Team Philips Videos

Always liked the Adrian Thompson pushing-the-boundary-edge designs, Paragon and We/Sebago. He had/has his critics. Also thought the freestanding huge (and heavy) wing masts on Team Philips would have been relatively problem free if they had been more conventionally stayed and similar to the rig setup on MacAlpine-Downie's speed record catamaran Crossbow. Like to hear what Rob Denney has to say about that.

 

Hydraplaneur

http://www.histoiredeshalfs.com/Histoire des 60 ORMA/2003 04 VV Parlier 2.jpg


pogo

 

Exactly.

 

Crossbow was a sort of proa with the mast stayed to the ww hull. Think they had to drop the sails to get towed back up the course.
Crossbow 2 had a similar rig to Hydraplaneur. Frankly, I think it is a daft idea due to the extra weight and windage up high and the limits it places on easing/sheeting the sails.
Team Phillips' rig was brilliant, as was the rest of the boat, apart from the pod. It was let down by lousy engineering, lack of budget and loss of focus due to time and publicity requirements.
A stayed rig would have required the entire boat being strong enough to resist the huge rig loads (as opposed to 'just' the area around the masts/beams) so I suspect it would have been much heavier with a lot more windage.

All I can find about the weight is the following, from a friend who usually knows what he is talking about: "Team Philips had two 135' unstayed rotating carbon wing spars. Each mast weighed about 5,500lbs. Despite being greatly over-engineered for The Race, I believe they were not much heavier than a complete 1999-vintage maxi yacht rig, despite being 35% taller".
They were apparently built as tubes, with a wing shaped housing wrapped round them, so they were definitely heavier than the one piece wing section with sheer web that we now build.
Our unstayed glass/carbon masts work out about the same weight and cost as a stayed alloy mast and rigging, but with much less structure required. A boat designed from scratch for an unstayed mast will almost certainly be lighter overall than one designed for a stayed rig as the area required to be strong is so much smaller.

Imo, unstayed rigs have so many advantages (safety, lack of maintenance, ease of use) that it is a no brainer which one to use, especially for cruising boats.

 

Thanks Rob.
However, just thinking of my own boat should I consider an unstayed wing mast rig on 11 metre Groucho, the complete 15.6 metre by 520mm wing mast including halyards and stays (Spectra and Dyneema) weighs a litttle over 70kgs. Take off the light fibre stays and runners and then say, 65kgs - and then beef up the base to go through deck to main hull floor for cantilever unstayed mast loads plus extend the reinforcing up the mast a few metres to spread loads and then build the two bearings to handle said loads. Guarantee it would be over 120kgs total, probably a lot more.
If both rigs on Team Philips totalled 11000 lbs? .... that is a huge weight in my book. But then I'm not ofay with big boat rig weights.
And probably as a result of this weight (and design because they were real fatties) was the reason they had irreparable (at sea) problems with the mast base(s) wrecking their bearings.
Hydraplaneur was an ok boat, actually held the record daily mileage run for a short while; imo, her disadvantage was the draggy stepped planing hulls in moderate to light winds, but not in the fresh stuff and nothing wrong with the rigs either in those conditions. In a way the French cat (if with conventional round bilge hull cross sections) was very similar to Crossbow 2 - which also held world speed record way back in the day.
So I'm one of those doubters of unstayed efficiency because of extra weight required to keep the rig alive and breathing. Here's an old shot of the twin rigs I experimented with in the 1980s on Misguided Angel. These were stayed and very light; have forgotten the exact weights - but you could easily pick one up and walk around.
Also muct apologize for asking for your comments - then disagreeing with you in a long winded manner. Must be the potent Chimay and Duvel beer I've been drinking Xmas day.

 

I think the main reason for the biplane rig on Hydraplaneur was the lower Ce ( Center of effort).
For a planing multihull it is essential to keep the leeward hull as light as possible, which also means no pressure from the heeling momentum that would push the float much deeper into the water.
For a planing single chined hull it' s important not to be heeled too much, giving as much planing area in the bow sections in lateral direction as possible.
Look at pix of planing cats in planing mode --they barely heel.
http://www.histoiredeshalfs.com/Histoire des 60 ORMA/10 09 Aquitaine (1).JPG
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/95206090.jpg
http://vincent.chapin.free.fr/images/Hydraplaneur-12-291.jpg
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/at...968d1275695240-planing-trimarans-img_1989.jpg
http://www.aeroyacht.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/9-620x415.jpg
To achive this you either have to make the boat very wide or you keep Ce low.
(additional, as you all know making a catamaran very wide results in problems with pressure from the mast on the mainbeam)

Originally my planing 35' tri sported a rotating alloy mast of 11m only, 40sqm upwind for 2tons cruising trim . in this trim ( family cruising) and with this SA she delivered offshore averages of 16kn over 50nm in planing mode ; northsea.

