16' Keel boat-high performance

[Gina22]

Hi,
"On what planet?

I just checked again:

2004 "Orange II" 120ft Cat, Bruno Peyron, FRA, 706.2nm.29.42kts

2006 "ABN AMRO TWO" 70ft, Sebastien Josse, AUS, 562.96 nm, 23.45kts

In Doug's world, 143 miles short and 6 knots slower is equal speed."
Do You means 120ft=70ft ??? On what Planet???

Gina

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Gina22

Hi,

In Doug's world, 143 miles short and 6 knots slower is equal speed."
Do You means 120ft=70ft ??? On what Planet???

Gina

Hello Gina,

The claim was "with the speed AT LEAST equal to current multihulls " ... no mention of size. I posted the 24 hour average of the fastest multi-hull and the fastest mono-hull. If there is a faster 120-140ft Monohull, by all means post it's records.

When the claim is speed without qualification, size doesn't matter.

Do you have anything that would support the claim that a ballasted mono-hull is as fast as a multi-hull?

Do you have some design numbers that suggest such a feat is possible?

[frosh]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

"Frosh", it would be hard for me to hijack a thread I started! At any rate, your comments show no understanding of the concepts being discussed here and instead simply add to the BS posted so regularly by a couple of others. If you trully had an appreciation of yacht design you might recognize a new concept when you saw one and be able to comment intelligently on it.

It seems you dont remember what the topic was you started in this thread. It was the possibility of developing a "mini 12" sit inside keelboat using high tech innovations from grand prix ocean racers. You were expecting to attain speeds comparable with International Moths perhaps. We have now reached a point where you argue that a multihull can be a monohull if sailed in a certain way. That is "hijacked" in my language which is a shame because the initial thread was interesting. You need to get real on several fronts. The sit in keelboat could at best, only ever show a performance increase of an incremental nature, (small to you) as power to weight, RM, hull shape efficiency would all be less than any modern performance skiff. Likely a Laser which is considered pretty slow would be quicker around a course, as planing would be highly unlikely in the mini keelboat.

Doesnt mean that in discussion with others more reasonable and experienced than you, a concept better than R2.4 couldnt have been developed.

As far as people not having an understanding of new modern yacht design, dont presume that only you have original ideas or better comprehension of new concepts, as I have seen no original idea in your thousands of postings. Also your proposed foiling and jumping high performance small craft is a complete joke, not only in my opinion, ask any one. Dont just say that it is capable, has it actually done any of these things, and if so where is the evidence?

As far as the difference between monohulls and multihulls is concerned, most sailors understand this elementary concept, what is your problem?
Don't bother posting a screaming criticism of my comments as I have no intention of continuing the argument as it is waste of my time; and you are right about one thing, we should not clog up this forum with B-S.

[CT 249]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

It's hilarious to see some of the comments regarding designs/concepts by some of the best sailors in the world particularly the designs and ideas of Bethwaite/Billoch and Langman but also including the Out 95 guys. Gee, I wonder who is more credible: Julian Bethwaite et al or the Retro Dude ensemble on boatdesign.net?
Nobody has presented more technical detail on this subject than I have on this thread as well as both the previous discussion on this forum regarding the subject matter,the detailed discusion on the Moth forum as well as the articles by some of the most innovative guys in the world. Instead of reading and trying to understand the material most(but not all) of the arguments against this revolutinary concept have been thinly veiled ridicule of me personally or of the concepts presented-an obvious attempt to end a discussion that the previously mentioned "group" does not understand or want to understand. Kind of silly, guys....

Doug, please note that the technical details you have presented includes nothing on what seems to be the most important facet of all for disabled sailors. I write, of course, about the fact that you have still not given any indication of the righting arm of your "self righting" boat, nor how the very same sliding beam can be down in the water (creating bouyancy to re-right) and to windward (using its weight to complete the process of righting) at the same time. You have shown nothing to indicate that the RM your design proposal can generate is anything close to the sort of RM required to re-right such a craft.

In fact your technical details have not (IIRC) included any proper details of displacement, RM, SA/D, DLR. When a few rough figures about righting were brought out, you replied with in effect nothing more than "Well I think it will work", without showing us how the RM of your bulb (75kg???) could equal the 250kg or so a boat with a similar rig sometimes needs to re-right.

Having (unlike you) sailed the HSP with Julian I do respect his knowledge of tris. His knowledge of larger tris is obviously good (he mentioned it recently) but limited (about 1 regatta on a 31'er). This does not mean that this concept will work as a 16' disabled boat in the way you believe. Having (for instance) spent a little bit of time standing with Julian on centreboards trying to re-right boats, I think you underestimate the RM required to bring such a boat up.

