Volvo open 70

[woody_paul]

For my major project in my 2nd year of a 3yr degree course in boat design, I have decided to design an open 70 to compete in the 05/06 Volvo ocean race, this is a huge project seeing as i only have a year to produce a scale model and present my designs to a panal of boat builders, navel architects, material scientists, and other boat orientated people, The rules for an open 70 are very specific, all hulls must be 21.5m in length, a beam of no greater than 5.7m nor less than 4.7m, the draft must be no greater than 4.5m, there are measurements for distances between freeboards and deck edge, the bulb keel (which will be a canting keel) must not weigh less than 4500kgs, there are choices of 1 or 2 rudders, there must be only one fully self draining cockpit, the weight of the boat shall not be less than 12500kg nor greater than 14000kg. the rule book is 38 pages long and can be downloaded at www.volvooceanrace.org. I have attached some pictures of my initial hull designs drawn in maxsurf, any feedback or ideas would be much appreciated.

Cheers
Paul

[Paul B]

It is difficult to tell from the foreshortening of the graphics, but it appears the BMAX is at the stern. That's rarely a good thing, the wedge-of-cheese. Makes for massive bow-down trim when heeled. That's not good for control.

Overall this looks more like an Open 60 style boat than the new Open 70 style. I belive there will be some short course legs in the Volvo, so that is somewhat driving the type. If you subscribe to Seahorse Magazine you'll also get the VOR Magazine which has had some good info.

Looking at the prelim graphics of the Farr (http://www.farrdesign.com/news/FarrHorizons_Spring-Summer04.pdf, http://www.farrdesign.com/news/FarrHorizons_Winter04.pdf) and Juan K (http://team.abnamro.com/) boats (shown below) they appear to be more slab sided and narrower. Probably going for less form drag and getting the desired stability from the canting bulb.

Good luck with the process. If you have to do all the construction calcs and drawings as well this will be a very large and difficult assignment.

[nico]

Hi,

I did a similar project last year, this was my final year project. You can download my dissertation (http://vppguru.freeprohost.com/pdf/VO70-NR-PROJECT.pdf 8meg!)
Most of my time was spent on hull and appendages design (VPP+towing tank) but the whole design was done (structures, stab,..) everything is in my report + some 2d drawings too.
If you have some specific questions, feel free to ask.

[Hans Friedel]

they appear to be more slab sided and narrower. Probably going for less form drag and getting the desired stability from the canting bulb.

Why do you get less drag with slab sides?? compare to sides with flare

Hans Friedel

[CT 249]

I think we're assuming that the waterline beam is the same in all cases, because all else being equal, is has to be. So the flared topsides are just more windage, more surface to be struck by waves, which of course slows you down. You can really feel the difference in smaller boats like skiffs. They also cause more assymetry when you are heeled, normally, and when they are immersed they just add to waterline beam which increases form drag. Or that's what I'm told.

I agree with Paul B (although I'm no designer), I can't quite work out why BMAX has to be so far aft in Woody's boat. With not much planing/dynamic lift surface up front, I wonder how it would handle driving down (or even into) a big swell.

I also wonder about the ultra-fine bow. A couple of the IRC 80s out here (the previous Wild Thing and Nicorette) had super-hollow bows and the front 10' didn't seem to create any bow-wave from what I could see. If it's not displacing much (because of the extremely fine sections) and not increasing the effective length (which means creating a wave in a displacement boat that's not super slim like a rowing shell) then what is it doing, beside adding wsa?

Of course, maybe it was doing something extremely effective. But Wild Thing was extended more than her designer had intended initially, and he shook his head when I asked him aboout it. I don't know exactly what that means. Nicorette was also created out of spare parts to some extent. And neither was as fast as the other 80 of the year. Shockwave, which had straight waterline, not hollow ones, and created the bow wave further forward.

[Paul B]

I think we're assuming that the waterline beam is the same in all cases, because all else being equal, is has to be. .

