a canter,not

[Timothy]

I just read the thread on Procyon and got to thinking about movable ballast and as I have recently been contemplating making a set of legs for my center board boat I came up with this. Legs transverse ballast and shallow draft all in one. The idea is based on a memory of the hand crank ringer mechanism of my mothers washing machine. You can probably deduce from this that I am not a young man and this proposal is evidence of the onset of dementia. Animation attached.

[tspeer]

What's the point of having the ballast in the water? It would be a lot less drag to turn the whole mechanism upside down and put it on the deck. No potential for leaking into the boat, either.

The boat would be much lighter if instead of moving weight to windward, you moved buoyancy to leeward. Or do some of both. For the same weight as one of your bulbs, you could have a larger, streamlined structure that would have substantial buoyancy. You could use a modest amount of heel of the boat to put it into the water when needed or lift it out of the water when not needed, instead of translating it back and forth. Then you could get rid of the motor and rack-and-pinon - a fixed arm to each pod would suffice, because when the leeward pod was in the water, the windward pod would be out of the water. So the leeward pod would act like negative ballast, reducing the displacement of the hull, while the windward pod would act as positive ballast. Since they arms would be fixed, the crew could move to the windward pod, making their weight far more effective. I believe a gentleman named Victor Tchetchet once proposed something like this.

[Timothy]

I am not seriously proposing that this would work. My thought was that a transverse movable ballast system kept under the boat and with in the beam of the boat ,while no where as efficient as a canting keel. might be handy for a shallow draft cruising boat, with the added benefit that the boat would stay level when high and dry at low tide. If the strut were curved forward then the bulbs could be made to align with the flow as presumably the boat would be making more leeway when close hauled and the bulbs are extended for the appropriate tack. Since the only extra hole in the boat would be for the shaft to the rollers, a simple stuffing box could be used to keep the water out.I thought that because of the greater lever arm less internal ballast could be used or more sail and a higher aspect rig could be utilized.I only came up with this idea because I just read that Procyon used gravity to move its keel from side to side when tacking which I thought would work just as well with two bulbs on a single transverse strut,and that one of the main problems they had cruising with the boat was excessive draft. I realize that multi hull is the way to go but why are canters the rage?

[Timothy]

I woke up this morning and after reflecting on Mr Spear's comments came up with this. Just above the waterline and enclosed entirely within the hull It loses the legs capability but is,I think , more efficient and gets rid of the drag problem at the expense of taking up some interior space. But on a center boarder this is a problem any way. I worry that the boat would be tender and stable inverted as the boulbs would now be above the waterline.

[oldsailor7]

I believe a gentleman named Victor Tchetchet once proposed something like this.

Lol. tspeer. :cool: I love it.

That was in 1945 and he coined the name "Trimaran".

I had the privilege of meeting him on the dock of the Mirimar yacht club, NY.
in June 1969.

It was before the start of the multihull New York-Bermuda race. We were standing looking at Dave Greens brand new Crowther Kraken 40 trimaran.

"What do you think of that Victor" I said. With tears in his eyes he said "I have lived to see this".

He died later that year.

[Doug Lord]

This is a design concept by Julian Bethwaite and Martin Billoch;it was designed with on-deck movable ballast. It was conceived of as a monohull with buoyancy pods-and the pods weren't to be used in normal sailing-emergency backup only:

[oldsailor7]

GOOD GRIEF DOUG. :?:

Thats neither fish nor fowl. :eek:

[Chris Ostlind]

As well as non-existent for many, many years now.

[Doug Lord]

As well as non-existent for many, many years now.
===================
Not true. As I mentioned earlier, it is a "design concept" and as such remains alive and well. As a matter of fact, the concept has been tested for years on rc models and is being incorporated on my new boat as well.

[oldsailor7]

I would hate to be going fast in a rough sea and have one of those arms dig into a wave. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Doug Lord]

It's not much of a problem.....

[Chris Ostlind]

So, now the Bethwaite/Biloch boat is a foiler, is it? Those pictures you posted show nothing of the kind, yet here you are making comparisons to a foiler when it's mentioned that there are problems with extended racks on monohulls.

The term among friends, here, is IRRELEVANT.

It's more than simple, Doug... Prove It. Prove that a sailing foiler can lift its crew, its own hull and the weight of a bulbed keel and that it is sailable AND (and this is probably the best point) that anyone in their right mind would want to bother.

You know, these days there is a wonderful low cost method for proving that of which you speak. It's called Youtube.

Avail yourself of the medium and show us how it can be done. Show us it is more than a hardware store collection of funky pieces going nowhere.

