Offshore 30' ish class development [Archive]

DGreenwood

02-16-2007, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Crag Cay in the Stability/Seaworthiness threadYes that's certainly one hat that has been thrown into the ring and has also gathered a bit of momentum. However the range of options for a class at this size is probably represented by the Class 9.50s at the high powered end and the Koopman VQ32 at the other.

Whilst everyone is agreed that the jump in offshore race boats from 6.5's to Class 40 is too big, the debate is about how to fill the gap. Mini 6.5's can be seen as little versions of the Open 60's in their complexity and (relative) cost. The Open 50's, 40's and 30's are also scaled versions of the same thing, but never really took off as the savings they represented were limited. Class 40 then came along and offered something radically different in concept and numbers soared as they met a real need.

My concern with the Class 9,50 is that it is again a scaled down version of, this time, the Class 40 with a few further material restrictions. Is this enough to differentiate it from the Class 40's, or do we need to look at something more than just cost cutting if we are to (hopefully) attract another surge in interest in short handed sailing?

30 footers should be the most popular class by far. We need to learn the lessons from the Whitbread / Mount Gay / Open 30 / Figaro classes, etc and make sure we end up with something that is not only financially attractive to the average sailor, but is one he /she wants to sail.

Sorry I just did not want to hijac the other thread and I found your comment on this interesting.

First I would have to disagree that every one thinks the jump from Mini to Class 40 was too big. I would speculate it is the fastest growing offshore racing class ever. However from the Ministas point of view it is a big leap.

I like the 950 idea. It achieves the right balance between open class raciness and affordability for the common guy. I think there is alot of appeal in the individual nature of open style, as opposed to the production sameness of the Figaro type. There are many who want to identify with and fantasize about racing against the pros. They want something a little differnet than the next guys, but still recognisable as a type, without going to the wild expense of the carbon boats. On the other hand you still have to attract the more serious offshore racing guys. This is the real key to selling these.

As to it being a scaled version of the Class 40, I think as long as the 950 is not expected to be a Southern Ocean boat it will be even more successful than the Class 40. 1000 mile races, or at maximum, the Transat or Transpac they would be a ton of fun relative to their expense.

Crag Cay

02-16-2007, 03:02 PM

Hi there, thanks for doing that.

Firstly, as I said, I wasn't implying any criticism of the Class 40s in any way. I think they have got it just right and the proof, as always, has been the number of people who are buying and sailing these boats.

And by 'big jump' I guess I meant that there was room between the two (6.5 - 40) for another class. However it's a 'size point' that has been tried before with the Whitbread / Open 30 but with a spectacular lack of success. I'm just keen we don't add another tomb stone into that particular grave yard. I also recognise that there are production boats (traditionally the Figaros) that have, or could, do good service, so again we have to be sure why people aren't flocking to these either.

The Class 40 is a success because it was market lead. It recognised a need amongst sailors and gave them what they wanted. I'm keen that we respond again to need at 30ft and don't merely assume that a downsized 40 will be a hit.

So I have been doing my own market research triggered by a couple of clients that have approached me. It's not exhaustive, but it's a start.

Cost: The Class 40's are still big boats, and despite representing fantastic value, do cost hundreds of thousands of euros/dollars to get on the start line. They are also large boats to dock / lift / store / fit out, etc. The Minis are complex and although stock boats and 'pre-loved' ones are readily available, really competitive ones are again far from cheap.

Versatility: The Minis operate almost entirely in their own little world. Whilst objectives like the OSTAR might feature big in people's plans, few want to get a boat exclusively for one race (common in the Mini fleet), they want a boat that will also be useful around the buoys or perhaps a weekend away. But even for the owner obsessed with short handed sailing, it's important the boat is not excluded from any of the more popular classics (STARs, AZAB, Bermuda 1-2. RBI, etc) This pretty much requires Cat A, OSR1, which in turn dictates about 30ft ~ 6000lb minimum. But they don't want an IRC plodder either.

So far the Classe 9.60 ticks all the boxes.

Ball-si-ness: The final consideration is the one that may decide the numbers who embrace this class. Doing the MiniTransat in a 6.5 is a really big deal. If the weather turns shitty for them leaving the Bay of Biscay, the human cost can be on par with high altitude Himalayan climbing. They are extremely demanding to sail and punish those who make mistakes. I have no problem with any of that and it even has merit as a way of sorting out the wheat from the chaff amongst those who aspire to professional, open class, big boat sailing.

But if we are to grow the world of short handed sailing, I think we also need to include those whose aspirations stretch perhaps no further than the OSTAR, who want to compete in these types of races but then go back to work and families. So to use a parallel from the inshore world (albeit one-designs which I'm not suggesting), are we looking for an offshore J92 type boat or a Mumm 30? Is this class just another stepping stone for aspiring sailing rock stars or do we want 'everyone' to buy one?

I favour a challenging, fast, fun, attractive good looking boat that, with a degree of effort, commitment and skill will take a regular good sailor to sea for up to a month. A boat that lots of people can afford to buy and run. Whose scantlings allow for competitive home construction by the skilled amateur and that look like they belong to the 'short handed sailing world' (as opposed to Beneteau's corporate image) and finally that fully compliment, and increase the appeal of, the already established range of Open Class boats.

I just feel the Open Class 9.50 might be a bit too 'Mumm30-ish'.

(Or in numerical terms, which side of 30 do we want the SA/Displ ratio, for instance?)

DGreenwood

02-16-2007, 05:23 PM

We are on the same page on most of this. And I think we both sense that this has huge potential if good decisions are made. I agree that the balance is delicate and some consideration will guarantee a healthy class.

One of the draws for the Class 40 and I think the 950 is the lack need for crew. Many I have talked to are just tired of trying to maintian reliable crew. There is a small percentage of experienced racers here in the states that want to have the choice to do a Bermuda race without getting hit with all the hassle and expense of crew. Others are just tired of the handicap rule bitch fights. Some of them are seeing these boats as a way to escape this. It is a small percentage but still significant. And I think it will grow.

