be extended to building the galley as a moveable unit and hoisting it up to weather as well.

What other big bits of gear could we do?

Sail bins - rather than handing the sails over to the new side they could be moved over hydraulically - means crew can be busy with more important things.

There might be a nett saving of weight if the bunks are moveable too - only need to carry the weight of one set and move them to where they are needed.

FANTASTIC - there is a whole new world just dawning.

A brave new world!

MIK

[Chris Ostlind]

Frankly, I find it more than amusing that Doug never mentions bettering the human component of the sailing equation.... only bigger, tricker and more expensive mechanical stuff to solve the sailor's "problems".

Hmmmm? One can only wonder...

[Mikey]

Tell me, how exciting does this look, really?

CT 249, It looks as crowded as Bangkok, not exactly what I look for when I get out of Bangkok :)

Mikey

[CT 249]

CT 249, It looks as crowded as Bangkok, not exactly what I look for when I get out of Bangkok :)

Mikey

Eggzackly why I like to sail smaller boats. I once had a maxi T-shirt that had a number on the back, so people could just yell out "26, pull the sheet on!!". It seemed just a trifle impersonal. :p

I notice we still haven't had an answer from Doug - does Pegasus REALLY look significantly less exciting than Alfa????? The claim is that the motorboats are incredibly exciting, but (size apart) they look pretty damn much like normal yachts most of the time.

[Doug Lord]

CT: yes, really-and I bet it FEELS more exciting as well....
--------
Wild Oats in it's fantastic back to back victory in the Sydney-Hobart race won:
1) JH Illingworth Trophy
2) Jack Rooklyn Memorial Trophy(1st out of Sydney Heads)
3)F& J Livingstone Trophy-1st due south of Tasman Island
4) finished 2nd in IRC Division 0
==================
Love and War in a great handicap effort won:
1) Tattersall Cup
2) Rolex Timepiece
3) Sir Arthur Warner Trophy
4) 1st in IRC Div. 4
source Scuttlebutt or Sail-World(sorry)
-------------------------
As an aside there were at least two other canters -making 7 total- that suffered no damage whatsoever to their canting keels or mechanics during this race.
Wild Oats XI wins Sydney-Hobart. 28/12/2006. ABC News Online
Address:http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1819034.htm

[Chris Ostlind]

Wild Oats...won:
(snip)
4) finished 2nd in IRC Division 0

As an aside there were at least two other canters -making 5 total- that suffered no damage whatsoever to their canting keels or mechanics during this race.


Frankly, I see this as a decidedly embarrassing performance for Wild Oats when compared to Ichi Ban. Wild Oats is 40% bigger than the ex-VOR machine and it still finished 35 minutes (corrected) slower. And wasn't Ichi Ban assessed that mind numbing 30 minute time penalty just before the event started? That just makes it worse for WO.

In fact WO was closer to falling into third than it was to actually winning the division. And Doug, the Division is A ... not zero. http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/standings_ext.asp?submitted=true&standingsTime=current&frmClass=315&frmDivision=A

Furthermore, what was most startling was that fully 38% of the boats with canting keels that were supposed to start the race had to fall out or not start at all due to demolished masts. Since when is that a statistic to crow about? If it had been a bunch of different maladies that had mysteriously befallen the canting fleet, then you could say it was an unfortunate run of bad luck. When it's all due to mast failure, you can't simply ignore the fact and start tossing kudos for a job well done. How many boats of the non-canting variety had their masts taken down in the very same conditions? Was it equally as problematic when looking at a percentage of the traditional keel fleet?

Nearly 40% failure, out of the event, all from the same problem...? That has seriously problematic written all over it. I'm willing to be corrected on this position, but I still haven't seen any info that would tell the story differently. Perhaps Randy could shed some light on the stress issues for canting keel equipped boats and how that loading is pushed through the rig under the stress of racing?

