Mirabaud LX 2010

[Magnus44]

It is unfortunate that a post has been deleted from above. It looks to be an attempt to reorganize the history of the thread. No matter, as I have saved the essence of the post by Mr. Lord, along with my responses to his objections.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

1) I did NOT suggest that you had not done any reading on the subject. I said that, in my opinion, you need to do MORE reading on the subject. The two statements you make(see below) are not factual and do not represent an accurate assessment

And to make this as to the point as I can without being rude; I believe that it is not your place, or responsibility, to tell me what to do, or how to think. It would be a good deal more comfortable if you were to simply state your case and leave out the personalized commentary referencing my needs as you would have it.

I prefer to avoid that sort of negatively personalized discussion in favor of other styles of communication.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

2) The comments made by "Bistros", aka "Cut Once", aka "Bill S." have nothing to do with professionalism when discussing the Mirabaud project since they have nothing whatsoever to do with how the project has been run or the management choices made by Thomas Jundt. His first post comments were way off base.

I happen to find agreement with the comments of Cut Once. I base those opinions on many years of professional analysis of complex systems and designs for their ability to be manufactured efficiently and cost effectively to be competitive in the marketplace. Cut Once is speaking with the same language and objective observations that point to successful product development.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

There have been countless developments occurring at a rapid pace over the last few years. It seems to me that the areas of development that Thomas has concentrated on all have a major bearing on the structure and design of the boat and that since that development is not yet complete adding a streamline structure would have been ,and may still be premature.

Countless? Really? I suggest that the numbers of tinkered changes are very much countable and that the team members know of them with precision. If this reference is a routine exaggeration on your part, then it very clearly puts the rest of the comments in a much different light.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

As an example: the position of the daggerboard on this boat is like no other successful foiler-ahead of the mast. The other other successful high speed boats that have used such an arrangement that I know of are Bill Roberts' Arc 21 catamaran where he put the daggerboard ahead of the main beam-calling it "shared lift". The fact that Thomas tried this successfully is a testament to his ingenuity and ability to innovate.

On a foiler this increases the pitch footprint adding to pitch stability. But it also required a major structural change which would have been greatly affected in terms of time, cost and materials if such a change had to include re-doing some sort of aero dynamic cover.

If the technique was originally created by someone else and Jundt copied the function, then he is not an innovator. He is a borrower and he joins the ranks of thousands of other boat designers who also borrowed good ideas, well before his efforts with this boat.

If leaving off the more aerodynamic hull form is such a powerful tool for development, why then aren't more boats developed this way prior to having their hulls created? Why are there not dozens of Moths running around out there with space frame structures taking the place of their hulls. Moths are a development class and it would seem prudent to allow for the moving about of various elements in order to arrive at a better, more effective, boat. Strangely, we do not see Moths doing this. We also do not see this process by other boat designers as they work their way through the prototyping of their boats.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

If you've read Bill Beavers treatise on the Moth you know that while aerodynamic drag is higher than anybody thought, 50% of it is a result of the drag of the crew. On Mirabaud, that drag is bound to be a higher percentage of total aerodynamic drag with three crew reducing the possible gain to an area that definitely has a lower priority than foils, foil placement, hull(s), rig and most important of all :light weight for a given structure.

A Moth has an enclosed hull form which is a good deal more aerodynamic than this Swiss boat, even if the Moth were scaled to match the length of Mirabaud. For the percentage drag of the crew on Mirabaud to be higher than the suggested percentage drag on a Moth, the boat would have to be very aerodynamic in order to reduce its signature below that being generated by the crew of three. I think that perhaps you have postulated a reference in the exact opposite direction that exists in the real world.

Yes, aero drag very clearly has a much lower priority in the Mirabaud camp and that is exactly what I said, "Instead, they have tinkered with incidentals while the elephant in the room goes plodding around, unnoticed." When a team completely drops the drag reduction process in favor of incidental issues, the resultant boat is not going to become a world beater by any metric you wish to apply. For a boat that is supposed to spend most of its time in the air, I am afraid that Mirabaud is a less than exciting example of aerodynamic efficiency.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

This is a state of the art, revolutionary sailboat design based on a bi-foiler configuration inspired by the Moth but taken to a higher level By Team Mirabaud. It is a design inspiration showing that large bi-foilers are possible despite the outcry from some prominent "experts" a few years ago that a bi-foiler larger than a Moth would not work.