Initially most of the potential buyers will get the SA/Displ issue and sail accordingly. This horsepower is essential to to keep the attention of the better sailors, which in turn draws the attention of the average guy. More toned down versions of the same boat can be made available in the way that Pogo has done. Muzzle them, don't Geld them. Then they are just another Mid size Chevy in a marina full of them. Most guys that buy Ferarris drive them around town in second gear...thats ok they are funding the teams that generate the image that sells the cars.

I tend to want to keep them as sporty as possible and still able to take the wife for a daysail or even camp for a night.

DGreenwood

02-16-2007, 05:33 PM

By the way this might be of interest to some:

Single-handed sailors will be gathering in Southampton on 17 March for the first Solo Sailing Conference organised by Racing at Petit Bateau Ltd.

The agenda will include the latest developments from the Class 40 scene with presentations from top designers and builders with feedback from the skippers on how these awesome boats perform on the race course.

All the forthcoming amateur solo races will be represented with news from the Mini class in UK on their events, Jester Challenge looking ahead to 2010, OSTAR 2009 and Petit Bateau's own races in 2007 and 2008.

The exciting new class 9.50 proposal by JM Vidal will be show-cased for the first time in the UK by the design promoters.

This is the first such gathering of solo racing enthusiasts in the UK and promises to be a landmark pre-season event in the solo scene.

The conference is being held at Royal Southampton YC from 2pm to 7pm on Saturday 17th March 2007. Tickets are £25 in advance and are available from
racing@petitbateau.org.uk

Crag Cay

02-16-2007, 06:26 PM

I agree it certainly is all a matter of balance. I also agree crew issues can be a big driver for this sort of sailing. I am 'between boats' at the moment as I realised I was spending more effort (and money) as a tour operator arranging other people's holidays than I was actually campaigning the boat. I hope there's a special place in heaven for race boat owners as we've certainly deserved it.

But having the ability to still do Cowes Week or Tarbert Week from time to time in this '30 footer' would be attractive to me and I'm sure a lot of other potential owners. Getting the crewed aspect of the class right from the word go would do wonders for its appeal. Howabout limiting the crew to 4 for non water balasted crewed races, so kipping on board is again an option? No more renting crew houses!

I still have reservations about who the class is pitched at. The Mumm 30 and to a degree the Melges 24 all suffered over here by being over cooked. There are always some who will have their egos puffed up by being in the same fleet as 'the pros', but most would rather race a boat that stretches, but doesn't overwhelm, their abilities.

The development of the Cork 1720 OD day boat has been interesting. The original momentum for the class came from established members of the Royal Cork YC who were tired of crew baby sitting. They wanted a dayboat that would give them all the fun without hassles. They even had Castro put 'bath rails' along the gunnel so no one could do 'ungentlemanly' things like hike out. But as they often sailed in the evenings, they did allow the option of a mast head kite to make the most of those dying summer breazes.

However, the hotshots soon discovered that you could carry the big kite in all winds if you had the skill. So the founding fathers of the class fell away and it quickly became yet another 'grand prix class' with sailmakers dominating the top slots. Now the class has introduced a 'club' version to broaden its appeal.

Although a 'two tier' version of the 9.50 might keep the appeal of the class as broad as possible, getting people to join a 'second division' or 'B team' is not always the most powerful marketing stratergy.

Will you be at Southampton?

Vega

02-16-2007, 08:02 PM

Nice. I wanted to open a thread about this new class, but I have been to busy. I am glad you have done it:cool: .

I believe this class is going to be a success. For racing solo a 40class boat at 100%, you have to be an expert sailor. I believe that these boats will be a lot easier to explore and a lot less expensive...but fast anyway.

Lot's of talk about this Class and even some designs and an existing boat that it will fit in the class, the Bongo 960 (Rolland).

Some links and the project of the Class Rule:

http://www.minitransat650.com/950%20rules%202.pdf

This one permits you to give opinions and to contribute to the Class Rule.

http://www.minitransat650.com/simple/index.php?topic=221.0

http://www.fox-tech.co.uk/projects.html
http://team.seasailsurf.com/admin/spip.php?article34
http://seasailsurf.com/seasailsurf/actu/spip.php?article4250
http://www.minitransat650.com/simple/index.php?topic=233.msg1492

DGreenwood

02-16-2007, 09:31 PM

I won't be at Southampton unfortunately, but we shall be expecting a comprehensive report from you. If you are forced to fail us, I have an aquaintance from here who will probably be there to further his interest in the Class 40 and he can update me, or at least round up any documentation that is available on the topic. I would rather get the story from somebody that is keen on the class.

The idea of shorter course racing with limited human ballast only (no water) is one that has been brought up for the C40s. I think it is a great solution. If you can't find decent crew, and because the boat is built as a single hander, you only need someone talented enough to shift his lard from one rail to the next. A couple of semi talented crew would get you by. Of course, around the cans would still require some talent but coming up with 4 is not too tough.

I have not done any estimating of the cost of a hull for one of these, but I am expecting that they will be cheap enough that something really cool will happen as a result. I can see that development in the Class 40 is going to happen rapidly as a result of the cost and exploding interest. If the 950 is close enough in nature to the 40 development will trickle up from the cheaper hulls and rigs of the 950. Something like what the Mini does for the 60s.

One of the things that is going to dissappoint many is that the price drop from a 40 to a 950 is not going to be as drastic as they imagine. There is no getting away from the cost of all the equipment, even if the hull, deck and rig are cheaper. I've talked to many class 40 dreamers and they are quite startled at the starting line price of a 40 after they see initial cost at under EU 200k from the builder.

Another advantage that I just realized is the draft. A number of people here have initially shown an interest in the C40 and been dissappointed by the draft limiting their access to their cruising grounds. This just might make the difference.

Sorry for the rambling, it is late and I should be sleeping.:o

CT 249

02-17-2007, 04:41 AM

It's a nice looking boat and seems to be a good set of rules. It's also funny that another new class that's causing a lot of interest has banned deck spreaders, canards, and canting keels, which some keep telling us are the way forward. If they were the way forward why is there so much interest in classes that ban them?

I'm not in the loop of the Open class boats and I no longer dream of sailing the Atlantic singlehanded, so maybe I should butt out. However, I'm in Crag's court I think. Couldn't the new 30 take a lead from the development class dinghies that have been running for many decades?

