Dangerous designs?

[Vega]

Originally Posted by guit

My interpetation from his (Mike Sanderson) statement is that he is not happy with the bad publicity the race gets, due to the fact that some syndicats have crossed the fine line. In the greater interest of the race, anymore problems will probably mean a setback in sponsorship. Besides that he seems to want a check on the boats to see if all still comply with the box-rule of the VO70.

He is not satisfied with the seaworthiness of his boat either. He says, referring to his boat :
"We have broken parts both during the race and more so pre-race which I know that Juan and his team just say isn't possible. Our tiller arm on the first leg was one case, and the canting keel system break that we had on the white boat pre race has had, until quite recently, plenty of people scratching heads……"

And he says, referring to all boats: "Quite clearly with these boats we are seeing some load cases that the models that are used to design them can't predict.....“the race management group will have to give us the two weeks to do only the changes the teams and the designers think is necessary to make the boats tough enough..... It is the only solution I can see that is going to get this fleet around the world. “

It's clear enough for me. The boats (all) are not seaworthy and need changes so desperately, that without them, Mike Sanderson, considers that they will not suceed in finishing the race.

About the changing of opinion of Mike Sanderson, when he said:"“I heard through the grape vine that there is a growing concern that these boats are dangerous and that we are being reckless out here. I just want to take this opportunity to say that I will happily sit down with anyone and explain to them the thousands of hours that have gone in to the making of Team ABN AMRO's keel systems as safe as possible. ….
So the safety of everyone is at the top of the list no matter how you look at it. “

He meant that the boats (all) were safe and seaworthy...Now he obviously thinks otherwise.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Windvang

If the ballast abandon's ship there is nothing left to sink the ship, except maybe the engines. The core allone will make it float.

LOL! Right you are!

Given a choice, I think I'd rather be inside a water tight structure with my gear and food semi-intact than in a flooded hulk floating on it's core material ... call me timid.

[Vega]

Originally Posted by mholguin

These crews are professionals being paid to do a dangerous job. Just like a F-1 driver (remember Ayrton Senna?).

In F1 they are higly concerned with safety. In the US GP when they found out that there were real problems with Michelin tyres which could turn out in dangerous acidents, FIA just pulled out the vast majority of the cars from the race (all the cars that used Michelin).

Do you think that someone is going to take out of the race the Farr boats?

Or do you mean, it's allright to sit and watch those sailors running into acidents that could be fatal?

For me security concerns everybody and those that love race sailing have a role in demanding safety in the sport.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Vega

In F1 they are higly concerned with safety. In the US GP when they found out that there were real problems with Michelin tyres which could turn out in dangerous acidents, FIA just pulled out the vast majority of the cars from the race (all the cars that used Michelin).

Do you think that someone is going to take out of the race the Farr boats?

Or do you mean, it's allright to sit and watch those sailors running into acidents that could be fatal?

For me security concerns everybody and those that love race sailing have a role in demanding safety in the sport.

In the UP GP the Michelin teams had a choice, limit their speed in ONE corner or not race. The teams chose not to race at reduced speed.

It looks like the Farr boats have the same choice, race at lower speed or don't race.

It makes life easier for the other boats. They are already faster than the Farr designs. They don't have to sail as fast as they can, only faster than the Farrs.

[mholguin]

Originally Posted by RHough

Big Difference.

Driver safety is a very high priority in F-1. If the car fails, it is designed to give the driver a very good chance of walking away.

When a F-1 Car fails, like Kimi's front suspension failure at 200kph + the car came to rest and Kimi got out and walked away.

The crew cannot walk away from a catastrophic failure of a VO70 boat. If the hull fails and there is a large hole where the keel system used to be attached, is the boat going be a safe place for the crew to await rescue?

If the VO70 was sailed in 70 multi's they may pitchpole or capsize, but the crew would be left in inside a 70ft life support system.

The 70ft mono's rely on the ballast for self righting/rescue. That will only work if the ballast stays with the boat. What we are seeing is that the entire ballast system is trying to abandon ship and sink, leaving the hull with a huge hole and no survivability.

Even with the ballast intact, ABN 2 was bailing every 30 minutes during her last record run. In my mind, a boat that has to be bailed out every half hour is not exactly seaworthy.