[Doug Lord]

I corrected my previous post: there were at least 7 canters in the Hobart; two had rigging problems . I read somewhere that a fitting failed on ABN AMRO-a veteran of the Volvo ocean race(1st place) and Maximus(recent record around the Ilse of Wight(?)) has had several problems including(I think) a previous rig problem. Both boats have thousands and thousands of ocean miles completed successfuly.
To try to tie two mast failures to a canting keel(s) is absolutely ridiculous given the history of the two boats.
Trying to do that is like saying the seven(?) fixed keel boats retired because of their leadbellies....
-----------
More on the race and rig failures:
ISAF - Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race 2006
Address:http://www.sailing.org/default.asp?ID=j6vFh?A1l&format=popup
--
Radio New Zealand - Bad weather causes havoc in Sydney-Hobart race
Address:http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200612272039/bad_weather_causes_havoc_in_sydney-hobart_race
---
NEWS Flash-- Apparently, one of the new Cookson 50 canters "Living Doll" also was among those that retired-can't find out what the problem was so far.

[Chris Ostlind]

To try to tie two mast failures to a canting keel(s) is absolutely ridiculous given the history of the two boats.

Actually, Doug, to try to ignore it or pretend it didn't happen is potentially foolhardy. The history of the two boats would lead me to believe that the rigs are already suspect, but for differing reasons. Maximus taking a dump in this race and also having lost her mast just last year, would tell me the whole rig is engineered too lightly and she's suffering from being too close to the operational edge.

ABN Amro 2, if it is still functioning on the same stick as it took around the world, was probably near the end of its operational life span and they were simply trying to get in one last go before putting the boat away as a display item at ABN's corporate HQ.

The history of the two boats is true, Doug. Take a long look at how they pencil-out, though, in reality.


Trying to do that is like saying the seven(?) fixed keel boats retired because of their leadbellies....

In fact, there would be a basis for an argument if all the fixed keel craft suffered from the same family of race ending problems. To not analyze that type of issue is asking for future problems with only best guess answers and no real facts to support them.

Perhaps you would agree that canting keels increase righting moment on these dudes? Where do you suppose that additional righting moment loading is going while the boat is underway?

The problem extends past the two boats in the race.

Before the race started, Diabetes (ex Nicorette) had its mast fail just before the start and couldn't get it fixed in time for the race.

Incident report:

“The line-up for the 2006 Rolex Sydney Hobart dropped to 79 today after Ludde Ingvall's 90ft maxi Diabetes was dismasted during a training sail.

While sailing under reefed main and jib in 16-17 knot easterly winds off Sydney Heads, the mast appeared to compress causing it to buckle and fall overboard, said a disappointed Ingvall, a two time line honours winner of the Sydney Hobart race.”

"Appeared to compress and buckle" A fairly heady observation from the skipper while he's watching a carbon bomb go off just feet away from his person, yet very telling. This was a repeat, mast dumping, affair for Diabetes. Additionally, Maximus dropped its first mast last year at the Maxi Worlds.

If you want to see what goes on for most of these boats before the S/H, just flick through the photos on Sailing Anarchy’s Ocean Racing Anarchy. http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45297
There, you can see the whole deal as the keels are installed, the masts are stepped, etc. Are you now going to tell me that a full and detailed inspection is not carried out on every minute part of the standing rigging and the mast itself before it is stepped for a race as big as this one? The issue is real, Douglas, and ignoring the facts won't help you to sort through the problems in anything remotely resembling a responsible process. It could turn out that the incidents are, in fact, not related at all, but if you simply stuff your noggin in the dirt, you're never gonna know that.

Have you bothered to see if there was anything even close to the mast failure rate in the non-canting classes as a comparative benchmark? Are you aware that repetitive failures can establish a pattern and that the causal effect of that failure pattern can be the result of a secondary connective source?

You seem to thrive on technology, Doug... so, how about this? Make a serious attempt to do a work-up on the additional loads, as seen by the standing rigging on a canting keel craft when compared to a similar type of traditionally keeled yacht. Let us know if there is any reason to suspect that shroud strength and/or mast column strength is a location for concern if they remain the same as the non-canting variety of design.