The popular development class dinghies have small/medium size rigs and are designed for skilled or highly skilled amateur sailors. That gives them a wide appeal second-hand, so the front end of the fleet can sell their old boats easily for little loss, and buy new boats to develop design. Smaller rigs also make boats cheaper; sailmakers sells sails by the square metre, not by the LOA of the yacht.

So why not reduce rig size and end up with an boat that is efficient on a small rig (like the NS14, Merlin Rocket, Moth, Int Canoe. National 12 etc) rather than a blown-up skiff type? Despite the marketing from the skiffs, they are (with one local exception born from liquour and gambling laws) much LESS popular than the small-rig development classes, and they have actually done LESS for design development.

So why not have a small(ish) rig boat, and maybe increase coachroof area for potential cruising life later? It could be a very nice, efficient and fast boat, in the same way as a Merlin or NS14. Ok, it won't be super-quick, but this is a 30 foot leadmine. It's not super quick no matter what you do.

One thing that worries me about the Open 40 is the huge gap in performance (according to the French handicaps) between the racer and cruiser versions. Maybe the minimum displacement should reflect the cruisier boat. Alternatively, do that the popular Micro Cuppers do and have separate divisions for Proto, Racer and Cruiser racing together.

Yes, this is a recipe for a slightly slower boat (slower for the LOA, perhaps faster for the $). But dinghies prove that this recipe works, and so do boats like the Farr 40 which are not full-on speed machines. On the other hand, I once did a count of the "high-speed" development-class sportsboats and yacht classes that died stillborn or close to it; I think there were about 18 or 25. Each of them seems to be an example of the problems of making it fast and aiming at the pros.

As Crag says, maybe the "more serious racing guys" aren't really the keys to selling these boats in numbers. As to sailing against the pros, one thing I notice is that I really enjoy sailing against the very best in a class like Lasers, where you can knock off the world champ at times if you work hard at it while still having a normal life. In contrast, in pro and and Olympic boards, a good amateur just gets eaten by the pros due to the fact that the intrinsic design opens up a big speed gap. That's just depressing.

Many other people seem to feel like me. A class that (due to its design) creates a comparatively small gap from good amateur to pro seems to attact people and be fun; a class that (due to its design) opens up a massive gap between expert and pro seems to often die quickly.

Just my 0.1 cent's worth

DGreenwood

02-17-2007, 08:58 AM

CT 249
I take your point, but I can see that our perspectives are very different.

Successful rule writing is like sex...everybody thinks they are good at it and nobody knows why the ones that are, are.
When it comes to writing ocean racing rules in this part of the world the French are in posession of the crown, the sceptre and the orb. We are in no position to argue with their success. However they have very kindly thrown this out there for us to voice our opinions. They are as aware as anybody that races like the Vendee have the potential to be considerably bigger than they already are. It would really facilitate that growth if the rest of the world were involved. The sole purpose for these classes is not to entice us into the ring but it is certainly part of it. It would serve as an incubator for all of us.

In order to write a successful rule these days you first have to be a person or a group that is connected, believable, and in the case of ocean racing, understand the mind of the ocean racer.(Whew now there is a job). You have to have been around the scene for long enough to really understand it's subtleties. Guys like Vidal hold that sort of influence and he and his pals will ultimately call the shots. I am OK with that...I have to be anyway. So if he is going to allow anything we say to influence the decisions made, our opinions must be within the confines of the spirit of the rule as basically outlined.

Their goal is the advancement of the professionalism of the sport of short-handed ocean racing. The development of the big IMOCA races into world class sporting events. To do that they need a "Farm Team" to incubate the stars of the future. Learning to be a fighter jock involves first flying a Cessna, but you don't jump to an F16 from there.
That is what this rule addresses. It is not primarily to sell more production boats to the average guy that needs a platform to drink beer on Saturdays. (Although if he is a dreamer he may help by buying one) The primary purpose is to edge close enough to that market to fund the development of racing, and still have something that is a real trainer. That is the delicate balance.

I suspect that any opinions that we throw out there will affect the rule, as it stands, by very small degrees. Weight and stability regulation methods, bow sprit type, how much interior furniture that is required, number of water tight bulkeheads, that sort of thing. I doubt that rig size will be see much of our influence. However the regulation of weight distribution will affect control of the structual integrity and RM, so there will be some affect on the sportiness of them.

I see their approach as highly informed, well intended, very sportsmanlike and having the potential to become even bigger than the Class 40. They are saying "come on over and play you guys, these things are ton of fun" And, when it comes to baking bread and writing ocean racing rules, I must defer to their success!

Keep in mind that the handicap rating, IRC, PHRF, whatever, has no bearing on the decisions made concerning these boats. You can be sure you will be rated right out of the picture. If you care this is not the right racing class for you. I spit in the general direction of handicap rules.:P

Crag Cay

02-17-2007, 09:11 AM

The reply below was before I noticed New York was awake. I take your points and like the flight training analogy. It helps illustrate my concerns.

We have the F16's/Eurofighter in the Open 60 / 50 / 40 / multihulls.
I believe we have the jet trainer (Hawk / Goshawk, etc) in the Class 40.
We certainly have the Cessna basic trainer in every dinghy and regular boat afloat.
We even have the advanced stunt acrobatic display aircraft in the Mini 6.5m!

But with the 9.50, are we not looking for the equivalent of the T6A/B Texan II, advanced trainer, where those who can fly really well, start on the road to being a combat pilot? For me the Class 9.50 / Class 40 / Open 60's progression shouldn't just be a step up in size and cost, but also skill level and demand.

**************
I think your 0.1 cents worth is very valid. The parallels you draw between development class dinghies and skiffs eloquently conveys the same message I was bludgeoning to death with the keel boat example.

I have been fiddling about with the rules this morning and some figures might help. Sail Area / Displacement ratios, using the convention fore and aft triangles show that both the Class 9,50 and the 40 are a bit more powerful than the Mumm 30 (~ mid to upper 30's against low 30's for the Mumm) but significantly higher than a J92S which is 26.

Incidentally I have used the J92S in some of these comparisons as its displacement and general size is similar to the 9.50.