Until then, it's a pipe dream and... like I said... non-existent.

The ball is in your court, my friend.

[Chris Ostlind]

Racks in the water?

I think that was a good question.

Photo courtesy of Sailing Anarchy and www.am2.org

[Doug Lord]

Racks in the water?

I think that was a good question.

Photo courtesy of Sailing Anarchy and www.am2.org
=========================
It's not much of a problem...... If a boat is designed for them racks work very well whether it has on-deck movable ballast or not and whether it has foils or not. The use of racks to support on-deck "movable ballast" has a long and successful history. One of the Herreshoffs designed a monohull using inanimate on-deck ballast and he really liked it. Whether the ballast is inanimate or not it can be very effective at deck level and clear of the water. The point I'm making is that on-deck movable ballast has tremendous potential to help mono's or multies go fast:

[Chris Ostlind]

While I've truly enjoyed the littel sidebar exploration of your senses, here, Doug... what d'ya say you retool the conversation a bit and get it back to the original intent of the thread starter, Timothy.

You know, just out of courtesy?

I just love the plethora of imagery you can gin-up regarding foilers and all, but the T-Man didn't go there with his original presentation, nor did Speer with his comments. So, what d'ya say you give some respect to Timothy and his efforts to get some info without dropping yet more stuff about foilers and all that the name conjours for you?

Yes, I'm respectfully restoring some order to the thread's originator. Can you do that? Timothy is looking at something distinctly different from your penchant for all things foiling. Jokes and sidebar commentary aside, I think he deserves the respect of putting your comments on point.

Don't you?

[Doug Lord]

What's the point of having the ballast in the water? It would be a lot less drag to turn the whole mechanism upside down and put it on the deck. No potential for leaking into the boat, either.

=================
And Timothy said: "I realize that multi hull is the way to go but why are canters the rage?"
=================

My point has nothing to do with foilers; it has to do with using on-deck movable ballast mentioned here by Tom. The idea is often times discounted but has real potential on larger boats whether they are foilers or not. What can be described as on-deck movable ballast IS used today on Hydroptere-water pumped along the wing to the ama's. It has tremendous potential to allow large monohulls and/or multihulls to go very fast.
I'm convinced that on-deck movable ballast on very wide racks combined with either a small canting keel or fixed keel and maybe foils(or not) could result in a self-righting monohull with close to the same speed for its length as a multi. I don't think we've seen the end of high speed development by a long shot and on-deck movable ballast will play a large role.

[Meanz Beanz]

Water ballast is often used on short handed monos (and others), there are a few simple devices for acquiring it, transferring it to where it is needed and dumping it when it is not. No pumps, no real complication and well proven as effective. I like that idea over mobile solid ballast high in the boat, surly thats got to become an issue at some point, Murphy would see to that.

[Chris Ostlind]

And Timothy said: "I realize that multi hull is the way to go but why are canters the rage?"

My point has nothing to do with foilers; it has to do with using on-deck movable ballast mentioned here by Tom.


So, if your point has nothing to do with foilers, then why the plethora of foiler pictures? I mean, come on, Doug. I know you like the little buggers and all, but what are they doing on the posts? We'd all like to respect your contributions, but they stray so far off point with the gratuitous image files that it's difficult to ignore them.

Now if it was humor based, we can talk.



=================
I'm convinced that on-deck movable ballast on very wide racks combined with either a small canting keel or fixed keel and maybe foils(or not) could result in a self-righting monohull with close to the same speed for its length as a multi. I don't think we've seen the end of high speed development by a long shot and on-deck movable ballast will play a large role.


Doug, you are serious about this comparison? For a car person this would go something like this. "Now I know that my Dodge four banger isn't in the same league as an F1 drive, but with a blown Hemi, all-wheel drive, quad piston discs all around, F1 slicks and pure mag wheels as well as... well, you know the list is just too long to really post here..."

What is this BS longing to be like a Multi all about?

Sounds to me like a floating description of that broad who was married to Lorenzo Lamas. You know, the one with the fake cans, fake lips, fake injected face, fake pimped out shoes (OK, the pimped out shoes are cool)... you know she just looks like a well-done chunk of plastic. Can any of you imagine bringing that home to your Momma dearest?

I say, get an inflatable to begin with and end this ridiculous arms war.

One can only wonder just how far ahead the multi world would get if it were to slap all that kind of extra crap on the ride just to "be like those overly complex mono guys".

Point is, they do not need to.

Doesn't anyone find the ironic humor in all this? Let's spend untold millions in development and screw-ups, just so we can get a bit closer to the form that all monohullers love to hate.