I wasn't assuming that. Maybe I should have been. But it really doesn't have to be the same, unless restricted by the rule (I don't know if it is). A wider BWL will have a shallower, "skimming dish" shape for the same volume, with greater WSA.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "slab sided". I'm not describing my thought well. Really I was thinking about the underwater sectional shape. With the more upright hull side shape you will have a more semi-circular, less wetted area shape for the same displacement. Look where the latest AC boats have gone, and what their goal is. That is less drag, especially when heeled.

Hopefully this is more clear. However, I do agree with 249 re: windage, assymetry in the heeled waterlines, and wave drag.

I agree with Paul B (although I'm no designer), I can't quite work out why BMAX has to be so far aft in Woody's boat. With not much planing/dynamic lift surface up front, I wonder how it would handle driving down (or even into) a big swell..I also wonder about the ultra-fine bow. A couple of the IRC 80s out here (the previous Wild Thing and Nicorette) had super-hollow bows and the front 10' didn't seem to create any bow-wave from what I could see. If it's not displacing much (because of the extremely fine sections) and not increasing the effective length (which means creating a wave in a displacement boat that's not super slim like a rowing shell) then what is it doing, beside adding wsa?.

I'm no yacht designer either, not in a strict sense. Have I? Yes. Can I? Yes. Do I? No.

I don't like bow hollows. My experience is that significant bow hollow can make a boat bow steer. That is, when surfing the bow itself can dig in on one side or the other, causing a low pressure side, and this seriously snaps the boat into a turn. Olson 30s are legendary for it. You do have to keep in mind we are talking about hollows in the waterlines, not vertical flare hollow.

Also keep in mind that we're looking at a model that might have issues with forming the bow without a hollow. I've fought that fight when doing lofts in certain programs. So I'll withhold comment on that until the linesplan is available.

249, the extra length probably is immersed when heeled in flat water, isn't it? It also allows for reserve bouyancy in the bow in swells, something fine bows probably need.

But Wild Thing was extended more than her designer had intended initially, and he shook his head when I asked him aboout it. I don't know exactly what that means.

I've seen that same look on more than one designer after seeing their design "butchered".

[CT 249]

Sorry Paul, the comment on all else being equal was meant to assume we were (for simplicity) assuming the same underwater shape for comparison.

Yes, the extra length on the maxis was immersed; but it seemed to me to be doing something similar to what would happen if you just stuck a 15' long wooden plank 2" wide out in front of the bow; it extended the waterline but did nothing effective with the extra length.

I supppose there was extra buoyancy in the bow, but not much, and Nicorette (the only one I sail in swell) would really stick her snout into even quite small swells, perhaps because of the lack of volume up there. She could stick the bow right in even in moderate swells, which seemed to me to create a lot of wsa on the topsides.

There aren't many designers who do like bow hollows, are there? I tend to not like them, but apart from possible problems with the amount of volume for wetted surface, reduction in prismatic, and the handling issues, what problems to you see with them?

Actually, maybe those problems alone are more than enough; they probably stuff up light air, hull speed and high speed performance respectively.

[Paul B]

Yes, the extra length on the maxis was immersed; but it seemed to me to be doing something similar to what would happen if you just stuck a 15' long wooden plank 2" wide out in front of the bow; it extended the waterline but did nothing effective with the extra length.

I supppose there was extra buoyancy in the bow, but not much, and Nicorette (the only one I sail in swell) would really stick her snout into even quite small swells, perhaps because of the lack of volume up there. She could stick the bow right in even in moderate swells, which seemed to me to create a lot of wsa on the topsides..

The new generation of narrow maxis don't really need hollows, do they? I have to think the original intent of hollows was to sharpen up the entry. But with the half angle already so sharp on very long, narrow BWL boats the sharpness is the least of your worries.

Sticking a "narrow plank" out the front does add some volume, plus a good bit of WSA. Is the trade off worth it? I guess that's what designers get the big money for.

I know a certain maxi cat had some pretty fine bow extensions added and that helped relieve some scary moments. However, they weren't hollow so the area of the old bows was significantly more voluminous, with even more volume forward of that.

On the other hand I've seen some cats with pretty bluff bow waterlines and they seem to go OK. I don't follow cats much, or Round the World racers, so my view on these types is limited. Do many of the current Open boats have hollow waterlines?