However if you use all the plain white sail area, which is valid as these boats have square topped mains and leaches well outside the 'bounding triangle', the differences are quite marked. Whilst the J92S and Mumm 30, with their restriction on jib size and more conventional mains, see their SA/Displ only jump slightly, the 9.50 and Class 40 both jump to 43 (ish).

There are also some anomalies in the rules that I haven't been able to resolve. Later I will read the French version to see if something has been lost in translation. But in case someone else has some views this is what is puzzling me at the moment:

The bowsprit on the 40 is limited to 2m (6.5ft) forward of the stem, but on the 9.50 it is 3m (~10ft).

On the 40 the minimum average freeboard is 1.1m but on the 9.50 the maximum average is 1 metre. Why would you limit maximum freeboard if you are trying for a high STIX or AVS?

With the 40s, there is both a maximum mast height and a maximum sail area. On the 9.50, there is only a maximum average hoist height for main / headsail / spinnaker combined, with an upper mast limit and boom restricted to inside the transom line. There are no other sail measurement restrictions. This would seem to drive one down the route of vulnerable square headed mains with their expensive hardware and big lapper headsails which again will need more expensive rollers, cars and winches. I haven't explored whether the height of the centre of effort (hce) component in STIX is enough of a constraint in a (Cat A) boat of this size to control these factors. Views?

I can see why the 3m draft of the Class 40 would be a concern in some sailing areas. But is 2.40m (~8ft) any more attractive in a 30 footer? I know with keels size does matter, but I would like to see the performance impact of limiting draft to say 2m (~6.5ft).

Costs: These are from John Corby, who has his production 29 ft IRC racer (of similar displacement to the 9.50) built in Poland in similar materials, including the T-bulb keel, but with an alloy mast, and he quotes a price of around 100000 euros, inc tax but without sails.

As the 9.50 rule has the trade off between water ballast weight and beam, I have developed two designs of identical displacements, rigs and keels. One is at B rule max (3.75m) and the other extremely narrow (2.5m for trailering). I am hoping to run both models through a Stability Analysis and VPPs to see if it throws any more light on the wrinkles in the rule.

DGreenwood

02-17-2007, 09:14 AM

In response to your question about deck spreaders etc. The idea was to build an inexpensive trainer. One that as closely mimics the sailing characteristics of an Open 60 without the expense, without the distractions for learners and within the price range of keen sailors. Most of the items you mention are expensive. I would have never guessed how poor the speed to cost ratio was on some of those items. Look at the results of the R du R and the Class 40 finishes relative to the Open 40 and 50 finishes for proof. Pretty impressive.

Keep looking at this as a means to fund trainers and it makes more sense.

DGreenwood

02-17-2007, 09:38 AM

On the 40 the minimum average freeboard is 1.1m but on the 9.50 the maximum average is 1 metre. Why would you limit maximum freeboard if you are trying for a high STIX or AVS?

I suspect this has been mis translated. It confuses me as well.

With the 40s, there is both a maximum mast height and a maximum sail area. On the 9.50, there is only a maximum average hoist height for main / headsail / spinnaker combined, with an upper mast limit and boom restricted to inside the transom line. There are no other sail measurement restrictions. This would seem to drive one down the route of vulnerable square headed mains with their expensive hardware and big lapper headsails which again will need more expensive rollers, cars and winches. I haven't explored whether the height of the centre of effort (hce) component in STIX is enough of a constraint in a (Cat A) boat of this size to control these factors.

Is it any different on any other Open class ocean racing rule? I suspect the max is subject to some debate but the ratio SA/displ is already a known factor and the max will be adjusted to suit the hull weight decisions.

I can see why the 3m draft of the Class 40 would be a concern in some sailing areas. But is 2.40m (~8ft) any more attractive in a 30 footer? I know with keels size does matter, but I would like to see the performance impact of limiting draft to say 2m (~6.5ft).

This is where the performance comprimises start to get too big. It still must be an ocean racer.

The bowsprit on the 40 is limited to 2m (6.5ft) forward of the stem, but on the 9.50 it is 3m (~10ft).

I was going to ask about this one as well. Wild guess...I am imagining a Mini type sprit. Retractable to within the deck. Incorporates bob and whisker stays which keeps it strong yet light enough to make sense on such a small boat.

Crag Cay

02-17-2007, 09:47 AM

205. FRANC BORD MOYEN
Le franc bord moyen ne doit pas être inférieur à 1 m.
Le franc-bord moyen est obtenu en divisant la surface projetée verticale des oeuvres mortes (jusqu’à la
ligne de livet, telle que définie dans l’EN/ISO 8666 avec interprétation des ERS pour les livets
arrondis) par la longueur de coque (Lh).

Yep, it's a mistranslation. "ne doit pas être inférieur' - must not be smaller

DGreenwood

02-17-2007, 11:04 AM

The reply below was before I noticed New York was awake. I take your points and like the flight training analogy. It helps illustrate my concerns.

We have the F16's/Eurofighter in the Open 60 / 50 / 40 / multihulls.
I believe we have the jet trainer (Hawk / Goshawk, etc) in the Class 40.
We certainly have the Cessna basic trainer in every dinghy and regular boat afloat.
We even have the advanced stunt acrobatic display aircraft in the Mini 6.5m!

But with the 9.50, are we not looking for the equivalent of the T6A/B Texan II, advanced trainer, where those who can fly really well, start on the road to being a combat pilot? For me the Class 9.50 / Class 40 / Open 60's progression shouldn't just be a step up in size and cost, but also skill level and demand.

Ah-hah...now I get it. But I still think you are trying to tame them down too much. I see them as an edgier boat. The step down only being in the pocketbooks that can afford them.
In my dreams I see a keen kid who has done the YC dinghy thing and some ocean racing with the old fat guys to Bemuda...then talking the old man into spending 50k or so and building a strip version in the garage. Short races at first. Only dacron sails. Less safety gear because they are limited to 50 mile escorted races around islands. The usual overblown self confidence, knocked flat by an unexpected gust and a hairy round up with a little broken gear. Finally, one day he feels that sweet spot and gets her to speed and he wants the real thing.
The analogy of flying is not perfect in that these boats do not have a throttle lever that you just have to push. Skill = speed, it is not built in to the vehicle. Planing speeds are what these boats are about. The day you get a skiff to plane is when you realize that being good enough to hold the boat on that fine edge is the real fun. Granted, you don't want falling off that edge to be too dangerous.