Merely being a world-class sailor does not mean that concepts on paper will work....Russell Bowler is a fine sailor but the Farr VO70s have problems. Elvstrom was a great sailor but several of his designs were dogs. Same with Sherman Hoyt, Ben Lexcen, Brit Chance....merely because a great sailor or designer comes up with an idea does not guarantee success and we all know that. Some of Billoch's boats previously have not been enormous successes, same with Julian's Yes they are great designers but they are not perfect.

One point is that Phil Stevo is a two-time world champ and a successful designer with much more Moth and foiler experience than you have, yet you have mocked his claims that a two-man foiler will not work. If you dispute Phil's ideas, how come we can't query yours and those of others? He has proven that he can create champion and innovative skiffs, A Class cats and Moths and foilers, yet you felt you could tell him he didn't know doodle squat about foiling skiffs - so how can you now say we can't query a paper idea from Billoch and Bethwaite?

I also have major doubts about the performance of such a boat being anywhere in the multi class of speed as you claim. For example, an International Canoe has plenty of RM, less weight, more length and more of just about all speed-increasing factors than the proposed 16' sliding-beam keelboat. Despite this, an International Canoe is NOT competitive in speed with a catamaran of similar sophistication and LOA. I've got into the money at IC nats sailed on the same course as a Hobie 14 type boat and (as yardsticks suggest) the cats were at least as fast as the IC, despite being shorter and less sophisticated.

[Chris Ostlind]

You guys all know how Doug loves to quote the "big boys" at Sailing Anarchy's forum postings as a legitimacy of his, shall we say, interesting proposals and claims...?

Well, direct from the pages of SA's Dinghy Anarchy Forum comes this little gem that is on-point for this topic as well as the other "out there" boat proposals by Doug regarding "People's Foilers"

This one posted by the Squareman on March 23rd under the topic, Hydrosail Rave Trimaran:

"QUOTE(TheBoathouse @ Mar 21 2006, 04:42 PM) *

Only problem is when you are hauling ass around 25+ and a clump of seaweed or kelp catches the foil, can you say de-acceleration


If you ask Doug Lord, he will tell you "THAT" (and lack of wind) will never happen when on or using a foiler !

Trust me."

You can make your own decision as to the value of the post from SA.

More on the winged SDB-new plus a rehash of previous posts:
================
Fixed keel version righting capability: With wing at max windward extension(and pivoted) if boat was hit by a hand of god gust and knocked flat the RM will be approximately 2.5 times the heeling moment due to weight of rig with max weight crew still sitting in boat. This is also true if the wing was centered and pivoted. It is true of both versions as well. Pivoting of the wing occurs automatically or with crew assistance. "Pivoting" means that viewed from aft the ends of the wing will move up or down on opposite sides approximately 25°. Righting takes place due to movement of the wing weight at full extension or due to buoyancy pod movement if wing is centered in addition to the RM from the ballasted keel.Righting requires that sheets be freed.

1)

Originally Posted by Lorsail

RC, you've got it exactly right.
An 18' SDB : 220lb sliding ballast in 10' Trapwing™; Max crew 250lb.; retractable daggerboard with 75 pounds ballast, cants 20° each side with simple V trunk tied in to SDB system. SCP/total weight= 30%
180lb.hull;plus rig and foils. 785lb. all up displ. with 250lb. crew;255sq.ft. SA(upwind); S/D=48 -- better than most dinghies and nearly the same as an I14.----Capable of upwind planing and even faster w/o ballasted daggerboard and with a lighter crew.Extremely large crew weight range at max performance from 120 to 250lb. Capable of foiling....
--------------------
12.75' SDB, 130 sq.ft. SA, 8'Trapwing™ with 76 pounds sliding ballast; 426lb max displ. with 250lb crew. 130sq.ft. SA; SA/D= 36.82(comparable to 505&FD.) SCP/total weight =30% with max crew.
Extremely wide range of crew weight at maximum performance- 90lb. to 250lb.(90lb. crew requires 20lb. more ballast in Trapwing™); 200lb. or less crew capable of foiling.....
========================
Trapwings would have molded buoyancy pods on the ends; whole wing slides; 18' system could be electric w/o much additional weight; est. 30 pounds incl. battery. Weight plus crew also slides fore and aft on both boats; boats would have AT LEAST rudder t-foil.
-----
The more I look at this the more I like it......
==============
From Mr. Bethwaite: SCP = sail carrying power; it is equal to the max Righting Moment divided by the Heeling Arm. SCP divided by Total weight gives a percentage-according to Mr. Bethwaite if 30% or over the boat will plane to windward. It is the only comparative ratio I know of that includes the boats RM & power to carry sail.