There aren't many designers who do like bow hollows, are there? I tend to not like them, but apart from possible problems with the amount of volume for wetted surface, reduction in prismatic, and the handling issues, what problems to you see with them?

Actually, maybe those problems alone are more than enough; they probably stuff up light air, hull speed and high speed performance respectively.


If you have a certain BWL a certain distance from the bow the waterline has to get there. If you hollow the bow you just have to add more of a pronounced sweep out at some point. Does the water like that better than flowing along a somewhat straight line? Again, that's what real designers get the big, big money for.

I like to see nice, straight waterlines at least through Station 3. I like to look at a linesplan and lay a straightedge from the bow and see the waterlines follow along it. Not concave nor convex looks right. Probably has to do with the training I once received.

With the long skinny maxis of today you don't have much other choice. Your WLs are going to be pretty straight forward.

You're from Sydney? Funny, I thought you were from somewhere more down south. Don't know why. Great town that Sydney. I'm thinking about getting back there after one of my Hong Kong jaunts this coming year.

[Doug Lord]

Paul Woody-what type lateral resistance have you considered using with the canting keel?

[Paul B]

Paul Woody-what type lateral resistance have you considered using with the canting keel?

Who can guess where this is going? Another thread about to be hijacked.

Woody, be careful. I forsee someone trying to get you to do design and evaluation for his hairbrained scheme for gratis.

I can see it now. "My Canting-Thingaroo (TM) is currently under development at a major university and the results appear to show it is the greatest idea ever!"

[Doug Lord]

Paul B, it's amazing how you work so hard to illustrate your limitations!
Paul Woody, I think choice of lateral resistance is going to be critical in these canting keel boats. Seems to me that CBTF ,modified slightly to include a retractable (full or partial) forward foil, could be the best answer and I'm curious about your thinking on this critical detail....

[CT 249]

I agree about the current boats being so narrow they may not need fine bows. There's an interesting analogy, possibly, with the old Div 2 round bottomed 13' windsurfers, where the "boat type" bow was found to be slower than the full, wider spoon bow. Same as it was in J Boats and metre boats, I suppose. There may be a certain minimum bow angle and under that there's no advantage, perhaps?

I assume the problem with bow hollows is as you say.

I'm becoming a bit of a fan of the U-shaped bow, with more volume underneath than Nicorette etc seem to have. It seem to work nicely on just about every boat, maybe with the exception of an 18' skiff which has wave-impact problems because of its pace and has a low DLR and a big rig so has fewer wsa problems. Rob Brown ("world" champ 18 designer/skipper) and others reckon the 18 bows are all about wave penetration but many people seem to be following the theme for very different boats.

I got to drive Nicorette one fun sail, which was fun. Nice boat, but crappy rudder; they'd put the old one back on after the Hobart and you could really feel the C of E or whatever shift back and forth as the boat gained speed down the swells.

I'm not up on Open Boats, they fine for some but don't do too much for me (although the ex Open 60 Xena was a hoot to sail).

[nico]

CBTF ,modified slightly to include a retractable (full or partial) forward foil

The main limitation in Volvo 70 appendages developement is rule 2.16.1:

"Appendages shall be fixed, or free to move with one degree of freedom only (translation, retraction or rotation)"

[Doug Lord]

Nico, can't open your pdf file-what choice did you make for extra area- and why?

[woody_paul]

I can see the problems with having BMAX so far aft when i'm trying to keep the LCB as central as possible, the pics I posted were probably not the best to show the actual position of BMAX, however I have altered the design to move it further forward, I have attached a pic of Ecover (www.finot.com), a successful open 60 that has completed: Around Alone 98-99, Route du Café 99, Transat anglaise 2000, Vendée Globe 2001, and Transat Jacques Vabre 2001, you will notice that the BMAX is about a third forward from the transom and the beam only has a very slight decrease to minimise drag. You also have to consider weight distribution, there is a minimum and maximum weight specified in the rules, and obviously with the bow being so slender on my design there will not be much weight forward. This design has been influenced by open 60's, perhaps I need to take into consideration the Length to beam ratio of an open 60 compared to the style of the open 70 i am designing.
Designing the boat with steeper top sides is going to produce much higher curvature below the water line, surly this is not a good thing when the boat is heeled over, although i do feel that i need flatter sections aft, to help planning capability.
This design is very much my initial idea, and has a fair way to go before I want to think about producing a plug for the scale model. Your feedback is proving very helpful.
Cheers

[Paul B]

249,

Back in the old IOR days one famous designer was interviewed and was quoted to say the U-shaped bow was not only a better shape for rating, but also it proved to be faster. So maybe the IOR left us with one design element that was useful.