One of the things that young people need out of sport these days is seeing tangible indications of skill. The finish line results are not enough. Yeah they know that an OD win is a real test of skill. But they like the test to be physical and tactile and be obvious to an observer, even if there is not one. The challenge has to be much more than cranial, or a test of patience, it has to test their nerve as well.

I don't pretend to know where that performance line should be exactly drawn. I am , I admit, a little gun shy as a result of witnessing attacks by those who would have any fun regulated right out of boating. Open class boats have contributed more to the pure fun of sailing larger keel boats, in the recent past, than any other type out there. I am loath to state this because I don't want this thread to turn into this argument. As my opinion it clarifies why I will always push to keep these boats as edgy as the insurance companies will allow...and then maybe a little more.

DGreenwood

02-17-2007, 01:59 PM

Crag Cay

02-17-2007, 03:26 PM

Thanks for the warning, but I think it was fine. However I have padded it out a bit to make it clearer.

There has also been quite an interesting discussion on SA.

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46061

I hope Class 9.50 will learn the lessons from Class 40, so they don't have to go through the same development pains.

I totally agree with the need to limit stability to break the 'more RM', 'more speed', 'more cost' spiral. Without this there will always be the temptation to either scrimp on the hull structure, use the more expensive materials (in Class 40) or use more expensive design time to optimise the layup so the weight saved can put more lead in the bulb.

I think in Class 9.50 the class organisers should use three different methods to calculate realistic scantlings and then pick a minimum hull (without keel) weight. I know splitting keels and hulls for measurement weighing is a pain, but there is another way. Remember that we are not really concerned with hull weight, but in ensuring there is no advantage to be gained saving weight in the hull structure to add to the bulb (because all up displacement is controlled). An answer therefore is to limit bulb volume, which is easy and cheap to check.

If there was a maximum total volume allowed in the lower 1.5ft (500mm) of the keel and bulb together, it would still allow experimentation with shape. To check this (and one I use when backward engineering yacht stability), you construct a water tank (or use an old bath for 9.50's) and fill it with water. Then get the travel lift to lower the boat into the tank to the required depth, collect the overflowing water and you know the bulb volume, and therefore it's maximum possible weight, and therefore keel loads on the hull structure.

I think in Class 40, the use of the RM90 test alone as the only check on stability, means every design must go for Bmax. I like the idea of the water ballast /beam trade off in the 9.50 as this would appear to give other beam options.

DGreenwood

02-17-2007, 05:39 PM

Huh? I read that post at Leos site the opposite the first time. Sorry?

I like the ballast beam trade thing too. Of course that will be modeled for max RM and a typical beam will be established.

I think in Class 9.50 the class organisers should use three different methods to calculate realistic scantlings and then pick a minimum hull (without keel) weight. I know splitting keels and hulls for measurement weighing is a pain, but there is another way. Remember that we are not really concerned with hull weight, but in ensuring there is no advantage to be gained saving weight in the hull structure to add to the bulb (because all up displacement is controlled). An answer therefore is to limit bulb volume, which is easy and cheap to check.

Not to forget the upper RM limit. That will render using weight unwisely--well unwise. I thought I would put the weight down low too but you might as well make the boat strong! Right? or am I misunderstanding something?

I thought the rule was unfinished but now I am not so sure. Have they announced these rules as final?

Crag Cay

02-17-2007, 06:34 PM

Yes, more RM is always faster. So if the boat has a minimum legal displacement, the greater percentage of that weight you can get in the bulb the better.

Not to forget the upper RM limit.
I think you're right. Perhaps this is how they plan to keep check on excessive RM. But the wording is a little obtuse:

"The boat in loading condition is heeled at 90° and kept in this position with the aid of a strop passed around the mast at the level of the band at the top point of the mast. For boat whose mast height is 15.50 m, the tension exerted on the strop must not be lower than 140kg, while if a tension higher than 190kg is applied the yacht must not have any positive righting moment anymore."

Even the French version is not a lot clearer: "et à une tension supérieure à 190 kg le bateau ne doit plus présenter de couple de redressement positif." which to me is "and with a tension greater than 190kg the boat must no longer present a positive righting moment."

Perhaps needs an email.

Are rules ever 'finished'? As can be seen from Class 40, rule reviews are an inevitable fact of life, even with the most straightforward constraints. But it must help, for as many people as possible to analyse any proposals for possible glitches before gallons of epoxy get mixed. The meeting next month certainly seems to offer the chance to pass on suggestions and I appreciate your efforts kicking this around with me. I have a couple of clients who are very interested in these boats, but want clarity about the real 'nature of the beast'. Too many early adopters of new classes have been left 18 months in, with either the only boats in the 'fleet' or very expensive prototypes for everyone else's more competitive Mk 2s.

Vega

02-17-2007, 07:20 PM

"The boat in loading condition is heeled at 90° and kept in this position with the aid of a strop passed around the mast at the level of the band at the top point of the mast. For boat whose mast height is 15.50 m, the tension exerted on the strop must not be lower than 140kg, while if a tension higher than 190kg is applied the yacht must not have any positive righting moment anymore."

That has puzzled me too. I think I understand what is said. That will warrant that the boat at 90º of heel will have a minimum RM, but also a maximum possible RM.

Initially that was not making any sense to me, but after you Guys were talking about the need to control RM for costs, that began to make some sense. If you put a limit on RM and have a minimum weight, then you have a lot of latitude in the way weight is distributed, I mean bulb and boat weight. You don’t have any advantage in putting more weight in the bulb (and make the hull lighter) if the max RM is going to be bigger than allowed. That will give stronger and more inexpensive boats.

What I don’t understand is why measure the max RM at 90º of heel. It would seem to me that the Max RM should be measured at 30º of heel, and that at 90º, the more, the better (for safety). Perhaps because it is a lot simpler to measure that at 90º of heel. What do you think?

bobothehobo

02-17-2007, 07:24 PM

Cool rule and good conversation.

As to the concern of the bulb weight/structure of boat trade-off , the rule is effictively putting a type of limit on the bulb weight by limiting the max RM in the 90 degree test. It would seem unecessary to also limit the volume of the keel.