While you're at it, let us know the differences in shroud type and sizing for each of the two styles of boat so we can all see if there is work being done in this area to compensate for the enhanced loads on the mast and rigging.

If there are bigger shrouds on the canter as well as a bigger mast section, then the argument is made and the trail leads in the direction of successive mast/shroud failures as a possible component in the rather strange series of events in the S/H race.

A prudent designer looks at these things, Doug. He ignores them at his own peril as a professional.

[CT 249]

Doug, so you really think that the non-sailing public think that one of these pics is more exciting than the other? Why? What is it, exactly, that makes one of them significantly more exciting? Obviously we're after info on hte boats, not the fact that one is taken from a helicopter and therfore shows more wake astern, or the fact that one was taken on a grey day and the other on a sunny day.

How many of the non-sailing public could tell the difference between a movable-ballast boat and a boat with fixed ballast? I spent a lot of my time in the crowd on Boxing Day listening to comments. Only the sailors could spot differences between boats of similar size. Two years ago I watched the start with two European high-performance sailors; they couldn't tell the difference between the canter and the conventional boat, because there is simply no way of telling them apart unless you are very close and at certain angles, or unless they have briefly canted the hull.

Given the fact that telling a movable ballast boat from a fixed ballast boat is extremely difficult, why is one so much more exciting to look at? I'll bet the average non sailor would not find one of those pics more exciting - please tell us why they would. More spray? The bow-up angle on Peg seems more exciting than the bow-down attitude on Alfa.


By the way, re "Movable ballast on big boats is NO DIFFERENT than movable ballast on dinghies: if you say that Wild Oats is a "power boat" then you must also say that every trapeze dinghy is HUMAN POWERED. And many of us know that both of those positions are absurd....."

Movable ballast on big boats is VERY DIFFERENT to movable ballast on dinghies, simply because of the fact that the dinghy crew use their personal physical effort to physically shift the ballast. The maxi crew uses an engine to physically shift the ballast. To say that they are the same is just like saying a bicycle rider is the same as a motorcycle rider, because both move the bike. We know a bicycle rider is different because they use their personal physical effort to move the bike, rather than an engine. It's just the same with powered moving ballast v crew ballast.

And I do actually say that dinghies are human powered - when I'm coaching Laser sailors I say that a Laser is part human power and part sail power upwind, because there is a tremendous amount of physical movement. However, HUMAN power is an utterly different thing in a sport to ENGINE power. A HUMAN moves the ballast in a dinghy, a MOTOR moves the ballast in a canter, therefore one is HUMAN powered and the other is MOTOR powered.

Doug, regardless of the rights or wrongs, have you looked at the number of posts that support your view and compared it to the number of posts that attack your view? Have you considered that your style or tactics may be wrong? Your posts are normally answered by a barrage of posts attacking your position. This does not look very good for the style of sailing you like. Your style (complete with criticism even of people like Rohan and FoilR for not doing enough to promote Moths!) may actually be damaging the boats you are championing.

[usa2]

CT- i am pretty sure both those boats use waterballast.

[CT 249]

Nope, sorry. I checked before and after posting the pics. Peg 77 has no shifting ballast; I was there when she was rolled out at Macca's and I've checked on the 'net.

[usa2]

my bad, sorry.

[CT 249]

No worries, mate.

Actually when I was triple-checking, I came across this comment from Gavin Brady after sailing a TP52; "I thought the Volvo 60 was nice to sail
downwind but this makes that seem like a dinosaur."

Ooops! Not so good for powered movable ballasters when a fixed-keel TP52 makes them look like dinosaurs. But of course the VO 60 isn't a canter unlike Alfa, Goats etc.

[Doug Lord]

By the way, re "Movable ballast on big boats is NO DIFFERENT than movable ballast on dinghies: if you say that Wild Oats is a "power boat" then you must also say that every trapeze dinghy is HUMAN POWERED. And many of us know that both of those positions are absurd....."

