Ballast preference for racing yacht?

[LP]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord
Original question: what kind of ballast would you prefer for a RACING yacht?
50+% of respondents say a fixed keel. And some say water ballast.
In big boats the record shows that canting keels are ,without doubt, the fastest against both fixed keels and waterballast.
I find it interesting that the majority have chosen the slowest form of the types of ballast
presented..

I'm not against techology and the use of advanced mechanics to go faster. I just have visions of sandbaggers in my head when we start talking about movable ballast. How far do you push the limits and at what expense when things start to break?

Unfortunately, many cruising designs are influenced by designs used for racing and that trickle down effect doesn't always have a positive effect on a non-racing vessel. It's this regard for which I voice the sentiment that I have.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

Original question: what kind of ballast would you prefer for a RACING yacht?
50+% of respondents say a fixed keel. And some say water ballast.
In big boats the record shows that canting keels are ,without doubt, the fastest against both fixed keels and waterballast.
I find it interesting that the majority have chosen the slowest form of the types of ballast
presented..

It doesn't matter what a some loud talkers say on an internet forum. What really matters is the opinion of the guys who write the checks.

Last week I was at Westerly Marine and Lynn gave me a tour of the new STP65 (Farr Design) in build as the new Rosebud. This replaces their winning TP52. It is a really cool tool and will without doubt win a lot of races.

Lynn said there have been quite a few potential owners talking to him about a build schedule. Sounds like this class might take off nicely, maybe not as successful as the TP 52, but not bad for something that costs this much.

The owners and potential owners decided this class, like the TP52s, would have no canting keels. Seems very few people want the headaches associated with those systems. All the owners and potential owners had seen the 65 foot R/P canter Stark Raving Mad (very cool boat) but decided to go a different route with their money.

The latest 45-60 foot IRC boats are pretty much all conventional bulb keel designs. No interest in canters.

Outside of the Volvo 70s and the Open 60s I don't see many people putting their money on canting designs.

[DGreenwood]

The latest 45-60 foot IRC boats are pretty much all conventional bulb keel designs. No interest in canters.

This is probably more related to ratings than desires.

[CT 249]

Not necessarily. The maxi canters have proven to be extremely successful on IRC. Down here (where most of them come from and where they do most of their racing) there are many, many complaints that the canters are heavily favoured by IRC.

Isn't it well proven that maximising pure speed is important only to a tiny percentage of sailors?

[DGreenwood]

Originally Posted by CT 249

Not necessarily. The maxi canters have proven to be extremely successful on IRC. Down here (where most of them come from and where they do most of their racing) there are many, many complaints that the canters are heavily favoured by IRC.

Isn't it well proven that maximising pure speed is important only to a tiny percentage of sailors?

Hmmm...not my perception of it at all, but I have to believe you, I try to keep my nose out of handicap racing so I'm not all that aware of where the moveable ballast yachts fall in the hierarchy. I was under the impression that IRC was written without any consideration for movable ballast and as a result tended to heavily penalize.

Among those that know that speed is an important element of winning a time over distance race I would think speed would be pretty important. Not to be a smartass but I guess I am asking among what sailors? Cruisers, matchracers, OD racers, Handicap racers, open class racer, and multihull racers probably all have a very different outlook on that topic.Yeah I could see your point that if all out speed were by far the most important thing then we would all want carbon multis.

As far as the future of the canting keel is concerned, i believe as long as mono hulls are around they will continue to develop, and they have and will continue to get more reliable. The speed as a result of weight reduction etc. is just too attractive. The technology is still in diapers...give it time.

[gggGuest]

Originally Posted by DGreenwood

As far as the future of the canting keel is concerned, i believe as long as mono hulls are around they will continue to develop, and they have and will continue to get more reliable.

Ultimately though if I'm going to hang ballast off the side of my boat I'd rather hang it in air than in water, because its so much less drag, and I'd rather it was buoyant so that if it hits the water it doesn't all go pearshaped, so, frankly, if you're looking for the extra speed why not just do it with a hull to windward instead of a keel?

[rayk]

You win first prize for that answer gggGuest.

Originally Posted by gggGuest

.. so, frankly, if you're looking for the extra speed why not just do it with a hull to windward instead of a keel?

--------
Why go with the drag of an extra hull when a modern state of the art monohull with two lifting foils, a minimal canting keel and on-deck water ballast can give equivalent or faster speeds AND be selfrighting as well?

-----
No, CT, it is NOT well proven that maximising pure(or impure) speed is important only to a small percentage of sailors.

[rayk]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

.... a modern state of the art monohull with two lifting foils, a minimal canting keel and on-deck water ballast can give equivalent or faster speeds AND be selfrighting as well?

A multi is starting to look easier and cheaper to engineer and build.

Doug Lord, putting all your favourite food onto one plate might be a little unappetising.

rayk, same speed or faster than a multi AND self righting---unappetizing? Not to me....