2)

Originally Posted by Lorsail

If the 18 took a knockdown with the wing at maximum extension to windward it would right itself slowly and faster by sliding the wing down(to leeward) since the wing has massive buoyancy.The weight would assist in righting the boat by first causing the wing to want to slidedown(assuming the boat at 90°) and second as RM as the buoyancy pushes the boat up. In addition to the leeward buoyancy pod(close up to the side of the boat with the wing at max extension) the 18 has a weighted daggerboard with 75 pounds at 5' below the boat which also assists righting.The 12 footer would be righted solely by moving the wing down with buoyancy in the leeward pod and in the mast preventing turtling in both cases.Neither boat relies on crew weight to right it.(NOTE: see above for explanation of the role of the pivoting wing)
==========================
VERY IMPORTANT!!
--------------------------
At least that's the plan.I'm sure there are things that will need tweaking but the concept has captivated me because of it's performance potential and what that could mean to disabled and ablebodied sailors alike. Both boats can be sailed at a high performance level with a crew weight range from 90-250lbs and the concept offers accurate weight AND righting moment equalization for competition along with a rather new way to sail.

3) A

Originally Posted by RCSail

A boat with wide wings and a trapeze might be faster on some points of sail, but would demand an athletic crew and considerable practice. The sliding wing would permit placing a fair amount of ballast a long distance from the hull, and thus permit a one person sit-in boat to be competitive with most two place trapeze boats.

========================
CT249- you mention Phil Stevos ridiculous comments that only a Moth monofoiler can foil, -oh, wait-he changed that to:"..only foil upwind." But then I showed that he was ALREADY 100% wrong since David Lugg had foiled upwind in an International 14 in 1999.And the 20+ foot Monitor monofoiler foiled with two people TACKING AND GYBING ON THE FOILS in the 50's in the United States! I have much respect for Phil S.- but those comments were just plain wrong and very, very uninformd!!!!
----
The greatest potential of the sliding ballast concept in terms of speed is when the concept is combined with the use of a bi-foil monohull hydrofoil system. The Moth has already proved faster than a number of much larger monohulls and multihulls with significantly greater sail area and righting moment. There is alot of potential that a large Maxi Skiff using sliding on-deck ballast coupled with foils COULD have a good shot at being faster than an EQUAL SIZED NON- FOILED multihull.
A small SDB using a Trapwing™ has the potential to be very, very fast wihout hydrofoils; the use of "foil assist" or full flying foils on either of the boats mentioned earlier is an option that may or may not be worthwhile.
A small "sit-inside" boat with the power of these boats along with their selfrighting capability simply does not exist but could sure provide exciting sailing done in an entirely new way whether the weight was moved electrically or manually.
--------------------

[Chris Ostlind]

So prove it beyond another pretty drawing and a bunch of hype.

Right now, bro, you're simply re-arranging the deck chairs into delightfully modern patterns, with a touch of the latest hot colors, without any substance whatsoever.

So, when ya gonna post your bitchin idea on SA, Doug? Daunting idea is it not?

[frosh]

Doug, what in hell has foiling got to do with a sit in keelboat? I don't believe that such a thing will happen in your or mine lifetime, nor would it be even necessary. You could buy a Hobie Trifoiler, but that is not a sit in keelboat and seems unsuited for tactical racing from what I observe on the web. Why dont you stick to what is relevant and discuss foiling in a different thread.

[Raggi_Thor]

Doug, I suggest you leave the keyboard alone for a while and build the boat!

Thanks, Raggi; I'd build it in a minute if I could but it will be at least a year before I can do so. However, I've built numerous models to test the sliding ballast system one of which is on the front page of http://www.microsail.com
I will be building a more or less scale model of the 18 in the mean time.
------
6:59PM_ Sorry about this link- first time it's been down in 5 years( to my knowledge). Problem is some technical changes made by the web hoster. Some may get thru and see an old front page that shows two IACC-type model spinnaker boats-what should be there is the Melges 24 prototype that I tested using a Power Ballast System very similar to what I have described here earlier minus wing buoyancy. Worked very well; link should be up soon. My humble apologies...