I think even the 18s don't have hollow bows, do they? Check the attached pic.


Woody,

One thing you might consider would be to make the transom vertical up to the point where the stern wave would interact at useful heel angles. By going with the full reverse shown you are being robbed of some waterline while heeled.

[nico]

Sorry for the link, can't seem to make it work from the website. I uploaded here my dissertation without 2d drawings (too big).

I had to go in the tank early so my hull design wasnt finalised, i designed the tested hull at the middle of beam, and this ended up being a bit too wide (compared to the final design).
I compared a twin daggerboard with twin small rudders aft (Open 60 style) and the CBTF system. After putting everyting in the VPP and a race model (weather model inshores + offshore), the results were very close but with the CBTF coming on top, so this was the configuration chosen.
With another go at towing tank with my final hull design, i would have tested a twin daggerboard system with a single rudder aft. I think it would be better than both systems for a Volvo70.

[nico]

I think it is very difficult to see if there are hollows on waterlines or not from pictures. The following picture is the bow of a well known mini 650, and actually there is no hollow on the waterline.

[madere]

===>ok? www.fwall.blx.pl (linoczka.b*******/html)

[Paul B]

Sorry for the link, can't seem to make it work from the website. I uploaded here my dissertation without 2d drawings (too big).


Nico,

I copied the link into my browser address line, then eliminated all the info back to your root domain. I was then able to navigate through your site to the Abstract and Dissertation, and even download with the dwgs. Cable modem makes it pretty quick. I sure wouldn't expect to do it in a timely manner with a dial up modem.

I think some of the other design houses have come to a different conclusion than you. Maybe not due to speed but to reliability? On the other hand, I have talked to one designer who thinks the forward rudder IS a detriment in the mainly downwind conditions. But so far he has no horse in this race either, so all theoretical at this point.

[Paul B]

I think it is very difficult to see if there are hollows on waterlines or not from pictures. The following picture is the bow of a well known mini 650, and actually there is no hollow on the waterline.

Maybe this has no hollow in the DWL, but what about at DWL+250mm or +500mm? Is that WL hollow? Minis are a bit different from larger boats since the B/LOA is much greater. This might necessitate some hollows in WLs. I've only seen one Mini ever, tilted on side on a trailer in Lausanne, so I don't have a feel for these boats.

[Paul B]

I'm becoming a bit of a fan of the U-shaped bow, with more volume underneath than Nicorette etc seem to have. It seem to work nicely on just about every boat, maybe with the exception of an 18' skiff which has wave-impact problems because of its pace and has a low DLR and a big rig so has fewer wsa problems. Rob Brown ("world" champ 18 designer/skipper) and others reckon the 18 bows are all about wave penetration but many people seem to be following the theme for very different boats.

249,

I believe you are an ex-14er, or have some affiliation/working knowledge of them. I have just been looking at my book on 14s 1928-1989. There are a lot of nice plates in there with linesplans from early Giles boats, through Fox, and onto the Benedict era.

Seems Fox bounced back and forth between hollow at DWL and not. Alarm 1935 No, Thunder 1937 Yes, Thunder and Lightning 1938 No, Fairy 1949 Yes (slight). I once owned a Fox 14, US191, perhaps originally a Souter build in bent ply?

Proctor's boats from '50 to '60 seemed to progress to less hollow, then came Kirby. K3 was very straight, K4 maybe a slight hollow, then the K5 came along and obliterated all comers. The K5 looks to be dead straight back to station 4.

The raised chine boats then began and Morrison's Snoggledog looks dead straight to 4, and the K VII maybe to 3. The Opus looks straight to 3, then comes out, so the hollow is quite long (but shallow) on that. I always liked the look of that boat. Then the Benedict (to 3) and Cross (to 4) boats were very straight.