Also, the comment regarding the classe40 beams is not entirely accurate, while most production 40's are built to Bmax, several one off boats have been built to beams less than 4.5 m. The O&C designs for example (4.15m). I had the opportunitly to discuss this topic specifically (Bmax) with Allen Clarke before the Rhoute du Rhum in regards to their entry Bollands Mill. According to Allen their (Merf Owen and Allen's) take on this (based on VPP's, loads of experience designing similar boats, and the full power of their two enormous craniums) was that with the restricted sail area of the 40's (underpowered RELATIVE to Open 60's) the speed you lose in the light due to the increased drag of wider beams is not offset by more power in heavier air as more power is not necessarily available (SA is restricted). In looking at the numbers, I would expect the same to could be said for the 9.50

Vega

02-17-2007, 07:58 PM

The most significant change to the 2007 40class rule was also the introduction of a max RM at 90º.

Red=new

302. 1) 90° TEST
This test is aimed at proving that the boat is capable of righting itself from the broached position
with empty ballast tanks.
It must be completed in the presence of a measurer substantiated by the Class 40.
When heeled at 90 degrees the loaded boat (see 201) is kept in this position with the aid of a strop passed around the mast at the level of the band at the top point of the mast, that is 19m (see 208 of the present rules). The tension exerted on the strop must be a minimum of 220 kgf and a maximum of 320 kgf.

Crag Cay

02-18-2007, 06:01 AM

I have clarification of Paragraph 302 back from Charles Bertrand which confirms that they are merely looking to enforce an upper and lower limit of RM90 as a way of regulating bulb weight as RM90 is predominately governed by the position of the CofG.

To make sure the English text is as close to the French one as possible, I sometimes ended up using sentences that may sound a bit weird...

Basically at for the 90° test, there is a minimum and a maximum RM indicated, and every yacht must fit in the range.

The minimum RM is there to make sure the boats are sufficiently seaworthy and have enough ballast to right themselves after having been knocked down.

The maximum RM is there to try and enforce a minimum hull weight. Indeed, setting a max RM at 90° is pretty much equivalent to setting a maximum ballast weight and therefore a minimum hull weight. (Providing the yachts are similar in terms of dimensions and rig weight... which they are usually); the aim being to prevent (them) from chasing weights (out of) the structure so as to put it in the bulb. Therefore it shall prevent excessive design/building costs and promote the structural integrity of the yachts.

With all the yachts lying in a restricted range of righting moment, the racing on the water should be even more exciting.

One might say that we could set a maximum bulb weight or minimum hull weight, but this involves getting the keel of every yachts and weighing them separately. The rules must be thought so as to minimise the measurements procedure and costs. The 90° is to be done anyway so it is cheap and easy to add a measure of the maximum RM during this test.

Hope this helps.
Regards,
Charles Bertrand.
So pretty much as we thought. However I would still suggest that the Archimedial measure of bulb volume is not much more involved, especially as the boats have to be lifted to be weighed.

Vega - you have to remember that the Righting Moment is a couple dependent on the position of the GofG, the Cof B and the Displacement. Here they are only trying to get a rough measure of the CofG. Assuming all the boats weigh the same (min rule displacement), we can take displacement as a constant, and at 90 degrees the Cof B becomes (almost) independent of Beam, so the only variable is position of CofG. To get an idea of the position of the CofG at any other angle of heel, including RM max, we have to know the shape of the boat in order to work out the position of the Cof B.

It's a working methodology that relates boats with a high degree of similitude to a known norm. I'm sure there are some on these fora who would like to nit-pick through the premise, but you have to remember that it goes hand in hand with a class requirement for meeting the Stability Requirements of RCD Cat A.

Bobo - My comments regarding Class 40 being driven towards Bmax was just a thought in response to the new (2007 rule) imposition of an upper limit on RM90. I appreciate some existing boats were less beamy, but now bulb weight has effectively been controlled, it will be interesting to see if new designs can still make narrow pay. I shall have to wait and see as I have enough to do exploring the 9.50 rule.

Vega

02-18-2007, 08:00 AM

Cay, what Charles Bertrand said confirms what I have thought (and said) about the finality of Max RM at 90º of heel and also why they are going to measure it at 90º (it's the easiest way).

But you have said that you were trying to develop two models, one of them substantially narrower, and in that case that rule is going to be very disadvantageous to the narrow one. The narrow boat can have a lighter hull and more weight on the bulb, but its superior AVS will provide a RM curve, slightly softer at the first 30º of heel (less RM) and a less inclined curve till the AVS. That will translate at more RM at 90º of heel.

To respect that limit (the same RM at 90º), if the boat is narrower, you will end up with a boat with less initial stability, if compared with a beamier boat. If we want to control the boat's capacity to carry sail the RM that should be effectively controlled is the initial one, not the final one.

Not a big problem, providing all the boats have approximately the same beam, but not the best methodology to obtain what is intended, even if the easiest one. Charles Bertrand also said: "Providing the yachts are similar in terms of dimensions and rig weight... which they are usually" and I agree that if this is the case, there is no problem at measuring Max RM at 90º, but not for a narrower boat.

About fixing the bulb weight, I believe this formula gives more freedom to design a boat, preventing the temptation to make weaker hulls, to put more weight at the bulb. Of course, if those values are adequate and about that I don't have a clue;)

Crag Cay

02-18-2007, 08:30 AM

What you say is true, and was the reason I felt that a similar rule in Class 40 may change the arguments against the narrower designs that have been produced.

However, I think in Class 9.50 there is a need to evaluate different beams because of the provisions of Rules Paragraph 207.02. This ensures the righting lever component of the water ballast remains constant as beam is reduced. Or in other words, the amount of water ballast allowed, is proportionally more in the narrower boat.

I don't absolutely know which way all this will pan out when all the trade offs are resolved. My gut feeling is that the linear ballast compensation won't automatically compensate for the reduction in form stability.

DGreenwood

02-18-2007, 09:20 AM

My gut feeling is that the linear ballast compensation won't automatically compensate for the reduction in form stability.

I'd put money on that gut feeling.