[Chris Ostlind]

Dear Doug,

Do you think you could post said images to a remote side page on your site so that anyone interested doesn't have to get a heavy dose of the self-indulgent marketing of your business products?

Have some class and back away for that sixth cup of coffee with the "Instant Marketer" additive. I believe the gang here has been more than open to your brainstorming and frenzied hype with regards to all the cool, boat du jour, projects you have been pumping-out lately. Why not back down several notches on the excitable boy routine and show a measure of class with the image posting routine.

For that matter, you could just post them here on the Design Gallery and avoid all the conflict issues.

[BOATMIK]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

It's hilarious to see some of the comments regarding designs/concepts by some of the best sailors in the world particularly the designs and ideas of Bethwaite/Billoch and Langman but also including the Out 95 guys. Gee, I wonder who is more credible: Julian Bethwaite et al or the Retro Dude ensemble on boatdesign.net?

Doug,

It seems from the above that you don't take us seriously anyhow - so why try to convince people that you don't think are credible :-).

In general a sense of history is highly filtered. We all like to remember the successes and disappear the failures - at least I work that way!

So looking at Langman et al we tend to see their successes rather than their many failures.

To make a success usually you need many failures - as Bethwaite, Langman know well. Ask Julian about his skiff moths. Not bad but not great either - he was fooling around with them just before the "Prime" 18ft concept kicked off.

(My take on that is that he was fooling around with Moths that were shaped like 18ft skiffs, but finally twigged that it was better to make 18ft skiffs that were shaped like Moths - the rest is history)

Or all of Frank's (Bethwaite) HPVs - there have been a huge number of those before he was satisfied.

So are these current concepts one of their successes or one of their failures? Certainly if you are looking at a particular design phase it is a string of failures that leads to success - perhaps it is more accurate not to talk about their success or "correctness and see that Bethwaite, Langman etc are where and what they are because of their constructive approach to failure - a much more important characteristic rather than their degree ability to be "right" in this case.

Until it is built we don't know. No matter how hard they might push them as the latest and greatest concept. Which is why I tend to take it all with a grain of salt. Sailing has a history of ideas that have been touted as the latest and greatest but are consigned to the dumpyard of history.

A great example was in sailboard design - remember all the hoopla that the manufacturers used to go on about "revolutionary multi channel bottom" etc. And Robbie Nash used to swear by them and win convincingly with them.

Greatestest sailboard sailor in the world - not like us "Retro Dudes" (and Dudettes). But that's the point it was a set of ideas at the time that were simply wrong - but the big guys were convinced enough to tell us that it was the truth - "descended from the mountain" type truth.

The point is that the best solution takes many iterations

A drawing or concept is never a breakthrough - it is the final built boat where we can all see whether it is the promised breakthrough or a historical dead end.

Michael Storer

Micheal, I'm sorry if you consider yourself among the "Retro Dudes at boatdesign.net" because until you said that I thought there were only two. If you review this discusion and the other discussons I referenced in a previous post you may see that I have tried to present all the information on the topic of monohull keelboats with buoyancy pods, sliding deck ballast as well as the possible use of hydrofoils-some agrees with me -some does not. I have ,in all most every case, tried to present as much data as possible as well as pointing out that these guys "MAY have" created a new way to sail. I have used such language repeatedly in describing my own SDB's which you'll find in my third post back. I am very concious that I am talking about new ideas that may not work as I think they can- but I use the best data I can find to support what I've said. People are entitled to disagree or be skeptical but the retro dude contingent goes way beyond that with repeated asking questions that have been answered, comments that show that they have not read the material provided, aggressive personal inuendo ect. Some of these people-you're 100% right- I don't take seriously at all! There is one individual-CT249- who has an agressive style similar to the two I mentioned before but is not one of them: he asks pointed-but intelligent- questions which I have tried to answer one by one. I don't mind that kind of thing at all-as you would see by reading the previous discussion. But I will do my utmost to try to get across my point if I believe strongly in it. None of these boats has been built yet except the Out 95 but the concepts are worthy of civil, intelligent discussion -not the type of obnoxiousness favored by a couple of posters to this thread.
Michael,I don't think you could possibly be a Retro Dude-your comments were too polite and well thought out and I appreciate them. However, I think a forum like this should be used to present new and different ideas -that's how we can all learn -about new ideas and the way human nature makes some people act when confronted with something they don't understand -or appreciate. Again, thanks!
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Frosh, you seem to have a problem with a keel boat using hydrofoils. A bit of a serious look at the numbers for my boat with the added information that I forgot to post: downwind SA about 2.5 times upwind SA-should allow you to realize that my proposed boats should have the power to weight required to foil off the wind with their ballasted keels. You might refer to the previous discussion in this thread about the idea of incorporating "foil assist"-similar to a foil system used on Orma tri's and not requiring and altitude control system -on the two boats I've proposed using retractable hydrofois. You might also note that full flying foil systems may be possible when the boat is sailed at less than maximum crew weght(250lb's) an w/o the fixed keel by an ablebodied crew.
Both the Out 95 keelboat guys and Langman have said they are looking into foil systems for their keelboats; will they work? Who knows- but kudo's to them for exploring the concept.