These later 14s did have U-shaped bows, as do the current boats (correct?)

What does this all prove? Nothing I suppose.

[nico]

I was then able to navigate through your site
yes it s strange if i download from the website or from here (link above) i get that the pdf is corrupted, but if i use the same link in an email and download from there, there are no problems and i get a good pdf. Anyway i'll post the drawings in two parts here later.

but what about at DWL+250mm or +500mm

yes i think they need it for buoyancy forward downwind.

Maybe not due to speed but to reliability?

I agree with you, the dissertation is a big part of our academic assessment and therefore my choice was straight from performance results. Moreover i found that the CBTF had more opportunities to be optimised (hydro + structures) using simple tools (no CFD).
As i said before if i had more time in the tank with a better hull, i think it could have been shown that the twin daggerboard - one large rudder aft would have been a better choice on a Volvo both in terms of performance and reliability.

[nico]

Here are the 2d drawings

[Paul B]

Nico,

Two questions that might help Woody, as well as satisfy my curiousity.

First, why go with a J dimension greater than E? Was this an attempt to get the mast back to center the weight for pitching?

Next, why use 15% for the rudder foils? Seems a bit fat. Was this due to the required moments (therefore OD) of the shafts?

Finally, Seahorse Magazine this month has a photo of Pyewacket with the canting keel caught on the wrong side after a tack. After seeing the photos of the V60s in the last race lying flat, with their fixed keels, it is going to be real interesting for the V70s if they get caught out with keel position in a big breeze.

[Doug Lord]

Paul B maybe you should contact Volvo-there may still be time for you to save the fleet and stop this canting keel nonsense once and for all!
Nico, does the Volvo rule have a static heel limit with max cant ?

[nico]

I didnt spent much time on rig design, the dimensions chosen are the largest possible from the rule, a larger J will give a bigger sail area downwind. Bring the mast closer to centre of gravity.
15% is not that fat, and from a structural point of view it s important. obviously there is a compromise between wetted area, aspect ratio, and tc ratio both from an hydrodynamic and structural point of view, i think it is explained at a large enough length in my dissertation (see rudder and keel chapter)
i dont see a real problem with the keel being on the wrong side, it will happen, crew should expect it, i dont think it is so different from bad gybe, or other things
There is no limit on static heel angle, only the canting angle is limited at 40°.

[Paul B]

I didnt spent much time on rig design, the dimensions chosen are the largest possible from the rule, a larger J will give a bigger sail area downwind. Bring the mast closer to centre of gravity.

It is just strange to see a race boat with these proportions.


15% is not that fat, and from a structural point of view it s important. obviously there is a compromise between wetted area, aspect ratio, and tc ratio both from an hydrodynamic and structural point of view, i think it is explained at a large enough length in my dissertation (see rudder and keel chapter).

I doubt you'll find many modern raceboats with a constant 15% chord thickness. I didn't see any structural calc showing the need, and I didn't see any performance comparison to a thinner design.


i dont see a real problem with the keel being on the wrong side, it will happen, crew should expect it, i dont think it is so different from bad gybe, or other things
There is no limit on static heel angle, only the canting angle is limited at 40°.

I think the reason the cant limit is set at 40° is due to pressure from some well known design offices to limit the downside of possible wrong-side excursions. There is concern from within the design community about this. The Southern Ocean is not a forgiving place.

[nico]

strange to see a race boat with these proportions
rig proportions are actually between open 60 and volvo 60, longitudinal position is more forward than an open, and rig proportions are close to a volvo.

constant 15% chord thickness
the rudders havent a constant t/c, t/c is varying from 16% at the root to 10% at the tip. The structural calculations (page 80 and 81) and the rudder stock drawings show clearly that the rudder stock needs this t/c for structural reasons.
The idea was to get the highest aspect ratio with a reasonable t/c ratio; taking hydrodynamic and structural requirements into account.
For a well designed section, drag is not affected mainly by t/c ratio, mainly because a thicker section will be able to carry a higher proportion of laminar flow. A 16% ratio was seen as the highest reasonnable ratio.
I expect CBTF boats to have similar t/c ratio