Movable ballast on big boats is VERY DIFFERENT to movable ballast on dinghies, simply because of the fact that the dinghy crew use their personal physical effort to physically shift the ballast. The maxi crew uses an engine to physically shift the ballast. To say that they are the same is just like saying a bicycle rider is the same as a motorcycle rider, because both move the bike. We know a bicycle rider is different because they use their personal physical effort to move the bike, rather than an engine. It's just the same with powered moving ballast v crew ballast.

Doug, regardless of the rights or wrongs, have you looked at the number of posts that support your view and compared it to the number of posts that attack your view? Have you considered that your style or tactics may be wrong? Your posts are normally answered by a barrage of posts attacking your position. This does not look very good for the style of sailing you like. Your style (complete with criticism even of people like Rohan and FoilR for not doing enough to promote Moths!) may actually be damaging the boats you are championing.
==============================
CT, your example is not even close to being descriptive of the facts. The bicycle person is actually turning the wheel of the bike providing motive power just like the engine is to the wheel of the motorbike. There is a HUGE difference between your example and what happens on a sailboat using movable ballast(legally).
Neither the movable ballast on a dinghy or the movable balast on Wild Oats cause the boat to move(within the rules). The anti techno's that disparagingly refer to these movable ballast speed boats as "powerboats" are pushing a pitiful
catch phrase for a technology that allows big boats to do exactly what dinghies do.
You say what is done in dinghies and what is done on Wild Oats is very different and so it is in a very limited way. But they are far more alike than they are different from a sailboat standpoint: both using movable ballast to generate power to carry sail; neither going anywhere without wind. And calling a magnificent sailboat like Wild Oats a "powerboat", implying that the engine provides motive force, is insulting ,demeaning and just plain wrong!
---------
CT, have I considered that because a small group of anti-techno's frequently make negative comments about the technology I champion or me personally that maybe I should shut up? Hell no!
This is not a popularity contest; it is a discussion(sometimes) of serious issues concerning movable ballast( or foiling or whatever); I seem to be the only one speaking on behalf of the technology as it is applied to
big boats and disabled sailing and thats fine. I'm one of the only people speaking about the incredible opportunities available to designers with hydrofoils for monohulls-that's fine too.
I also said Maximus was using CBTF 2 years ago-and I was right!
More people that like these technologies should speak up but they probably get discouraged looking at how some of the anti-technos respond to me-more likely than not going personal when their ideas run out of steam. Too bad........
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chief Ostlind-The rig doesn't give a hoot whats under it: a canting keel, two or three hulls, or a belly full of lead-just so long as it is designed and built properly for the RM developed by whatever means. There is absolutely no association whatsoever between canting keels and rig failures-or at least there shouldn't be. The science of rig design and construction for a given RM has been around generations longer than have canting keels. The only area I can see any possible guilt by association is in the fact that the masts have come down on racing sailboats....

[CT 249]

The facts are that the way the ballast is moved is very different. You said "Movable ballast on big boats is NO DIFFERENT than movable ballast on dinghies".

It is obvious that moving ballast via human physical effort is very different from moving ballast via engine power. The fact that moving ballast does not act as directly on moving the boat as moving a wheel on a bike does not detract from the fact that the way of moving OF THE BALLAST in the two examples is very, very different.

I did not say that you should "shut up". I said that maybe you should change your style of argument. Surely if you are spurring people to come out on forums and attack the technology you are trying to promote, you should consider that you may be going about your argument the wrong way.

And specifically, what are the differences that makes the pic of Alfa so much more exciting than the pic of Pegasus? Simply "yes really" is not all that convincing as a detailed logical argument.

Having (unlike you) often seen these boats, I have to say that I don't think the average person would think that they are very different to earlier boats (size apart) and therefore their "revolutionary" status may be over-rated in some ways.

[Chris Ostlind]

==============================
Chief Ostlind-The rig doesn't give a hoot whats under it: a canting keel, two or three hulls, or a belly full of lead-just so long as it is designed and built properly for the RM developed by whatever means. There is absolutely no association whatsoever between canting keels and rig failures-or at least there shouldn't be. The science of rig design and construction for a given RM has been around generations longer than have canting keels. The only area I can see any possible guilt by association is in the fact that the masts have come down on racing sailboats....