[usa2]

this thread is somewhat becoming like the TP52 one...

[CT 249]

Well I said if "IIRC ("If I Recall Correctly") no DLR etc had been given, my bad for recalling incorrectly.

Re recovery "if boat was hit by a hand of god gust and knocked flat" (which DOES happen....). My very rough figures indicate that the 16 Foot Skiff's RM is also about 2.5 times the heeling moment due to weight of rig. I also know that this is often nowhere NEAR like enough RM to bring the boat up quickly. One sometimes has to wait for quite a while as the boat turns head to wind. This would arguably not be a wonderful experienced for a person strapped into a narrow (ie close to or under water level when capsized) hull.

When you calculate the weight of the rig how much did you allow for the water lying on top of the sails? What sort of RM do you believe you'll get and how does it compare to 3 beefy skiffys all on a centreboard in a line?

"you mention Phil Stevos ridiculous comments...."

OK, Phil may have been factually incorrect. He may also have been referring to competitive foilers, IIRC Dave Lugg finished about 8th last with his foiler.

However, the point is that you cannot logically demand that we must simply accept Julian's concept because of his proven skills, then call another proven designer's ideas "ridiculous".

Have it one way or the other. Either we can legitimately comment on the ideas of world champion designers, or we can't. You want to say that we can't query Julian's design BECAUSE of his expertise, but you call Phil's ideas "ridiculous" DESPITE his proven expertise.

If Phil's ideas were "just plain wrong and very, very uninformd!!!!" then you have to accept that just possibly other designers are also wrong at times. As Boatmik says, many of the earlier Bethwaite tris were flops (I grew up watching them test in front of my house.....I know what they were like). Paul Bieker's B1 14 was apparently not so hot. Farr has had flops. So has Sean at times in minor ways. As Boatmik says, every designer has them.

Re dimensions. It's easy to project a big rig on a boat and say it will be fast. In fact that doesn't work out in reality.

A few comparisons......

18' SDB RM (1) 1980 Displ 785 SA 255
16' Skiff RM 4276 728 237/592 (upwind/downwind)
I-14 RM 2168 562 200/530
49er RM 2574 621 228/637
F16 cat RM 5500 544 180/360
Int Canoe RM 1270 349 107
Contender RM 1045 390 107
505 RM 1795 632 175/355
18 Ft Skiff RM 6227 (2) 856 (2) 282 (small rig)/949

The 18 has over 3 times the RM of the SDB, yet the skiff is forced to go the small rig from about 12 knots (IIRC). You expect the SDB, with 30% of the RM of the skiff, to hold up a rig only 10% smaller.

Your RM is only 10% bigger than the 505, so it will be very hard to hold a rig almost 30% bigger.

Your RM is 77% of the 49er's, so it will be hard to hold up a rig 112% of the 49er's size.

Your RM is 155% that of the IC, so it will be hard to hold up a rig 238% as big.

Your RM is 36% of the F16 cat which is fully powered from 8-10 knots, so how can you hold up 42% more sail?

Your RM is 46% of the 16 Foot Skiff's, so it will be hard to hold up a rig 8% bigger (bear in mind the skiffs are expert's boats AND they are often overpowered AND the 16 moves to a smaller rig in about errrrr 10--12 knots because it can't support the #1 rig despite having over twice your RM).

Your RM is 91% of that of the 14, yet you believe you can support 27% more sail.

So how will you support this rig?


Notes 1 - assuming wing extends 9' from c of B...seems generous. Lead ballast is of course no use in this respect when upright.

Notes 2 - assuming 3 guys who are light for 18s.

Finally....about 3 weeks ago, Julian said that he does NOT believe that foilers will make sailing more popular. While he admires them, he doesn't think they are practical and will get people on the water.

If, as you have said, we must listen to Julian, then so should you.