[woody_paul]

Hi

Since posting my first initial ideas, my designs have changed hugely, i have taken on board a lot of feedback, and i understand the design a lot more. The max beam has moved further forward, and the LCB is about 0.013m aft of amidships. I've flared to bow slightly to keep spray off the foredeck, and steepened the top sides aft, introducing a knuckle which will help with stability. she has no hollows, and the shape is fully developable, and a 1.25 meter model is currently under construction. I am currently developing the keel design. The rig and keel shown in the attached pictures are not final designs. I am very interseted to hear your views on the final hull design, and any tips on the keel design would be very much welcomed. Will try and add some more pics later.

Cheers
Paul

[Doug Lord]

Paul, looks great! What kind of extra lateral resistance are you going to use with the canting keel? In your last post you said you were developing the keel so I assume you would have some idea on this....

[nico]

http://www.na.chalmers.se/~sw/YRU/publications.html
it is an Msc project from Delft about volvo 70 keel design.

Nico

[mackid068]

Is there a type of sheerline that is required? Just wondering.

[woody_paul]

The solutions adopted to reduce leeway angle come from setting up another lifting surface to generate an extra amount of lateral force. My initial plan was to add an additional forward foil in the yacht’s centreline which would rotate as a rudder does, The second solution, used in Open60 and
Mini650 yachts, is a non symmetrical retractable foil (Dagger Board) this would be either a NACA or Eppler section. These yachts have two of these foils, on in each side. When the yacht heels, the leeward foil are used to generate extra lateral force and the windward foil is lifted up to reduce drag. I still have masses of research to do in this area, and with my strict time scale, i am not going to be able to go into this important aspect of the design as much as i would have liked.
There are set measurements in the rules which define the shear line at three sections along the hull, they do not leave much to play with, if you want to look at the rules, you can access them through the link below:
http://www.volvooceanrace.org/assets_global/download/VO70_Rule.pdf

[woody_paul]

Thanks for link nico, very helpful

[woody_paul]

Lorsail, in your opinion, would a single retractable, self tacking daggerboard be sensible for a boat this size, and would it be better than having twin retractable daggerboards offset from the centre line. Because all appendages can only move in one plane, the rotating foil would be unsuitable for the downwind design of the open 70.

[Doug Lord]

Read Nico's post #17 and talk to him - I'd look seriously at CBTF ; it's proven to be very fast. Also look at what the first two or three 70's are using. But I guess nothing would be better than using the most extensive design testing and evaluation tools you can get access to-except maybe two boat testing.

[brian eiland]

...courtesy of Scuttlebutt...

Hollywood announced a swashbuckling assault on the British-based Volvo Ocean Race in a highly original joint venture. The makers of the second in the Pirates of the Caribbean series, the Walt Disney Company, will have their racing yacht built at the Green Marine facility in Lymington, Hampshire, in time to start the round-the-world race from Galicia, north-west Spain, in November.

Helping with the initial funding of the £8m to £10m campaign is the Volvo Car Company (a joint holding with the Ford Motor Company) and Volvo AB, but the plan is to replace that funding from other commercial sponsors. The boat, to be named The Black Pearl, will then be used for the duration of the race, which finishes in Sweden in June 2006 and features stopovers at Cape Town, Melbourne, Rio de Janeiro, Baltimore, Portsmouth and Rotterdam, to promote the film before its release in July 2006.

In addition, Disney will use the race to develop video games and publishing initiatives. It is the seventh confirmed entry in the event - there are hints of an eighth in the wings-- and most of the 10-strong crew, and the skipper,will be American. The film's star, Johnny Depp, is not expected to be one of them, even though he enjoys sailing, but may make an appearance at a stopover or the New York pit stop. Disney wants the boat to do well and is thought to be talking to the likes of Paul Cayard, Kenny Read, and Chris Larsen to take the helm.

"This takes us to a whole new level in terms of global profile and exposure," the chief executive of the race, Glenn Bourke, said. - Excerpts from a story by Stuart Alexander in the Independent, full story: http://sport.independent.co.uk/general/story.jsp?story=622394

Curmudgeon's Comment: The 'Pirates' campaign will be headed by Atlantic Ocean Racing, the syndicate company of Richard Brisius and Johan Salen.