Doug,

What's with the Chief thing? Didn't you just post an apology along with a comment that you've never knowingly insulted anyone on the Forum? What would you be doing right now if my family heritage was partially American Indian? Would you be looking out your darkened windows for movement in the shadows? Does this mean I get to start calling you Squirrelly Lord?

Why don't you knock-off the smarmy cute stuff and answer the issues before you without the high school antics attached as a smoke screen? This kind of stuff should be beneath you if you want us to regard your opinions with some merit. You are getting beat down on all the issues of this topic and you are running from every well positioned argument. Now, the name calling part of the playbook is once again opened to defend yourself. Can't you do better than this?

About the boats...

I find it very interesting that you include the hedged bet references now in all your responses to my argued position. The "or at least there shouldn't be" is a classic example of guy who isn't sure of what he's talking about. He's aware that the argument against his position is solid and he's trying to play the opening so that just in case he's proven wrong, he can go back and fetch the hedge as a Get Out Of Jail Card. It won't work, Doug. You've already stated clearly that there's no possible connection and now you are stuck with it.

The second reference to the "is in the fact that the masts have come down on racing sailboats...." is another one of those, sorta kinda, maybe positions that is supposed to get you off the hook. It will also fail the sniff test, Doug, because you have emphatically positioned yourself as the absolute authority on the matter of canting keels and their rig failures and now it's clear that you have not the slightest clue as to the realities.

What do you know about the dynamic loadings being pulsed through the rigs of these boats with their hefty righting moments and large speeds when they are at sea and powered up?

You have still not answered the question as to why so many of the canters dropped their rigs. I suspect you would like to avoid that issue as long as possible, hoping it will just go away... but it won't.

It's really simple, Doug, but apparently you see no way to equitably acknowledge that potential as it would mean that the new, techno-boats could have a weakness in their plan. That, in turn, would detune your wild claims and leave you holding sand.

I say the engineers do not have a complete idea as to the wide range of stress forces surging through these boats and they are winging it on a case by case basis. The result is that rig after rig is popping off at an alarming rate and they are just doing it by a best guess engineering method until they get the patterns sorted and a proper mast section/ rigging process is finally understood.

Oh, yeah, we've only just begun this process of discovery and eventually, someone will do a full-tilt analysis of the issues present. They'll model the issues at work, and the real culprit, or culprits, will be revealed. In the meantime, rigs on the canters will continue to fall at unprecedented rates compared to non-canting keeled yachts and you'll have painted yourself into another high tech corner from which the only escape is to play dead and hope it blows over.

Oh, yeah, the revolution will continue all right. This is a field day for the mast building shops and sailmakers.

Can somebody say Mike Golding and Ecover?

[foilr]

CT, I thought Alfa 1 was a fixed-keel 90'?

[CT 249]

Yep, that's the fixed-keel but shifting ballast (water ballasted) 90 in the pics. The pics of the canting 98 I found showed her going a lot slower (see below), so it wouldn't be a fair comparison to a fixed-ballast boat. Actually I find the canter to be a good looking boat, prettier than the 90, but the 80 remains my favourite for looks.

I also posted the pic of the fixed-keel water-ballasted 90 because I was interested in seeing how many people, and which people, would apparently assume that it was the 98' canter. It seems that some other people didn't realise which Alfa they were looking at, which may indicate that the canters don't look all that different.

I've always thought if we want to get the public to look at boats to increase sponsorship, we should do some tests to see what looks interest them. I wonder whether the public would rather look at a canter, a Swan, an IOR boat, a classic Metre boat, a schooner, a tri, or what.

[RHough]

I've always thought if we want to get the public to look at boats to increase sponsorship, we should do some tests to see what looks interest them. I wonder whether the public would rather look at a canter, a Swan, an IOR boat, a classic Metre boat, a schooner, a tri, or what.