Eventually the mast broke 'cause of fatigue ( it was 3/4 rigged with 7/8 for Drifter/ screacher/ code0 /genni on running backstays---guess where it broke).
I then built a double diamond rotating alloy mast of 15m ; 7/8 , jumper for additional top code 0/ genni.
The boat's performance in light winds became much better --no wonder , 20% more sailarea upwind and much more airdraft.
But the planing area of the float couldn't fight against the resulting pressure anymore . The boat was hardly planing anymore, her "overdrive" was missing, her "flights" were missing. I still had a fast boat that was faster under non- planable aconditions" than before , but speeds over 20kn became seldom. Most of the time She's a conventional tri now--fast deplacement mode.
Look, bottom little concave ( sort of newick's half-moon); outer stringer/sprayrail; very sharp bows, wavepiercing thru a chopped sea of up to 8% of lwl while planing:
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7189/pogo3tf6.jpg
Boxy aft sections ( also avoiding hobbyhorsing )
http://imageshack.com/i/3qtt025j
Designed in '86 by Ib Pors Nielsen, GRP Sandwich
http://imageshack.com/i/60tt005j

What i wanna express is that special hulls, planing hulls, need special ( e.g. lower) riggs--see Hydraplaneur.
Or you ride/plane heeled on a curved foil and plane on the aft sections-- like today's trimarans.
Foil assistance for bow - up attitude ( less wetted surface) AND positve trim-angle of the aft sections for planing -- or at least additional dynamic lift.
http://segelreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Banque-Pop.jpg
http://www.voile.banquepopulaire.fr/pics/9/533/3f36da1d82254c6d9fbc99be81f25b45.jpg

pogo

 

Good post,"pogo", well done!

 

Rob,
i think a mast on a proa , being positioned on the leeward float , brings less power into the float.
When the boat heels , it pivots around the longitutal axis of the center of static lift, which means that the hull is never pressed deeper into the water , meaning that the hull has to withstand much less impact from waves.
With other words: on a proa one has no "digged-in" float in lee, the mast's base ( tube in the hull - unstayed mast) has to counteract the windforce only, so it can be lighter. The " barrier" , the heel limiting static " brake " of a leeward float is missing on a pacific proa.
Clever concept, but nevertheless on can't compare unstayed masts , respective their base , on a proa with unstayed masts on a cat or tri .

pogo

 

Pogo, (aside from a certain supporter wetting himself from your forward foil comments .... and how did that get into this thread?) Flying 18s from Australia and New Zealand, with their very wide crew racks (weight well out to windward), minimal planing hull design beam, sail exactly like a flying proa you have described as being a Rob Denney proa design "failing?"
Meaning, if I'm reading you correctly, that the lee proa hull lacks the ability to carry wind power forces, wants to lift the windward hull - therefore dissipating its power.
Obviously in the real world, (not fan club delusionals) this is not the case; 18s are very, very fast boats. As too, are flying proas.
Which by the way, are faster designs than leeward proas ... which lean on the leeward float, and as I read from your writing, should be the faster, more "correct" design? I don't know of any proa multihull with leeward hull digging in power, rig on windward float/hull, to hold, or have held any records.
Actually I'm wrong; Lestra Sport, a 55 foot leeward proa broke an Atlantic record crossing around 4 decades ago. But was subsequently bettered by Elf Aquitaine catamaran which crossed during the same period.

 

Mmh, you misunderstood me--obviously it' s my bad english.
i didn' t want to express that a heeling proa is dissipating it's power from the rigg.
Where should such a dissipating happen ?
I wanted to say that the leeward hull of a pro is not pressed into the water, never.
This principle is clever , the windward hull acts as ballast , sometimes with additional watertanks.
It' s the same principle as with dinghies , 18footers , crew in trapezes .
Monohulls with canting keels perform in the same manner .
The only difference is that these boats plane , a proa normaly doesn' t plane.

As you mentioned , pacific proas are fast ' cause they don' t have to lean on a leeward float.