TAKING SPONSORSHIP TO A NEW LEVEL
Pirates of the Caribbean stars Keira Knightley, Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom are taking to the high seas for real by joining a round-the-world yacht race, it was announced today. The Hollywood trio will help to crew a boat taking part in the gruelling Volvo Ocean Race. The vessel will be named the Black Pearl - after the pirate ship in the film - and its sail will feature a giant skull and crossbones. It is all part of a marketing stunt to promote the forthcoming release of the sequel Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

The stars will split the race between them - Knightley will join the boat while it is in Europe, Bloom will cover South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, and Depp will be on board when the yacht reaches the US and Brazil. Each will undergo rigorous training at the race HQ in Portsmouth. And while the rest of the crew must put up with the sort of living conditions yachtswoman Ellen MacArthur endured during her recent round-the-world voyage, the actors will be living in comparative luxury. A special "Hollywood-style" berth is being built for them on the boat. A spokesman said: "We will be laying on Egyptian cottons sheets, freshly cut flowers and special menus for each star." Knightley, 19, Depp, 41, and Bloom, 28, will take part in the inshore races at each of the main stopover ports.
- Anita Singh,
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4292137

[brian eiland]

...again courtesy Scuttlebutt...

It still has not been determined who will skipper the Walt Disney Co. entry in the Volvo Ocean Race, although you can be reasonably sure it won't be Mickey Mouse. Many questions remain unanswered involving the United States entry in the 2005-2006 around the world race, which was announced yesterday. What is certain is that a Volvo 70 sloop will carry the Disney logo and graphics promoting "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest".

Volvo officials would not reveal the financial commitment made by the Walt Disney Co. An average Volvo Ocean Race campaign costs between $15-18 million. "There are discussions ongoing with other potential partners. There are business entities that would like to be involved with a high-profile campaign such as this," Volvo Ocean Race spokesman Cameron Kelleher said, who declined to say whether Disney would fully fund the syndicate if necessary.

Glenn Bourke, CEO of Volvo Ocean Race, said it was important to secure an American entry to build interest in the race. Baltimore-Annapolis will host the lone U.S. stopover from April 20 to May 7, 2006. "We have found it really important in terms of spectator interest to have an affiliation between a competing team and a port," Bourke said. "Obviously, the one big market that was missing for this race was the U.S., and I certainly think this entry will fill the void." Bourke said Volvo officials and Disney executives have been in discussion about a partnership for about six months. He called it "groundbreaking" that a U.S. company the stature of Disney would get involved with professional sailing sponsorship.

Atlant Ocean Racing, headed by Richard Brisius and Johan Salen, will manage the Disney campaign. Brisius and Salen are veterans of the event, having organized the winning EF Language campaign in 1997-98 and the ASSA ABLOY campaign that was runner-up in 2001-02. Contacted yesterday in Sweden, Brisius said details of the arrangement with Disney have not been finalized. Atlant Ocean Racing already has a Volvo 70, drawn by Farr Yacht Design, under construction at Green Marine in the United Kingdom. Brisius said there was a strong possibility the Disney boat would be built off the same female mould already owned by Atlant Ocean Racing, but that contracts have not been signed.

Brisius said it was a prerequisite that the skipper and at least half the crew be U.S. citizens. Sources said that renowned San Francisco sailor Paul Cayard has been contacted about skippering the Disney entry. Cayard led EF Language to victory and thus has a strong relationship with Brisius and Salen. Annapolis resident Chris Larson, who served as tactician aboard ASSA ABLOY, is another professional with ties to Brisius and Salen. Brisius said Atlant Ocean Racing's original boat is due to be launched in June. He was hopeful the "Pirates" boat could be in the water by September in order to leave time for the required 2,000-mile test sail.
Excerpts from a story
by Bill Wagner, The Capital online, full story:
www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2005/03_22-43/SAL

[brian eiland]

...courtesy Scuttlebutt...