Ummm ... the public ... hard to say but non-sailors don't quite get it:

Bruno: What cha watchin?
You: The Volvo
Bruno: that don't look like any Volvo I've ever seen ... looks like a boat.
You: Sorry, the Volvo Ocean Race, these boats are racing around the world.
Bruno: Really? That's cool. How fast are they going?
You: (excitedly) Sometimes over 30 knots!
Bruno: How fast is that?
You: Almost 40 miles an hour!
Bruno: (after a pause) OH ... got a beer?

Bruno drives to work every day at speeds that are almost twice that of a VO70. That they can be racing at that speed is beyond his comprehension.

Another day:

Bruno: Hows that Volvo race thing going?
You: Its getting interesting.
Bruno: What happened?
You: Abn Amro Two just got by Pirates for second!
Bruno: How far ahead is the leader?
You: Only 75 miles!
Bruno: Oh ... you got Speed Channel?

To Bruno, racing is 200 MPH not 40. It is 15 cars on the lead lap at Daytona after 490 miles, not 7 boats that can't even see each other spread over 300 miles of ocean.

Sailing is not a very good spectator sport.

The Cup races in Perth did a great job. The on-board cameras and the weather made it LOOK like a race. They gave the impression of speed and both boats were in the frame much of the time.

The Quokka (sp?) Internet coverage of one of the Whitbreads was excellent. IIRC at one time there were over 30,000 people logging on daily to participate in the virtual race to pit themselves against the real boats.

By comparison the Internet coverage of the last Volvo sucked.

Some of the in port races in heavy air were pretty good. Big boats wiping out made good viewing. However, the big canters are not very tactical. They are too ponderous... 12 second tacks?

Ocean races are best watched with daily text updates to your cell phone. :)

Otherwise it is about as exciting as cricket, or watching paint dry.

Two hour race events are about the limit if you want the Brunos to watch them.

Bruno might watch a Hooters extreme 40 series if it was sailed in warm water and the crews looked like this:

[Doug Lord]

==============================



Doug,

What's with the Chief thing? Didn't you just post an apology along with a comment that you've never knowingly insulted anyone on the Forum? What would you be doing right now if my family heritage was partially American Indian? Would you be looking out your darkened windows for movement in the shadows? Does this mean I get to start calling you Squirrelly Lord?




============
Geez, Mr. Ostlind-I thought you'd find that humorous being from the "Gangster School of Design" and all. It was not intended even remotely as an insult.....
---------

[PI Design]

Ummm ... the public ... hard to say but non-sailors don't quite get it:

Bruno: What cha watchin?
You: The Volvo
Bruno: that don't look like any Volvo I've ever seen ... looks like a boat.
You: Sorry, the Volvo Ocean Race, these boats are racing around the world.
Bruno: Really? That's cool. How fast are they going?
You: (excitedly) Sometimes over 30 knots!
Bruno: How fast is that?
You: Almost 40 miles an hour!
Bruno: (after a pause) OH ... got a beer?

Bruno drives to work every day at speeds that are almost twice that of a VO70. That they can be racing at that speed is beyond his comprehension.

Another day:

Bruno: Hows that Volvo race thing going?
You: Its getting interesting.
Bruno: What happened?
You: Abn Amro Two just got by Pirates for second!
Bruno: How far ahead is the leader?
You: Only 75 miles!
Bruno: Oh ... you got Speed Channel?

To Bruno, racing is 200 MPH not 40. It is 15 cars on the lead lap at Daytona after 490 miles, not 7 boats that can't even see each other spread over 300 miles of ocean.

Sailing is not a very good spectator sport.

The Cup races in Perth did a great job. The on-board cameras and the weather made it LOOK like a race. They gave the impression of speed and both boats were in the frame much of the time.

The Quokka (sp?) Internet coverage of one of the Whitbreads was excellent. IIRC at one time there were over 30,000 people logging on daily to participate in the virtual race to pit themselves against the real boats.

By comparison the Internet coverage of the last Volvo sucked.

Some of the in port races in heavy air were pretty good. Big boats wiping out made good viewing. However, the big canters are not very tactical. They are too ponderous... 12 second tacks?