A pressed leeward float generates not only lot of wetted surface ( drag) ,
to push and hold such a float into the water ( under water) via the sailarea of an unstayed mast, the mastbase must be stronger designed than that one on a pacific proa with an unstayed mast.


Yes, a flying proa , each kind of a flying proas -- planing 18footer with crewballast , planing mono with canting keel , or even the pacific proa in fast deplacement mode --are by far the fastest and lightest boats.
When heeled , both don't generate more wetted surface.
Lightest boats-- their perhaps freestanding riggs don't have to withstand the " contrapower" of a submerged float .

Concerning the Biplane rigg, or better why i' m posting here.
As i've tried to explain , a high rigg on a cat or tri heels the boat more, presses the leeward hull deeper into the water.
This results in higher stresses for the mastbase of an unstayed mast --so --biplane to keep CE lower.

On Team Philips they made -- after my opinion ---two mistakes:
---
---unstayed masts ( unproven in such size) , resulting in too much weight
--underestimating the power ( fatigue and load peaks ) in the mastbase coming from a submerged float (fast depl
acement principle only)


pogo

 

Of course. But what would happen if you removed all the other stuff on the boat that was required for the stayed rig? The chainplates, traveller, winches and all the beefing up required for these and sufficient rigidity and strength in the hull to keep everything in place. The overall difference would be a lot less.
A (not ideal) example might be to compare Groucho with Bucket List https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttXu3pRTzs8. Bucket List is 12m/40' x 7.5m/25', with 56 sqm/600 sq' of sail on a single, unstayed mast. It is on track to weigh 500 kgs/1,100lbs ready to sail. Mast and beams are carbon, rest is glass and foam. Groucho?
Bucket List is designed to be idiot proof for chartering, which demonstrates the aspects of the unstayed rig which are more important than the negligible weight differences. Anyone who knows how to sail can jump on Bucket List and go racing. Any non collision damage, I will pay for. Not many stayed mast boats could make either of these claims.

Me neither. But if the weight of one of them was the same as the weight of a maxi mast and the maxi was half the length with maybe a fifth of the righting moment, then the difference between the weight of stayed and unstayed rigs for TP would not be large. Apparently, TP weighed about the same as Playstation.

Disagree. Bearings are a pretty simple design exercise. My understanding was that it was the same as the hull breaking. A screw up by the engineer, which was corrected and the new ones worked.

To maximise the benefits, design from scratch for the unstayed mast. Or the biplane, or a conventional mast.
Stayed rigs are highly developed for race boats. Unstayed masts, not so much. Spend tens of million dollars and tens of thousands of hours on unstayed masts and the performance difference will be much smaller.

Don't be silly. It is a design forum. Disagreeing/explaining/learning is why we are here.

Pogo,
I agree that proas are fastest, but not so sure about the masts.
The loads on a mast are righting moment critical. Does not matter whether the leeward edge of the platform is to windward or leeward of the mast. A 1.5 tonne harryproa with 1 tonne in the ww hull and 5m beam will have 5 tonne metres rm. A 5m wide cat or tri weighing 2 tonnes will have the same rm.
The proa will be faster as it is lighter, but the capsize load on an unstayed mast will be the same on both boats.
The proa rig could be lighter as it can be smaller for the same speed. It will also see fewer shock loads as the boat won't bounce around so much, but just looking at the rm, the loads are the same.

We (Etamax) have designed and built a biplane rig for a 12m cat. The sail area was the same as the conventional rig. Performance was so good, the owner lopped 4m/13' off the top of each mast. Still sails extremely quickly.

 

"Of course. But what would happen if you removed all the other stuff on the boat that was required for the stayed rig? The chainplates, traveller, winches and all the beefing up required for these and sufficient rigidity and strength in the hull to keep everything in place. The overall difference would be a lot less.
A (not ideal) example might be to compare Groucho with Bucket List https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttXu3pRTzs8. Bucket List is 12m/40' x 7.5m/25', with 56 sqm/600 sq' of sail on a single, unstayed mast. It is on track to weigh 500 kgs/1,100lbs ready to sail. Mast and beams are carbon, rest is glass and foam. Groucho?
Bucket List is designed to be idiot proof for chartering, which demonstrates the aspects of the unstayed rig which are more important than the negligible weight differences. Anyone who knows how to sail can jump on Bucket List and go racing. Any non collision damage, I will pay for. Not many stayed mast boats could make either of these claims."