* From Magnus Wheatley: At first I thought it was an early April Fool but
reading Stuart Alexander's report on Hollywood coming to the Volvo and
knowing the revered stature of Britain's most incisive yachting journalist,
I realised it was anything but. Hands up to Glenn Bourke and the Volvo race
organiser's, you've pulled the rabbit out of the hat and scored big in this
exciting and innovative sponsorship deal by persuading a film company to
promote its upcoming global film on the back of the race - absolutely
brilliant! Just when all the sponsorship avenues seemed closed or plugged
you've found a new channel to market. I didn't think the Volvo would get
more than 5-6 entrants and looked like a lame duck. I was wrong and I doff
my cap to Glenn and his team.


* Fro Kim Noyes: I had to check my calendar while reading the first 2
stories in Scuttlebutt 1800. I thought for sure this was the April 1
edition sent early. Hollywood stars sailing a Disney boat in the Volvo
Ocean Race...good one. Now which lucky star gets the Southern Ocean leg?


* From Gareth Evans (With reference to the Volvo/ Disney Pirate Ship): I
have studied the latest RRS and cannot find any paragraphs that prohibit
the use of canons on board a racing yacht. It may be covered by Section 69:
Gross Misconduct, although that would be for the protest committee to
decide. I had to check the date when reading that story - are you sure
you're not a week early?


* From Scott Smith: Finally, a U.S. entry for the Volvo! Great news . . .
or is it? Reading down, we learn that this "U.S." entry is bankrolled by
none other than Volvo itself, is being run by a Swedish company, is
building and training in the U.K., and is promoting a movie about the
Caribbean. OK, so maybe it's not really a U.S. entry. We can live with that
in order to get some more competition in the race. But what about the
dignity of the event? Do they really think that a cartoonish skull and
crossbones boat reflects well on the heritage of this great event? What
next, eye patches, cutlasses and peg legs for the crew? And what about
"Hollywood berths" for the movie star visits? Even tongue-in-cheek, does
this honor the commitment and effort of the real crews who put their lives
on the line to be a part of this great adventure? Shiver me timbers!

[usa2]

Woody Paul-
Are the VO 70s allowed to use trim tabs on the forward daggerboard? If the rule lets you than you should look into a TMF-type system. If the rule doesnt, than two offset daggerboards will probably better. Whatever you are using, you are going to want it to be retractable for offwind work, especially considering the VO 70s will be in the Southern Ocean.

[brian eiland]

VOLVO OCEAN RACE
* Excerpt from Paul Cayard's report aboard The Black Pearl:
Still rippin' it up. We did 480 miles on the Pearl in the past 24 hours
and believe me we are trying not to go too fast. She is capable of leaping
small buildings if you are not careful and the landings are a bit brutal.
She is not a ballerina, more of a belly flopper. Not going to be a
comfortable ride around the world. The 60's were less violent that this
baby. Awesome machine though.

We have had the full fire hose conditions most of today and inside it
feels like you are getting dragged down a cobblestone street in a 55
gallon drum. Typing is not easy in these conditions. I end up backspacing
and retyping a lot. All pretty similar to my other experiences. One
difference is the constant speed. We are definitely going to get their
quicker. The boat is very easily driven and won't need much sail area.

Full report at http://volvooceanrace.org/pages/news/news191.htm

[Juan Carvajal]

Hallo, I am spanish student. I am Naval architect. I need information about VO70 ship.I am doing my Project about this kind of ship.If somebody have information, whatever, I am very greatful. Really, I would like to get real dimensions (length,beam,draft..)...somebody have design in Maxsurf or Rhino.
I looking forward your answer...thank you

[Guillermo]

Hallo, I am spanish student. I am Naval architect. I need information about VO70 ship.I am doing my Project about this kind of ship.If somebody have information, whatever, I am very greatful. Really, I would like to get real dimensions (length,beam,draft..)...somebody have design in Maxsurf or Rhino.
I looking forward your answer...thank you

Hola, Juan
Search the threads for VO70 and enjoy.
Un saludo.

[pmarklew]

Hi Paul

Did you ever finish this design? I would be interested in seeing it. I want to build a Volvo70 model and was wondering if you would be happy to part with some of the basic plans to assist me.
Many thanks