Ocean races are best watched with daily text updates to your cell phone. :)

Otherwise it is about as exciting as cricket, or watching paint dry.

Two hour race events are about the limit if you want the Brunos to watch them.

Bruno might watch a Hooters extreme 40 series if it was sailed in warm water and the crews looked like this:

I agree - except about the cricket. Its not boring, its dispiriting (at least, for an Englishman).

[Chris Ostlind]

Geez, Mr. Ostlind-I thought you'd find that humorous being from the "Gangster School of Design" and all. It was not intended even remotely as an insult.....


Now that you've had your poorly conceived and written comedy interlude, how about you answer some of the issues involved in our conversation? I haven't been rude to you. The issues have been kept on-point and I've addressed all your positions.

Have you run out of gas, Doug? Are you without a single answer as to why the canters are repeatedly dropping their rigs and other boats of the same size and sail area are not? Do you not have the capacity to fairly admit that there is a problem?

You see, it's questions like this, when they go unanswered by you, which show you to be something less than a deep thinking person on these matters. You have a terrific grasp of the front end loaded techno bits, but you fail to see that for every zippy new techno bit added to a boat, there's another, equally potent set of issues with which to contend. The failure rate of rigs on these new boats is alarming, to say the least, and your failure to come to terms with that issue is a crushing blow to your self-appointed position as the techno guru of BoatDesign.net. Crushing.

I can't imagine where you go for solutions when your own exercises in boat design hit a wall. It would seem that they would just sit there, unresolved, because you refuse to see that you've arrived at a technological stone wall of your own limitations. Have you had any experiences like that in the past with your own boats?

There is a path to clear air, Doug. It's called critical thinking and it starts first in your own head.

Drop the comedy schtick. (You’re not any good at it anyway, so it’s no great loss) Start addressing the issues as other, more practiced, critical thinkers than yourself present them. Emulate their process in these matters until you formulate a path of your own and join the ranks of discussion members who are gracious and humble with their intellect and experiential knowledge.

The road is clear, Douglas, get on your Vespa and Ride!

Your hopeful friend,

Chris

PS: if this was alarming for you, please forgive me. I'm taking a very technical correspondence course through the Comedy Store nightclub in L.A. and I was up all night writing a new act.

[CT 249]

Randy, I actually reckon the cricket is an example that indicates that sailing could become a reasonably good spectator sport, if done in the wrong way. Nothing happens in cricket, and it happens slowly; just like sailing. But the commentators on ABC (Aust.) and BBC radio are true experts who can give an insight into the game and intersperse the slow bits with opinion and memories of other matches, booze-ups etc.

My girlfriend has only recently been exposed to cricket, now she's a major fan; and her gung-ho approach to sport can be summed up by saying she did the Tornado worlds offshore in her second year of sailing. I wonder if sailing could be made into a spectator sport with the right commentators and with the right style - not with the overblown overhyped under-thought style that tends to be used now.


PS - Doug, does the canter in post 115 really look incredibly exciting, to the naked eye, compared to a conventional boat. In what way, please; wake? Angle? And exactly how did the water-ballasted 90 look more exciting than the fixed-ballast 77?? Wake? Bow-down angle?

Remember, much of the justification for bigger boats with power is that they are more exciting to the public. Would you be so kind as to inform us, with details, how they are more spectacular.

[Doug Lord]

Remember, much of the justification for bigger boats with Power Ballast Systems* is that they are more exciting to the public. Would you be so kind as to inform us, with details, how they are more spectacular.

CT, sure, I'd be glad to. They are more exciting to the general public because they win and win and win-almost everything almost all the time. They represent the state of the art; the essence of the most significant development in monohull sailing technology for big boats so far. Oh, and did I mention: they win and win and win......

and win
*Fixed using the RHOUGH TECHNIQUE as pioneered by him in several previous posts.

[CT 249]

IOR maxis won, and won, and won. Then IMS maxis won, and won, and won. Then IRC maxis won, and won, and won...... So there's nothing intrinsically better about bigger boats and canters according to your theory. Big state-of-the-art boats have always won. The rule-restricted IOR maxis were just as "winning". They were also state of the art in their time. Farr 40 1 tonners won and won and won and won.