Sorry to disagree.

A front suspension failure with nothing in front cannot be compared to a catastrohpic failure such as loosing a keel/ballast. My example of Senna's death (regretable by all means) I think it is more appropiate. ayrton lost control of the car and crashed into a wall at 200+ km/h...

Your statement (and other's) give the impression of all CK (which I came to dislake for many reasons not as strong as any designer's) will eventually fall appart. History of offshore racing is full of keel failures, such as Simon le Bon's Drum loosing it's keel, and it was a fixed keel.

Also remember Australia's disaster not long ago in the America's Cup in San Diego. It broke in half in conditions not that extreme.

Round the world racing, be it solo or crewed, in 2006 or 1970 is a dangerous venue, by all means. I find it hard to believe that safety is completely disregarded by designers, more in this age of easy suing - just to put it in blame terms.

VO-70s are a new breed. They might not be the strongest or safest at this moment. Just with anything this new. Just like the earliest of the ACC breed. compare those with the latest generations of ACC and those old boats seems like they were build with toilet paper.

Jus my humble opinion, which might be waaay wrong. Like I said before, I'm not a designer (omg I would really like to be one!!), just a lover of this sport/pasttime.

[wet feet]

I don't think the Formula 1 analogy is helpful.Cars for this category are designed to resist specified static and impact loads.Until they have passed the tests in the presence of an accredited observer they are not eligible to race.The components that endure the tests are not expected to see race action.Nobody builds a surplus boat to be thrown away.Additionally,if there is a catastrophic structural failure,the driver can pull over on the edge of the track and walk back to the pits.No massive rescue effort and no negative publicity.

[mholguin]

Originally Posted by RHough

In the UP GP the Michelin teams had a choice, limit their speed in ONE corner or not race. The teams chose not to race at reduced speed.

It looks like the Farr boats have the same choice, race at lower speed or don't race.

It makes life easier for the other boats. They are already faster than the Farr designs. They don't have to sail as fast as they can, only faster than the Farrs.

My appologies, but maybe I'm missing something here. Did Bruce Farr designed all the VO-70's? I'm 90% sure that all boats have experienced some level of failure, not only the Farr boats.

Or is it against the CK?

If I'm completely lost here (and don't take me wrong, please), just let me know, and I'll keep my opinions (or missconseptions) to myself...

[mholguin]

Originally Posted by wet feet

I don't think the Formula 1 analogy is helpful.Cars for this category are designed to resist specified static and impact loads.Until they have passed the tests in the presence of an accredited observer they are not eligible to race.The components that endure the tests are not expected to see race action.Nobody builds a surplus boat to be thrown away.Additionally,if there is a catastrophic structural failure,the driver can pull over on the edge of the track and walk back to the pits.No massive rescue effort and no negative publicity.

Precisely my point (well, sort of). Have those measures been in effect in the Formula 1 circuit since the begining? No. Maybe new rule changes will have to enforce in future events, to control or garantee better safety parameters.

And sorry, but I disagree about walking away in F-1 high speed crashes. Is not that simple. Getting alive maybe. Walking away? a oversimplification of the issues.

And I could be wrong, or maybe i'm just super naive, but I find it hard to believe that designers simply overlooked safety parameters. I'm more inclined to believe that either a) insufficient testing or b) not good enough models were the real issue here.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by wet feet

I don't think the Formula 1 analogy is helpful.Cars for this category are designed to resist specified static and impact loads.Until they have passed the tests in the presence of an accredited observer they are not eligible to race.The components that endure the tests are not expected to see race action.Nobody builds a surplus boat to be thrown away.Additionally,if there is a catastrophic structural failure,the driver can pull over on the edge of the track and walk back to the pits.No massive rescue effort and no negative publicity.

I agree, comparing the VO70's to F1 is silly. But that is what the sailors and the sponsor have stated. They claim that the VO70 race is the F1 of sailing.

To race at F1 level means testing boats to destruction under controlled conditions to insure safety. It requires big budgets $200-400 million USD per season.

With an entry level F1 budget of $200 million, could you test a boat to destruction, then build another to race? I think you could.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by mholguin

Sorry to disagree.