A higher level, or just a different level? There is a difference between those two definitions. One could argue that this boat has not taken the art to any new level and that is supported by the fact that nobody else has bothered to produce one of their own.

I would not call this boat a large bi-foiler and I do not believe that a truly large version of this type of boat can be made to sail effectively, even if someone built one. Again, nobody is emulating the form.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

If there was a "change of tone" it occurred when you made the following statements, particularly those highlighted in red:

Perhaps you could read my singular, previous post on the topic. At no time do I address you, specifically. Nor do I use a tone that suggests that you do not know of what you speak. The commentary is personal in only one fashion and that is to mention my agreement with Cut Once and his comments. You are never mentioned. I suspect that you are offended that I do not simply jump in line with you.

In your reply, you immediately go on the attack and personalize the comments you make, suggesting that I do more reading and spend some time reading the press releases. This position indicates that you wish to attack my opinion by suggesting that I am not informed, or have no true grasp of the situation and that you alone are the person capable of dispensing opinion. This is a less than admirable attempt to establish yourself as an authority, while disregarding the opinions of others. I suspect that it is not your job here to dispense orders for others to follow. I would appreciate it if you would stop.

I think that there are ways to contribute to a conversation without making unnecessary comments, such as those put forth in your post.

[Magnus44]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

1) Thomas Jundt is the first foiler designer ,that I know of, to successfully utilize a daggerboard position forward of the mast. This has a big benefit in the design of a foiler- increasing pitch control.

At no time did I suggest that Mr. Jundt copied anybody else. One other designer, that I know of, has successfully used what he defines as a "shared lift" concept on non-foilers done in such a way that balance was excellent upwind and down and windward ability was improved. I use it to illustrate part of the theory behind such an arrangement.

The point is that since the foil forward arrangement had already been explored by another, it is impossible for you to make the claim that Jundt has innovated this arrangement. Whether he had previously seen the setup used by Bill Roberts is also of no consequence. It existed already and can not be referred to as an innovation. It can only be an adaptation and that fits with the vast majority of developments in boat design throughout history.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

2) My point is that it is very likely that the percentage of total aerodynamic drag of the crew on Mirabaud is higher than the percentage of aerodynamic drag the crew(42%) is on a Moth despite the space frame.

If that is your point, it was innacurately expressed initially and functionally meaningless as an arguing position until it is accurately expressed.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

3) This is an uninformed comment since a second flying 18 was produced after AET but even more because saying that Mirabaud has not taken monofoiler design to a new level because nobody else has copied it or built another is just preposterous and way out of line.

It's not out of line and remains so until you can produce proof of another craft of the type represented by Mirabaud and can show it to be actively used and tested in an on-going fashion. Failure to provide these proofs would indicate that your claims are out of line and unsupportable. The members here can decide if they are, preposterous, as you say. A built, sailed fitfully and scrapped, boat does not count

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

4) I have done some detailed research into what is possible with a 60' monofoiler. I am one hundred percent convinced -as are others- that a much larger monofoiler can be built. To imply that it is not technically feasible is incorrect, in my opinion.

It looks as though your opinion will remain an eternal mystery since nobody is actively pursuing such a craft. There hasn't been a single proposal about anything even closely representing such a boat since the very briefly displayed concept illustrations from Bethwaite many years ago. It's a dead end with nothing to support the validity save for the conversations on these pages.

Regarding the argument that the economy is preventing such a boat from being built; I would offer the new AC boats, the big, French ocean racing trimarans, as well as a half dozen other cutting edge multihulls, as examples that the economy has little to do with the large foiler exercise as proposed. I think the reason for no boat of this type is the fact that there are simply way too many technical obstacles to overcome to make such an endeavor worthwhile, when the target issues can be reached and exceeded far easier through other platforms that are much better understood. The very large cash outlay along with such huge development time is far too big a hill to climb for the likely very small return.