This is truly penis envy with a completely new multi-manifestation.

Whatever happened to driving the boat for the reasons for which it shines in its original form? Why is it so important to make a mono like a multi with so much gadgetry, so much complexity and so much of a penchant for self immolation that the whole exercise becomes ridiculous?

What ever happened to fantastic seamanship and tactics instead of trick gadgets?

Whatever happened to affordable craft that have really close, really fun racing instead of endless budgetary requirements to feed the ugly dog on the end of the chain?

Rant Over

[oldsailor7]

One can only wonder just how far ahead the multi world would get if it were to slap all that kind of extra crap on the ride just to "be like those overly complex mono guys".

Bravo Chris. You have the guts to "Tell it like it is" :cool:

As Clyde Cessna famously said "Simplicate and add lightness" :D

[Doug Lord]

Actually, a self-righting monohull with speed equivalent to or faster than the fastest multi is like having your cake and eating it too. And a worthy development goal as well!

[oldsailor7]

DOUG you are like a hound baying at the moon. :eek:

Monohulls like the Dragon are lovely classic sailboats. Painfully slow but lots of fun to sail in match racing,or OD fleets for the tactics and seamanship. The International 8Metre likewise is a beautful yacht but with its 70% of displacement keel weight it was doomed to be SLOW. The majority of monos are the same.

Face it Doug, CBTF or not, ballast for stability is SLOW,SLOW,SLOW.

The canting keeler is a last gasp attempt to squeeze the last tiny increments of performance out of ballast stabilised monohulls. A classic example of the law of diminishing returns.

Take Skandia a maxi canting keeler--beaten in a 168 NM open ocean race by a 30 ft Catamaran.

Take Ichi Ban, another maxi canting keeler. She was beaten last year in the Brisbane-Gladstone race by One and a Half HOURS, curtesy of Raw Nerve, a much smaller catamaran.
Again this year by the same 30 ft Catamaran which beat Skandia.

Cats and Tris now hold practically all the ocean crossing and continent circling records.

The human race is hooked on SPEED and multihulls have proven to be the fastest USABLE sailboats on the planet.

That is a fact of life and anyone who refuses to accept that is denying reality.

And Doug---we are not talking about foilers on this topic. They are a different subject entirely. Please don't contaminate them with ballast keels. :P

[Timothy]

While I agree that multi hulls are the way to go for speed I am not convinced that for cruising purposes they are best. After all the reason all the development in vessels since the beginning of the agrarian age some 8000 years ago has been in mono hulls is that societies with a social elite need trade and their ships need to carry large loads of both cargo and heavy weaponry to either protect their cargo or to steel it from others . Pre- agrarian societies on the other hand tended to be egalitarian and used there vessels primarily for coastal voyaging . hunting and fishing and not to carry heavy loads.It may be that the colonization of the pacific was largely done by accident and was really only a result of gender equality in pre- agrarian cultures . There were women were on the boats when they stumbled upon new islands and though they were not able to return to their home lands they could reproduce. It seems modern catamarans have load capacities that are sufficient for cruising but I think mono hulls are still superior I don't think we will be seeing any multi hull oil tankers soon. So if your purpose is to travel the world and bring every thing with you including the kitchen sink, so to speak, then I don't think its unreasonable to try and develop the mono hull so that it is faster and shallower in draft, and still is good at what it does best, carrying large loads. After all movable ballast is hardly a new idea . Its intuitive , as soon as man started mucking about on logs he found out very quickly that he'd better be lively on his feet and get down low. As for myself I would love to build a cat but what I have is a lead mine and as I will never be able to buy or build another I keep messing about with with ideas to improve it for my purposes and am very happy doing so.

[water addict]

......

The boat would be much lighter if instead of moving weight to windward, you moved buoyancy to leeward........

YES! called a catamaran! Could not resist.

Weight to windward, or buoyancy to leeward. Plus sign vs. minus sign.
A canting monohull is a negative catamaran (with a lot of extra weight, i.e. not too sensible- but then sailing isn't so sensible in its own right).

[Paul B]

YES! called a catamaran! Could not resist.

Weight to windward, or buoyancy to leeward. Plus sign vs. minus sign.
A canting monohull is a negative catamaran (with a lot of extra weight, i.e. not too sensible- but then sailing isn't so sensible in its own right).


The nice thing about Catamarans is their weight is normally doing something other than just being weight. It is usually structure as well.

Lead, like in my monohull, not only is weight in itself but also requires more additional weight (structure) to support it.

We all know what Uffa Fox had to say about weight and steamrollers.