A front suspension failure with nothing in front cannot be compared to a catastrohpic failure such as loosing a keel/ballast. My example of Senna's death (regretable by all means) I think it is more appropiate. ayrton lost control of the car and crashed into a wall at 200+ km/h...

Your statement (and other's) give the impression of all CK (which I came to dislake for many reasons not as strong as any designer's) will eventually fall appart. History of offshore racing is full of keel failures, such as Simon le Bon's Drum loosing it's keel, and it was a fixed keel.

1994 was the last year that a driver was killed in F1. Since then:

The infamous Tamburello corner is responsible for the deaths in 1994 of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger has since been changed to a chicane.

10 years without a fatality tells me that F1 is trying to make racing safer.

In the same ten years we have seen the number of keel failures increase. Both fixed keels and canting keels.

Have designers forgotten how to keep a keel on the boat?

If several designers produced F1 cars that had wheels that fell off or otherwise failed at speed, those designers would be unemployed.

The difference in my mind is that all canting keel designs that I have seen require a hole in the bottom of the hull. On VO70's it is a big hole since the pivot is inside the hull.

There is no more excuse for keels falling off boats than there is for wheels falling off racing cars. There are 100's of years of designs that had NO keel failures, and 100's of years of designs that require no keel at all.

What has changed?

I too love the sport, changes that make boats less seaworthy should be ridiculed, not glorified.

[usa2]

They should just make them seriously over spec everything that has to do with the keel and surrounding structure. The Farr boats were built too light because they wanted all the weight in the bulb. I bet you could take a hundred or so kilos out of the bulbs on the Farr boats and the structure would still be overstressed due to being too light.

They race each other, so if all the VO 70's are made to be tougher(i.e, stronger, heavier), than no one has an advantage, right?

[RHough]

Originally Posted by usa2

They should just make them seriously over spec everything that has to do with the keel and surrounding structure. The Farr boats were built too light because they wanted all the weight in the bulb. I bet you could take a hundred or so kilos out of the bulbs on the Farr boats and the structure would still be overstressed due to being too light.

They race each other, so if all the VO 70's are made to be tougher(i.e, stronger, heavier), than no one has an advantage, right?

Right. The boats that need the least stiffening up will retain more ballast than the others. The JK boats already seem to be a bit quicker in the ocean. The "old" boat holds the new mono-hull record.

It may turn out that limiting total weight was a good rule. The ballast weight has to go down to allow more structure in the hull. Less ballast should = lower loads, the boats will be slower and safer.

[Vega]

Originally Posted by RHough

The "old" boat holds the new mono-hull record.

Not anymore: ABN AMRO TWO holds the record with 563 miles.

About the maximum weight limit I have many doubts. I don't know if that has not limited the designers ability to make strong enough boats, or perhaps the maximum weight limit was too low.

Something went wrong for sure and what d'Artois has said about the way the keel and canting mechanism are fixed to a (small) part of the hull makes a lot of sense. Metal and Carbon respond diferentely to flex and vibration...looks like the research was not deep enough.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Vega

Not anymore: ABN AMRO TWO holds the record with 563 miles.

About the maximum weight limit I have many doubts. I don't know if that has not limited the designers ability to make strong enough boats, or perhaps the maximum weight limit was too low.

Two is the older boat, One is the newer of the pair. Two (the old boat) has heavier structure in the hull, so has less ballast to meet the rule.

The boats can be made strong enough under the rule, they just won't have as much ballast.

Trading 10% of speed for more reliable boats would make for better racing. Fewer records perhaps, but better racing.

[D'ARTOIS]

In this stage, let's not compare F1 with VOR.

Mr Holguin, Ayrton Senna lost his life when his steering-system gave away and he ended up with the steering connection rod through his throat.

Changes of rules creates miscarriages - deaths.

Grace to modern techniques one can manage. Even the underengineered hulls are able to cope with those unbelieveable forces. So far, so good.

My complaint is that over 1 mil USD has been paid to Farr for each design. Fantastic plastic cannot cope with the tremendous forces that work on the hull ans boat as a whole.

If the canting keel wants to stay, we have to go baxck to the metal boat again.

Which metal........? I can give an answer, but..........