Canting Keels In Production Yachts

I had a look over a 12m offshore racer by Robert Hick (Australian designer) the other week. I was shocked by how much in the interior space, and in the most valuable area for accomodation, was taken up by the canting mechanism. The keel box was used as a wide table, but it was not a great shape as it had no space for the legs and therefore wasn't too comfortable. The rams had to be stepped over with floor space already short because of he keelbox/table, and the extra batteries etc also took up valuable space. The crew were keen, but the cabin roof had to be very high to allow for the "plumbing" under the floor and still maintain headroom.

So while it was interesting, it looked like a rather expensive, labour-intensive, space-robbing option. One wondered how much performance it would give compared to using the same amount of cash to make the boat longer, how much more pleasant it made sailing (when you had a high coachroof to get over and/or less space down below and in my experience such things do count in short races and long ones albiet not in the 100 mile stuff). Given the impoirtance that the mass market places on cost and interior space, I could see why it may not become popular for some time.

 

Start building

There really is no reason to worry about size and cost with any new technology. What is important is that the builder don't just copy each other and keep inventing. It is pretty well know that as more builders and engineers get involved mechanisms such as those needed for canting keels will shrink and go down in cost until the cost and benefits are balanced at a point where there is a satisfactory value to the buyer.

Hydraulics for example, makes little sence on smaller boats since you loose power for each conversion you go through, whereas it seems that when you need a canting keel you will automatically have access to plenty of wind power.

Some smart people should be able to figure that one out pretty soon.

 

Lorsail, I saw the mechanism - a very heavy 3 or 4 disc pulleysystem, I saw only part of the system - furthermore rule deny the use of any hydraulics.
Unfortunately only old sites of last year and 2003 on the net.
Unfortunately Titanium is ruled out. I can get that material quite easy and actually I am experimenting now with bonding Titanium and Carbon together w/o heatcuring.

 

Cool!

Yes, a carbon rack & pinion with titanium reinforcement sounds pretty good to me!

 

???

Aren't you Dutchmen supposed to be sleeping?

 

Asathor:

You are right! The more renditions of this technology, the sooner it will evolve into a prefered mechanism. Hydraulic rams and a moment arm consume space inside the hull. So, why not a hydraulic rotary-actuator at the pivot point? Or a geared hydraulic motor that inherently locks the keel if the hydraulics fail? I like the rack and pinion suggestion. What do you think about a lead-screw?

The Netherlands is home to the busiest port in the world. Those guys never sleep.

 

friction

I was thinking of a somewhat loose gear (but for example wrapped in carbonfiber reinforced cage so it would be dimensionally stable) to keep friction and wear down - lead would absorb shocks but distort easily. But there would have to be slack in the mechanism somewhere of couse in case og grounding etc.

 

Hello Superpiper

That reminds me of a question you probably know the answer to:

How much draft and width is considered practical if we wanted to sail down through Europe to the mediterranian on the canals? (I am sure sizes varies).

I am starting to think about retirement and have been talking up the idea of a boat in Europe with my wife. I was born and raised in Denmark and she is almost 100% Norwegian from North Dakota here in the states.

I would need a boat that could handle the Atlantic as well if that is even possible - there are some full keel and shaol draft keel boat in the 32 range that may be big enough to live on if I don't get my Canting/Retracttable boat by then.

 

How about a manual system with plenty of purchase? For somewhere in the 20-30 ft range. At least in the low 20s. And it's cheaper & simpler.

 

This is what gets me -- the whole value proposition. For the same money, most people would rather have a bigger boat, with more room, more comfort, easier motion, and more speed under sail *and* power.

For sheer speed you still can't beat a multihull (assuming you have a place to park it). Multihulls are expensive too, but cheap in terms of speed for the dollar. I wonder how a Schock 40 compares to a Farrier tri, in sailing performance, comfort/accomodations, and cost. Just for fun we'll leave out simplicity/elegance.

 

Yeah, I agree it seems a bit strange to go all nuts about something that makes a mono maybe 65% of the speed of a similar-size cat rather than 63% the speed of the cat (or tri). If you want real speed, why mess about with a mono keelboat? I love mono yachts, but they just aren't super fast so why get excited about stuffing up the racing for an extra knot?

I'm not quite sure about the multi/mono speed-and-room-for-cash thing. I can't recall the numbers I've heard for the Farrier 41 (?) but I think it was pretty damn hard on the pocket, like many of the modern cruising cats.

 

an extra knot here an extra knot there

It all adds up! Canting keel technology has proven conclusively to be the biggest single advance in monohull speed in the last 50 years or so. Nothing can touch it for a performance monohull whether it's a cruiser like the new Stimson 60 or an all out race boat.
And you ain't seen nothin yet! Just like the hydrofoil Moth is revolutionizing speed in small boats-beating cats as well as other mono's foil equiped canting keel boats will take larger monohulls into another world of speed before too long ....

 

Reply to Asathor

You are right, I never sleep. - Of what is practical to go through the canals to France is determined by the width of the locks and the draft that allows you to sail the smaller channels.

For going North-South and vice-versa a maximimum of 3.20 mtr is designed for your waterline to top; the draft may not exeed 1.60 mtr. Sometimes you could pass with 1.80 but if there are any changes in waterlevel, you are stuck.

The width can be up to 5.00 mtrs.; practical is 3.50 - 4.00 max.

Going to the Canal Du Midi; Bordeaux - Narbonne: your draft should not exeed 1.40 mtr and the waterline-top not more than 2.40 mtr; width max 4.00 mtrs;

Going from Holland to the Med through the French waterways you may encounter as much as 200 locks all together. Maybe more. Your daily proceed will be about 100 kms.

About Cat's and Tri's - I love them both but forget about them if you want to cruise inland waters - specifically France.

If inland use is not the topic, I think I would go for the Cat. More comfortable and spacious accomodation for living on board are possible.

Read James Baldwin's experiences in the "Cruising Sailor" forum.

 

That's not quite the comparison I was thinking of. The F-41 is a full-on cruising cat, not really comparable with any canting keel mono. And yes, I'm sure it takes a heavy bite out of a half million bucks.

So I'm thinking more about the 31-33' Farrier tris, costing around $225k new, vs. a Schock 40 ($???). These boats are probably similar in terms of hull volume usable for accomodation, so it would be interesting to compare the other factors.

 

many years ago I tried to take a smaller boat from the UK to the Med, and then had to wait it out for some months in La Rochelle, the Canal was low and my draft was higher than given on the papers... then the winter came, then I started building another boat, then another... It took me 15 years to leave the area again. Very sticky environment