DGreenwood

02-18-2007, 09:49 AM

So I presume you have all seen that the upwind sail area has been limited to 80 m^2. How does that look on your sail plan?

Vega

02-18-2007, 10:14 AM

This is a pretext to post a nice movie:) and I am sorry if it goes a little out of the thread, but I believe that the sailors that will jump on these boats are going to be mostly the ones that come from this kind of races(and it is really an interesting movie:p ).

Those are boats about the same size that can go fast but needs a crew. I believe the 9.50 will go faster, without a crew. I guess that there are a lot of young sailors very excited about this class.

Take a look at the video, it’s from the "Tour de France". There are a lot of good sailors on these series, as you can see.

http://blogs.lexpress.fr/aularge/archives/2007/01/en_attendant.html

Crag Cay

02-18-2007, 10:29 AM

80m^2 (861 ft^2) of plain white sail is the figure I have been using.

It's the one that gives the SA/Displ ratio of 43 upwind (but as I said earlier NOT calculated in the conventional way by using simple triangles, becuse that seems unrepresentative with modern square topped mains and large roaches).

The spinnaker adds about another 90m^2 (968 ft^2), although I haven't seen if this is limited.

While we're talking sails, the class limit is 7 including a storm jib. What would your seven be? If the inventory was lowered to 6, what would your inventory then be (including the storm jib)? Is there any worthwhile saving?

DGreenwood

02-18-2007, 11:10 AM

I beleive you can call the trinquet a storm jib if it is orange. (at least in class 40 you can)
The question of course would be wrapped around whether to have two spinnikers or just one. If the sails did not have to be registered and I could change them from race to race...it would vary with the race. Upwind, light airs, down wind and heavy air will make the suit look very different.

DGreenwood

02-18-2007, 11:15 AM

Vega
Cool Movie...that looks like some serious fun.

Crag Cay

02-18-2007, 11:47 AM

Yeah, good bit of film. Those Mumm 30s are one of the boats I have been using as a bench mark for looking at the 9.50. The new class is going to have a greater righting moment, about a third more 'power to weight' up wind and slightly more downwind.

charlythewind

02-19-2007, 10:44 AM

Hi all,

I will be the one presenting the rule in Southampton in March.
If you have any query you wish to raise before it, please feel free to contact me. (charles@fox-tech.co.uk)

Regards,

Charles Bertrand

DGreenwood

02-19-2007, 11:00 AM

CT 249

02-19-2007, 07:46 PM

CT 249
I take your point, but I can see that our perspectives are very different.

Yep!

Successful rule writing is like sex...everybody thinks they are good at it and nobody knows why the ones that are, are. When it comes to writing ocean racing rules in this part of the world the French are in posession of the crown, the sceptre and the orb. We are in no position to argue with their success.

Sure they are successful in ocean racing terms; I suppose one of the differences in our perspective is that (as far as I know) their rules are successful only in RTW or Trans-Atlantic ocean racing; not sailing in the Pacific or Med, or Channel, or Asia, or inshore at Cork, Cowes, Spi Ouest, the big Med. races, etc.

However they have very kindly thrown this out there for us to voice our opinions.

That's good of them, and since they have done so they are surely interested in getting plenty of divergent views.

They are as aware as anybody that races like the Vendee have the potential to be considerably bigger than they already are. It would really facilitate that growth if the rest of the world were involved. The sole purpose for these classes is not to entice us into the ring but it is certainly part of it. It would serve as an incubator for all of us.

Given the desire to get the rest of the world involved, isn't it important to compromise their style to create a boat that would suit the US, Australasia, UK, Med, Scandanavia, Asia and the rest of the world?

In order to write a successful rule these days you first have to be a person or a group that is connected, believable, and in the case of ocean racing, understand the mind of the ocean racer.(Whew now there is a job). You have to have been around the scene for long enough to really understand it's subtleties. Guys like Vidal hold that sort of influence and he and his pals will ultimately call the shots. I am OK with that...I have to be anyway. So if he is going to allow anything we say to influence the decisions made, our opinions must be within the confines of the spirit of the rule as basically outlined.

But why not try to understand the mind of someone like me; a guy who lived aboard a light 28 footer for years so he could buy an ocean racer, and then gave up in disgust and moved back to small boats because it became obvious that the rulemakers didn't give a whit about those who didn't have new purpose-built boats?

If you only listen to suggestions inside the spirit of the rule in that case, you could say that it will probably fail to interest significant numbers of people outside of the North Atlantic

Their goal is the advancement of the professionalism of the sport of short-handed ocean racing. The development of the big IMOCA races into world class sporting events. To do that they need a "Farm Team" to incubate the stars of the future. Learning to be a fighter jock involves first flying a Cessna, but you don't jump to an F16 from there.

That is what this rule addresses. It is not primarily to sell more production boats to the average guy that needs a platform to drink beer on Saturdays. (Although if he is a dreamer he may help by buying one) The primary purpose is to edge close enough to that market to fund the development of racing, and still have something that is a real trainer. That is the delicate balance.

I suspect that any opinions that we throw out there will affect the rule, as it stands, by very small degrees. Weight and stability regulation methods, bow sprit type, how much interior furniture that is required, number of water tight bulkeheads, that sort of thing. I doubt that rig size will be see much of our influence. However the regulation of weight distribution will affect control of the structual integrity and RM, so there will be some affect on the sportiness of them.

Yep, I didn't really think my/our views would have much influence.

I see their approach as highly informed, well intended, very sportsmanlike and having the potential to become even bigger than the Class 40. They are saying "come on over and play you guys, these things are ton of fun" And, when it comes to baking bread and writing ocean racing rules, I must defer to their success!

They're in the same situation as the skiffs were; great boats designed around their own needs with very little use outside their home town (and the RTW races). As the skiffs found, it's hard to get much interest when you tell the rest of the world to play your rules - but if you compromise to suit the rest of the world, they'll jump on the bandwagon.

Keep in mind that the handicap rating, IRC, PHRF, whatever, has no bearing on the decisions made concerning these boats. You can be sure you will be rated right out of the picture. If you care this is not the right racing class for you. I spit in the general direction of handicap rules.:P

I, in contrast, like handicap rules. I want to be able to sail the sort of boat I like to sail, rather than being straight-jacketed into a design pretty much like the next guy. Yeah, strict ODs and development/box classes are great (which is why I sail both) but so is having the freedom to sail the boat you want to own.