It seems that there 's nothing intrinsically more spectacular about the looks of supermaxis, judging from the fact that you cannot tell us what makes the canter in post 115 look so much more exciting to the naked eye, as was requested.

And may I ask how many times have you been with a bunch of the general public watching a maxi canter? Where did you get this knowledge of what interests the general public as they watch a maxi canter?

PS not all CBTF maxis win. Maximus, the biggest boat in the Bermuda, finished behind smaller fixed keel boats. It then finished only about 8 minutes ahead of the Volvo 70 ABN Amro in the Round the Island race, despite being 28 feet longer. And in a major Med race, it was beaten by the 80' (I think) Maxijena. And Genuine Risk, at 90ft, got beaten over the line by the 68.5ft fixed-keel Peligroso in the Ensenada Race.

[Doug Lord]

If you talk about CBTF then it's probably best to refer to the CBTF boats designed and engineered by Reichel-Pugh. The other designers may have paid the patent fee(better late than never) but didn't quite have the knack of CBTF designing at their boats' early stages-at least not to the extraordinary level of Reichel-Pugh.Perhaps boats like Maximus and Genuine Risk could have used the consultation denied them during design and construction-you know: when they still thought they could rip-off the technology.
Now that they are in the CBTF fold I'm sure they're getting some technical assistance.....
CT, you neglected to mention the new record recently set by Maximus--why was that?

[RHough]

CT, you neglected to mention the new record recently set by Maximus--why was that?

Because record setting is not relevant in the context of what makes racing interesting for sailors or the public?

The point being that high tech boats with the latest systems are not required to make racing interesting. You and I find them interesting, because we are "into" the technology in ways that the general public is not. These things make a difference to us, but not to my mother or cousin Bruno.

You are correct that foiling Moths are of passing interest to the public, they are visually different from other sailboats they have seen. This is not the case for maxi's. Canting keel maxi's look just like conventional maxi's, even someone that knows the technology has to look hard to tell the difference between a conventional boat, a water ballasted boat, and a canter ... much less the difference between a CBTF boat and other canters.

Randy

[CT 249]

I didn't mention the record because it's not a great example of superior efficiency.

The old record was set by a cruiser-racer taking part in a race at a set time and taking the conditions as they found them. Previous records were set by smaller boats.

Maximus' record was set by a crew who pulled out of the race they were going to do because conditions were perfect for the RTI. Of course in such conditions they got a faster run. If you select an ideal day for your racer, you have a big advantage over a crew who took the conditions they happened to get when they were racing their racer/cruiser.

"Today the conditions were perfect with none of the four major legs of the course on the wind; you need them free to the wind, and today they were. We had just a small bit of a beat from Bembridge to the Forts, just a couple of miles and the rest was free. It was a good as we could get for the conditions" said Harold Cudmore.

But of the course I mentioned those failures by CBTF boats was because if someone chooses to endlessly trumpet the successes of a style of boat, for the sake of balance other people must point out when they fail to win and indeed get beaten by much smaller yachts.

[Chris Ostlind]

Just to offer a total rebuttal to Doug's claims of Wild Oats XI line honors placement in the S/H as a "Crushing".

I present the following results for a well known and very recent big water race; The Pacific Cup which sails from San Francisco to Hawaii in even years. Take a long moment to scope-out the size and style of boat that took these honors. Not a full-horse race boat, not equipped with a canting keel or full-time running engine for keel movement, no deck mounted ballast track for wanky hunks of lead that fly back and forth, no bi-foil system for catching weed enroute... just a straight-forward well appointed sailing machine that was sailed with brilliance to a remarkable set of victories.

Doug... This is a crushing, dominant win:

In last summer's Pacific Cup, Tom Akin's Belvedere-based Santa Cruz 52 Lightning made a clean sweep: first to finish, first on corrected time in class, first on corrected time in fleet.
Photo and report courtesy of Latitude 38