[DGreenwood]

Originally Posted by gggGuest

Ultimately though if I'm going to hang ballast off the side of my boat I'd rather hang it in air than in water, because its so much less drag, and I'd rather it was buoyant so that if it hits the water it doesn't all go pearshaped, so, frankly, if you're looking for the extra speed why not just do it with a hull to windward instead of a keel?

I can't disagree with you gggGuest but you can't say that like there are no downsides to multis.

[CT249]

I was wrong, pure speed is the most important thing to most sailors.

This is why the MPS, Moth, RS700 and Canoe are much more popular than the Laser, a rather slow and obscure boat that someone tried to sell in Canada.

The appeal of pure speed is why there are massive worldwide fleets of C Class cats and Tornadoes, and why the T4.9 and Formula 16 are the most popular of small cats.

I did hear that someone once tried to make a slower cat that was popular. What a joke! I heard it was called the "Hobby Cat" or something. Jeezers, bet they were unpopular.

Pure speed is of course so important that J/Boats and Beneteau only build stripped out race machines. You don't think they'd be so stupid as to build more rather tubby cruiser-racers like that 40.7 (only 530 or something sold) or the rather pedestrian J/120 and J/92 which are only about 35 times as popular much as their stripped out racer boats like the J/125! Yes, the fact that they sold about 5 fast J/90s and about 6 fast J/125s compared to 170+ J/92s and 180+ J/120s is perfect evidence that most people prefer pure speed to anything else.

The fact that pure speed is vital to most people is of course the reason the Dragon (in terms of speed for length possibly the slowest International keelboat) gets only 370 or so boats to major regattas, while the Libera class (possibly the fastest of all ballasted boats for their length) can sometimes get a massive fleet of a dozen or more boats together......well, about once a year.

The fact that cat sailors demand speed is shown by the fact that the F18 (heavier and slower than the F18HAT, heavier and slower for length than the F16) is by far the most popular Formula cat.......actually, I can't see how that complements your argument, but have it your way.

Simple fact is, the fastest boats in each bracket is normally quite unpopular, and the most popular boat is almost always quite slow. Dragons and Flying 15s are slow and very popular; much more popular than Etchells. J/24s and SB3s are slower but more popular than Melges, which are in turn more popular than the faster Thompson designs. Lasers, Solos, Ents, Sabres, 125s, Snipes, GP14s etc are much slower and vastly more popular than singlehanded skiffs, Tasars, 29ers, or 14s.

The creators of the Laser, Formula 18, 29er, 49er, most of the most popular new UK dinghies and skiffs; Beneteau; J/boats, Hobie, the biggest dinghy/skiff builders in the UK and USA......they all know that maximising pure speed is not important to most sailors. That's why none of their popular boats maximise pure speed.

And in every class you mention if you ask those that race they'll likely say that boat speed is a central ingredient to their success. Pure boat speed...(among other things)
-------------------
When the Laser was introduced wasn't it considered by many as a "high performance" boat?

[CT 249]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

And in every class you mention if you ask those that race they'll likely say that boat speed is a central ingredient to their success. Pure boat speed...(among other things)
-------------------
When the Laser was introduced wasn't it considered by many as a "high performance" boat?

Given the context, what I took care to call "pure" boatspeed is obviously different from the comparative speed that wins races in classes like Flying 15s, Etchells, Tasars, Lasers and the other popular classes I mentioned.

In "pure" boatspeed - ie simple knots or kmh or mph - the last placegetter of the F16s or Tornadoes is faster than the gold medallist of the Lasers or the world champ in Dragons.

What is important to most sailors is not pure boatspeed, which they can most easily find in a board, big multi or Tornado. What is much more important is comparative boatspeed - speed compared to other boats of their class.

Most sailors don't give a rodent's rectum about "pure" boatspeed. When you go past a Laser champ in a Tornado or windsurfer, they don't even blink. To them, like the vast majority of sailors, what is important is people in comparable boats. Which is purely logical.....after all, bicycle racers don't get pissed off because cars drive faster, and I assume Winston Cup stock car champs don't cry over their beer because Indy and F1 cars go quicker. Cross country ski racers don't get concerned because downhill ski racers move faster. Foiler sailors don't get depressed because boards hold the speed records.

To most sailors, absolute or pure speed is basically irrelevant.


Re the Laser. When it was introduced to the world it was no faster than the Banshee which is almost lost to history. It was little or no faster than a scow Moth; slower than a Contender; much slower than a Canoe, A Class cat, skiff or Tornado. It was fast FOR A SIMPLE CHEAP LITTLE BOAT. In other words, it was fast COMPARATIVELY or FOR WHAT IT WAS. It was NOT fast in absolute terms.

[gggGuest]

Originally Posted by DGreenwood

..can't say that like there are no downsides to multis.

Last time I looked there were downsides to *everything* :-)