In most places around the world, most racing is done under handicap rules. Doesn't history show that if you present a class that will get walloped in local racing most weekends, you'll struggle to get critical mass, just like the MG 30, Level 8000, MORC 650, JOG 650, 780 TY, ILC 25, 30, 40, Level 30, Super 30, Open 9.5/Open 30 etc did.

I know that you and the rule designers are much closer to the market than I am, and know more about it. I suppose I feel that it would be nice for each of us to come closer to each other, rather than for everyone to be expected to go all the way to the Open style.

You speak of people aiming to be like their heroes; I think people like me respect the shorthanded guys, but they have moved well away from our interests like the Fastnet, Hobart etc and therefore we are less interested in them as they and their boats are quite remote from our sailing (which is much more popular).

Vega

02-20-2007, 05:49 AM

I know that you and the rule designers are much closer to the market than I am, and know more about it.

Ct, I don' think this has to do with the boat market, but about the best way to raise interest, develop and train young oceanracers (sailors) that later would compete on the 40class and finally the open60s or whatever the future class for professional top ocean racers. If this is not the right boat it will be another one, not very different (inexpensive, fast, safe and with solo characteristics).

Of course lots of boats, lots of racers will raise public interest and increase the publicity revenues making possible more investment in sailracing and in sail racers. I believe that soon this will be a world affair, much bigger than the Minis. We are talking about racing sailors, an oceanracing scene done in racing boats and about an initiation class that should be inexpensive but interesting.

Regarding Oceanracing, people and the average sailor is much less interested in what a crew of 8 can do in a boat remotely similar to the one he owns (or can own). We will never sail with a crew of 8 and will never have 6 guys to sit on the rail. He is interested in what can be done in that boat by one skipper, or a duo crew, because it is like that he sails most of the time and he his interested in a type of boat that doesn’t need a large crew to sail fast.

DGreenwood

02-20-2007, 08:30 AM

CT
I made that comment about the handicap rules half in jest. I realize that on a club level they are important. The problem starts when big money guys get into the picture. You have to admit that, even though it somehow satisfies a need to see the little guy win occasionally, it is not a good situation to have an old, beat up cruiser beat a multimillion dollar professional effort in a handicap race. Meeting the needs of the ordinary Joe(me), the high roller (Roy Disney) and the investing companies (Volvo) has us going in all directions.

I am speculating that our perspectives are different mostly because our sailing communities are very different. Here, I can go to a typical marina of maybe 1000 boats. Most of them sit there year round untouched.(by most I mean 90%) Amongst them there will be maybe 4 or 5 boats of interest to me. A couple nice traditional boats or a nicely done cruiser or if I'm really lucky a well done racing boat. I always imagine they are much more common for you. (although I don't know that) A Brit can go see the start of the Fastnet or you can go check out the Sidney Hobart. Those races exist because there is interest in ocean racing. The few ocean racing starts that we have here are pretty much unattended by anyone but the racers themselves. And most of them are pretty Podunk.
Hell, when the Transat finished in Boston last time, the harbor was ablaze with the colors and banners of the ORMA and IMOCA fleet. They hardly turned a head. The business people walking by on their way to work barely noticed. Same when the Volvos were in New York. The common guy on the street doesn't have even the basic nautical sophistication to recognize what he is looking at.

And I am aware that leaping that financial chasm to an Open class ocean racer is one big leap. Right now we in the US have no choice but to do a French jig (is there such a dance?). There are a few of us that would like to see sponsored sailing germinate in the US and this is the only way I can see it happening.

The viewing public(or at least the public we hope to have viewing) love superlatives. They want to feel like they are watching something unusual, difficult, athletic, maybe a little crazy, heroic and most of all at the upper limits of what is possible. You and I know that Etchells racing is very competitive, but to most onlookers you would have a hard time showing them any visible improvement in the Etchells sailors from twenty years ago. ( is Etchells really that old?) Sponsored racing is at least partially about brand promotion. That means attracting onlookers, which in turn means we have to look at who has been successful in drawing the viewers. Well, certainly in a few types of racing the French have far surpassed us at this game.

I'll confess, I am aware that much of what I am pushing for here runs contrary to many who would like to see a more grassroots development of interest in sailing. It doesn't seem to have worked here. I’d love to see massive fleets of inner city kids in Optis all on their way to becoming the sailing rock stars that populate a thriving, marketing driven, Grand Prix sport, with their names on Wheaties boxes. It isn’t going to happen that way here.

But if for just a moment we can keep our desire to meddle with an already established venue. If we can get lucky and have an Ellen or a Lance Armstrong happen, then we will have a top down shot. If we just play their game for now, maybe we will get to call some shots in the future. Look at the influence the UK has in IMOCA these days.
We need to train, I mean really train, some top notch short handed sailors to make a showing in those venues. This is one of the classes that may make that happen in North America.

For now, for Americans at least, we need to be the ones comprimising.

charlythewind

02-21-2007, 11:46 AM

Thanks for stopping in here and offering your help. I am sure there will be many questions as this progresses.

Are you presenting the rule as finished or is is it still open for immediate revision?

How far along is your design. Are there bid drawings yet or is it still in conceptual stage? I see your rendering has interior so I would guess you are fairly well along?

It seems that the rule is pretty much set up and i doubt there will be some more changes to it. However, if you suggest ideas very soon, i can bring them up to JM Vidal who's supervising and making the decisions at the end of the day. You may find some info on LeoV's forum.

I think by March, 17th the rule will be finalized.

The thing is we now need to set the rule so that the designs can be advanced and some boats can start to be built...

As far as my project is concern, it is still in the preliminary stages. By that i mean that i have enough data to ask for an accurate quote (did some structural calcs, etc...) but some parameters/details are going to be changed. I have been fairly busy lately by the design of a Class 40...
I shall spend some time on my design before the conference and hope to be able to present a building price as well.

So please make suggestions very quickly, i'll see if i can answer if it is an issue have already discussed about or if i can pass it to JM Vidal.

Regards,

Charles