I always thought it was Stout who said, "Simplicate and add more lightness." I never heard it attributed to Cessna. I know Colin Chapman borrowed it, "Simplify and add lightness".


I don't like the idea of a canting keel on a cruising boat, or moving weight racks, or the like. Simplify and remove as many things as possible that can go wrong, while still maintaining whatever performance you require.

[Timothy]

But if the weight has to be there and it can be moved simply so that there can be less of it Why not?

[Paul B]

But if the weight has to be there and it can be moved simply so that there can be less of it Why not?


If you are going to have "less of it" then you are depending on the mechanism to be foolproof.

If the compressor for your fridge goes out 1200 miles from anywhere you will be OK. If the motor or mechanism or mounts for your moveable ballast malfunctions you are in a world of hurt.

You may need less ballast, but with the extra weight of racks and mechanisms and batteries, etc how much lighter are you really going to be?


Maybe 10 years from now there will be enough data to really think about a canter for cruising. Right now it is new technology and we don't know as much as we should to consider it for this purpose. If you want to be one of the pioneers the rest of us can learn from your mistakes.


All I know is another boat was abandoned today because of a problem with the canting keel. There is a beautiful canter for sale here in CA that the owner wants out of because he and his crew of pro sailors recently had an unfortunate issue in rather gentle conditions. There is a also 40 foot canter for sale near my club, has been for years. No one wants it, and there are others on the market with the same result.


I'm hearing there is a LOT of maintenance required for the boats that are out there. Is that what you want from your home?

[oldsailor7]

The boating industry report for 2007 shows that Catamarans represented one third of all new cruising sailboats sold in the USA. :cool: :) :D

[Doug Lord]

Face it Doug, CBTF or not, ballast for stability is SLOW,SLOW,SLOW.


===========================
The mostly water movable ballast that works so well on some monohulls would work on any length boat and is/would be fast,fast,fast!

[oldsailor7]

DOUG.

Can't you get it through your head.

Experimentation in and development of foilers is a very worthwhile research.

BUT NOT ON THIS THREAD.

Please go to another thread ---or start your own.

[Doug Lord]

One of the most important applications of movable ballast just happens to be on large foilers; in fact it makes a large foiler possible. It most certainly IS a subject of this thread-not the foiler per se but the movable ballast. The combination of a small canting keel and on deck FAST movable ballast is the next step in fast mono design. Saying BALLAST is slow is absurd. Spitfire a 40' surface piercing foiler uses 1000 pounds of ballast. Hydroptere uses MOVABLE ballast. These just happen to be foilers but they illustrate the exciting future in the further development of ballast systems on large fast boats. The sketch above of the "60' Moth" is a boat designed to use a small canting keel to make it selfrighting in combination with wide racks with on-deck movable water ballast IN A TANK-to facillitate fast movement w/o pumping. The fact that, generally, wide racks with movable ballast- such as water in a tank- has not been used very much means nothing about its efficacy-its just something else to look forward to in the on-going evolution of fast monohull design.
Putting a well designed and engineered version of Timothies system ON DECK as Tom suggested may be the key in unlocking a whole new era in fast keelboats-an era where multihulls are no longer the fastest sailboats....

[oldsailor7]

Doug Lord said:- "The mostly water movable ballast that works so well on some monohulls would work on any length boat and is/would be fast,fast,fast"

Well Doug, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Way back in the mid 1970s I had a Buccaneer 28 Trimaran which, although designed as a cruising boat, I used mostly for racing.

To that end, during construction, we configured the floats to have 80 gall water tanks built in,in the area under the main shrouds. An electric pump with large dia pvc piping enabled water to be pumped in, out and across from side to side very quickly. The system worked beautifully.

In practice we found it really wasn't worth while.

With the windward tank full we had added 800 lbs to the displacenment of the boat, and this was enough to effect its performance dramatically. In fact the only time we did use it in earnest was in a wild night on Lake Ontario in an overnight race, where two monos lost their masts and three lost their rudders. A home designed and homebuilt Catamaran also broke up and sank. :eek:

We were OK but slowed up so much that two big monos crossed the finish line ahead of us. An unheard of situation. :(

Since then I have considered that any form of BALLAST is simply not necessary on a PROPERLY DESIGNED Multihull. :cool:

[Chris Ostlind]

Doug, you are hijacking the gentleman's thread with your fizz on foilers... again.

I believe that you have gone to great lengths to describe these central hulled boats with appendage "floats" as... monofoilers, have you not?