I admire your Bucket List, light, simple, clever and know it will be very fast. It's a new design and built in the latest manner/materials ... but my old Groucho is so ancient and built in old fashioned tensioned ply with glass and some carbon, as is mast. The "new" beam is strip paulownia/glass/carbon and is maybe 20 years old now. So what I'm saying, even though ancient, the whole boat, with 2 crew and all gear, weighs around 650kgs, pretty close, I'm guessing to your 12 metre proa.
Regarding chain plates; I used way back in time and I think probably before anyone else did, uni-directional glass rovings wrapped around thimbles and running/spreading the tows over an area on the hull outsides. Never had any trouble with this connection. Weight equals very little, a few kgs. Now I use uni-carbon over couple of layers glass to stop electrolysis; talking about the ss thimble. The semi-circular traveller track is a tiresomely built wood/glass/carbon combination - weight a few kgs, maybe 15 max - and I've recently shortened it so it is similar to the setup on Sid, see photograph.
A more modern comparison, although still old world and back yard traditional would be Sid - which is 8.5 x 8 metres, 11.5 metre mast, complete boat 235kgs.

 

Thanks for the BL compliments.

Tensioned ply and glass is the only one of the"old fashioned" build methods which can compete weight wise with "latest manner/materials" (foam/glass infusion). Requires more build skill and maintenance, but matches the weight for small boats.

Groucho weighing near enough the same as Bucket List is evidence that if the boat is designed for it, stayed or unstayed mast makes little weight difference.

Tow/rovings/fibres is the only way to go. We include them in the infusions for beam and mast reinforcing.

8.5m boats don't really compare with 12m. Nearest I can offer is Elementarry (10 years old, 7.5m x 4m, 2 unstayed 8m masts) at 140 kgs. http://harryproa.com/?portfolio=elementarry-75m25 Repeat the little hull and beams and add half a metre each end to make an 8.5 x 8m wide tri and it would weigh ~180 kgs. Again, evidence that if the boat is designed for it, the weight will be similar for stayed or unstayed masts.

Which is not to say that I think a stayed rig boat will perform worse. Assuming the trimmer knows what he is doing, it will be faster, all else being equal (see dollars and time in my previous post). But for convenience, safety and lack of maintenance, an unstayed rig wins hands down.
Interesting that many of the retirements in the Hobart this year were sail damage. Judging by the tracks, many of them had to bear away when the southerly hit and try to reef their mains/change their headsails while running downwind with the main pinned against the shrouds. An unstayed rig would have weathercocked and the boat sat quietly (ish) while the reefs were put in, regardless of where the breeze was from.

 

Bearing away when overpowered and then winching down the main - on a fixed mast - is so backward, (although there is no other option) with main pressed hard against spreaders and stays, no wonder there are problems. Since we're talking about monohulls, the enlightened monohull designs like the IMOCA 60s, pretty near all have rotating aerodynamic wing mast shapes plus have much wider staying bases than conventional rigs ... so the mast can be rotated to ease the main luff binding problems. Also because the staying angle is so much wider you don't get the poor main wrapped around spreaders and stays while itis being cranked down. Dare I say, multihulls have had this problem sorted out decades ago. And yes, your unstayed rig is even superior to the rotating stayed mast in this defecation-hits-fan situation.

 

I don't think many cruising multis have "got it sorted out". Certainly not those with 3 stayed rigs with diamonds. To reef ddw in a squall most of them winch the sail down, despite their expensive batten cars. Consequently, they tend to reef at night and sail underpowered, "just in case".
On an unstayed rig in a squall,you release the sheet and completely depower the rig. No flapping sails or flogging sheets and the boat sits quietly while you reef or wait until the squall passes. Or, sheet on just enough to keep you going in the required direction.
Gybing an unstayed rig is also much less hassle as there is no rigging for the sail/boom to slam against and no traveller to fight. Pull the boom in and/or steer to leeward until it gybes, then release the sheet and the boom and sail will swing round until they are in line with the breeze. Then sheet it back on. In dangerous weather, ease the boom until it is in front of the boat, then pull it in the other side with a lazy sheet.
Back on topic, these ease of handling issues were why Team Philips was sailed with a crew of seven vs Playstations' and Club Meds' twelve. This weight saving (5 people, plus gear, safety and food/water for 65 days) is something else to add into the unstayed vs stayed boats weight equation.