That does not equate to the same thing as a monohull, Doug, by your own definition. Please keep the discussion of foilers to a thread in which the topic is about foilers. Your very own, clever phrase insistence has actually boxed you out of this discussion as it pertains to foilers of any kind.

Now, if you'd like to make a post that has to do with a well-recognized monohull form, whether it has an on-deck ballast system, OR, if you'd like to start your own thread that deals specifically with foilers and their possible use of an on-deck ballast system, then please do. But be so kind as to omit the foiler references on this thread. Just to be clear, that's monohull and not monofoiler.

Seems simple to me, as well as to a bunch of other folks who have contributed to this thread already.

[Doug Lord]

Doug Lord said:-
Since then I have considered that any form of BALLAST is simply not necessary on a PROPERLY DESIGNED Multihull.
==========================
Sounds like some exciting times! I'm sure you're not suggesting that Hydroptere and Spitfire and some of the ORMA tri's are "not properly designed" are you? Properly designed ballast systems on multi's or mono's have been PROVEN to be speed producing factors-and their application on CRUISING and racing mono's and multies is INCREASING all the time.

[oldsailor7]

[QUOTE=Doug Lord;203355]==========================
I'm sure you're not suggesting that Hydroptere and Spitfire and some of the ORMA tri's are "not properly designed" are you? /QUOTE]

Certainly not Doug. Those boats are just using excessive amounts of sail area to get maximum speed.

A properly designed Cruising boat only needs to reduce sail to suit the circumstances. No extra ballast needed.

Example:- Two guys and a gal, sailing to Lord Howe Island from Sydney, on a 45 ft Cruising Catamaran in a 50 kt southerly buster, with three reefs in, on mainsail only. They sailed, warm dry and safely, on auto pilot all the way.

They UNINTENTIONALLY beat the time record of the then race record holding monohull by a considerable margin. Their average speed for the trip was 10.2kts.

Not a particularly high speed you say. :rolleyes:

But that is the great strength of cruising multihulls. The ability to cruise comfortably and EFFORTLESSLY at steady average speeds. This is what makes for great passage making.

No unnecessary ballast needed.

[Timothy]

As I have said before I agree that multi hulls are the way to go. If I was twenty I would be building one right now. My proposals for movable ballast are merely Ideas predicated on the basis that from what I have read ,canting keels are effective although prone to catastrophic failure.I also agree that movable ballast is a non starter if it compromises the integrity of the vessel. However I think to dismiss it as use fully out of hand is a mistake. We have added to the complexity of every other system on boats in order to get a little more speed,shallower draft. or a little more comfort.why not the ballast system ? I think its worth exploring . After all we have been moving bodies stones ,sand bags .cargo or water since man first went to sea. I don't think that one of us lead miners does not subconsciously move to the windward side on a new tack. Of course there is the matter of how much gain for how much effort. maintenance and cost. Its an easy matter to tweak an extra line for better sail shape but its another matter entirely to crank 1500 pounds of ballast 20 feet. Any way I have attached a short animation of a system that is basically a hollow dagger board that slides in a case athwart ship of the vessel just below the waterline and above the center board case. The dagger board has openings forward and on either end so that as it is extended it fills with sea water. it also contains a lead weight that moves to wind ward as the board is extended. As the boat heels the extended dagger board clears the surface . When the dagger board is center line the water pickups align with wells containing pumps that discharge the sea water or alternatively the water could be directed to the bilge and discharged by the bilge pump. Catastrophic failure would result in the loss of the lead weight but not affect the integrity of the vessel. There are probably many reasons that this is not a practical arrangement and I am sure I will eventually think of them or some one will point them out, but this is where I have come to for now.

[oldsailor7]

That is very ingenious Tim, but it doesn't solve the very basic fault in monohull keelboat design.

That basic fault is the destructive inertial forces produced by the heavy weight in the keel.
These forces, apart from the structural design requirements to contain them, cause the unpleasant pitching, rolling and heeling of the ballasted monohull.

After all who needs to sail on your ear on a spanking sailing day, or suffer the incessent rolling when at anchor in a busy harbour.

Admittedly canting keels allow a slimmer hull and larger sail, while reducing somewhat the ghastly lead weight on the end of the keel. But at what expense and complication for such an incremental increase in ultimate performance. :eek:

Not to mention the abomination of having a deisel engine running all the time while sailing, in order to power the hydraulic systems needed.

Stability by Bouancy, not Ballast, is transforming the sailing World.

And not JUST the sailing world.

Even the prestigious Atlanic Blue Ribband Trophy is now held by a large , 200 car, 800 passenger, water jet propelled TRIMARAN. :cool: