Notable open & development class racers....

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by CT 249

Re AC tech;
Sure, there has been quite a bit of tech ('specially in sails and electronics, mebbe winches) developed from the AC..I'm not sure that it has been the MAIN driving force as has sometimes been said..

I'm not one who normally states specific tech comes from a specific person/place. It is really all a continuum. I do think that having the budgets the AC teams have has helped move a lot of things forward in the realm of big boats. Design tools for sail development, hull VPPs, CFD, structural design tools, deck hardware, sail material and construction techniques, etc. The same people would have arrived there eventually, but I am sure the AC funding has helped a lot.

Originally Posted by CT 249

Re J Class/23m; 23s were built to Lloyds like the Js. Nyria was built to Lloyds as early as 1906 and Shamrock IV was the last non-Lloyds Big Class boat. Cambria and Candida were turned into cruisers and one or both survive..

That is probable, but the boats converted to Js were generally below the scantlings required for AC status.

Originally Posted by CT 249

Re 12 Metres offshore;

There's been a fair few that have sailed offshore. Off the top of my head.......

Endless Summer (Dame Pattie) was converted and raced on the Great Lakes under cat 2, I'm99% sure. Gretel 1 was converted to Cat 1 1974 or 75 and did several Hobarts and many other races (2nd in '80 Hobart). Nefertiti was converted and cruised and raced around the world, including getting 5th in that 1980 Hobart. Evaine (I think) cruised across the Atlantic and around the Med in the '70s. Sceptre raced Cat 2 or 3 around Scotland through the '80s/90s. Chancegger (French trialhorse '70s) cruised through Australia some time ago. I think France II was converted. Richard Matthews (Oyster Yachts) converted an '80s 12 for UK offshore racing and did the Fastnet, I think. Sverige ('77) was converted to Cat 2..

Only a couple of the boats mentioned are from after '67. I should have said very few instead of not any.

Originally Posted by CT 249

Re "
For many years, the fastest boats raced this event. It is not so today".

Equally, there were years when the AC was NOT raced in the boats that were significantly quicker, or even in boats that were significantly slower.
Through most of the 12 Metre era, of course, the AC boats were smaller and slower than a maxi or even a boat like Sirius, the M Class. Even by the '70s, a boat like Kialoa III was quicker than a 12 Metre. Gretel II used to join in some maxi races in the '70s and '80s in full 12 Metre racing trim and got beaten easily, even on harbour courses.

By 1968 Windward Passage was available to easily beat any 12 on any course. Even in 1962 Ragtime (then Infidel) was probably more than a match in some conditions, and pretty much all the time off the wind.

At least since 1958 the AC has not been about the fastest, most high tech boats. It is about match racing. This brings the skill of the design team within the confines of the rule, coupled with the tactical ability and sailing skill of the crew.

No J Boat or 12 metre race would have been started in 30 knots of wind. Why would we expect the ACC rule boats to do this? Good, tactical racing is not what's happening in 30 knots of breeze. That is nearly 40 knots of apparent wind upwind in these boats. I have sailed upwind in that much breeze in a race only a few times and it is not fun or tactical.

If all out speed is the goal there are many other venues. The goal for the ACC design brief should be to provide great tactical racing boats. It someone wants to change it to an outright "high tech speed contest" then you need to invite multis, who will clean the clock of any canter.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Paul B

If all out speed is the goal there are many other venues. The goal for the ACC design brief should be to provide great tactical racing boats. It someone wants to change it to an outright "high tech speed contest" then you need to invite multis, who will clean the clock of any canter.

You are 100% correct.

The boats are fast enough to make it difficult or impossible for spectator boats to see every rounding. To a non sailor, that is pretty fast.

Only people that have never match raced or don't understand the concept want to see fast boats in the AC. The general public would not view a tacking duel between two canters in a cloud of diesel fumes as sailing at all ...

"Martha, I didn't think that they were allowed to use engines in a sailboat race."
"By golly Cletus, you're right. Those boys must be cheating."

For those that think that the AC has no appeal ... try to book a room in Valencia between June 23 and June 30 2007. Bring 300 Euro a night ... if you can find one.

I'm staying at the Las Arenas Balneario if you want to stop by for a drink.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

Wrong-it DID fly.....

And this isn't a trimaran ...

Trimaran? With a canting keel? No, it's Sean Langmans Maxi Skiff canting keelboat with buoyancy pods that aren't sailed "on" like a trimaran's ama. From an innovator who thinks foils on a large mono are worth looking into....
Sailing Anarchy InnerViews Sean Langman 2005
Address:http://www.sailinganarchy.com/innerv...05/langman.htm Changed:10:02 PM on Sunday, October 23, 2005

[CT 249]

Yeah, Sean's cool.

1) He does it, he doesn't just talk about it. He doesn't worry about not having enough cash by conventional standards, he makes do with a low budget and things cobbled together, and still kicks arse.

2) He's proven that he can sail in boats from Flying Fifteens to 18 Foot Skiffs to Stars, so he can walk the walk not just talk the talk; you have to respect someone who has cold hard results on the board.

3) He is as keen on spreading the love and promotion about old boats like small gaff rigged cruiser/racers as about fast boats, so he's not one eyed. He doesn't pretend the newest and fastest is anything amazingly better than the "normal" stuff, he thinks it's fun but nothing to lose perspective about.

I really wish more people would follow his line.

[Stephen Ditmore]

I agree, CT. What's good about Vega's enthusiasm for Class40 is that he's taking financial reality into account, yet emerging with something worth being excited about. And while I could quibble with Doug Lord over things, and have, he does eventually come 'round to trying to make them work, and I respect him for that.

Back to Class 40: I took the time to read through the rules last night (without the benefit of having the ISO standards, etc handy for reference). While BMAX should probably be high to get the water ballast outboard, it seems to me there's room for someone to try a narrower waterline boat. The Class40 rule appears to have things in common with those governing the Classic Moth class (I have a Classic Moth of my design under construction).

Why is this interesting? It doesn't make sense economically to build a bunch of models and buy time at a test tank as part of designing a relatively inexpensive boat such as a Class40. But it might make sense to build an 11 foot Classic Moth and race it against others who are doing likewise to refine one's ideas before building a 40 footer. Or it might make sense to try running numbers on (40 foot) hull shapes derived from (11 foot) boats currently winning in Classic Moth racing.

Do others see competing in Classic Moths as good preparation for designing a Class40?

Let's save the America's up chatter for another thread. This is the place to discuss the development classes where real, cost effective progress is taking place (Moth thru Volvo 70, and perhaps even MaxZ86 and IRC 30 meter maxi, definitely including the open classes, Class 40 and other offshoots, Transpac 52, ORC GP classes). But America's Cup? That's a separate discussion.

[DGreenwood]

I could not see how a Moth would be all that effective in developing a Class 40.But I may be missing something.

As to tank testing and narrower hulls.
Merf Owen and Allen Clarke have devoloped a hull form that is considerably narrower than the other class 40s out there. I asked about this. Merfs response was that the sail area limitations (rules) do not warrant a broader hull.Although the 40s are still very powerfull boats they do not have the power to push that much surface area based on averaged wind speeds encountered over what they deemed a typical race course.
His statement was that to prove/disprove and improve his ideas on this, would require tank testing. He gave an approximate price but I will only say it was not cheap.

[Stephen Ditmore]

Thanks for the response, D. Since you're in my area, I'd be interested to know what you're up to / in to. Mini 6.5? Do you know Rich du Moulin? Ted Fontaine?

Originally Posted by DGreenwood

I could not see how a Moth would be all that effective in developing a Class 40.

The latest in Classic Moths has a wider transom (like that of a Europe) integrated with a V section hull like http://perso.orange.fr/louis.pillon/...es/duflos.html. The resulting boat is pretty low drag at both displacement and semi-displacement speeds. A wider, flat bottom boat would beat it at true planing speeds, but a 40 footer is not at true planing speed until it's at 18-19 knots.

V shaped sections might be too extreme a departure from what current Class40s are doing, but a compromise might be narrower on the waterline with lots of topside flare.

I'll bet it wouldn't be that expensive to take Owen/Clarke's first crack hull shape, build it as a Classic Moth, and take it to a few regattas. The Displ/L ratios (accounting for crew weight/water ballast) are very similar (about 85). What would you learn? Hard to say in advance of actually doing it, but I think some of the questions that a model could answer could also be answered using the Moth, and you'd have the added benefit of racing it against other development class boats and checking out other people's ideas!

[CT 249]

Originally Posted by CT 249

Yeah, Sean's cool.

1) He does it, he doesn't just talk about it. He doesn't worry about not having enough cash by conventional standards, he makes do with a low budget and things cobbled together, and still kicks arse.

2) He's proven that he can sail in boats from Flying Fifteens to 18 Foot Skiffs to Stars, so he can walk the walk not just talk the talk; you have to respect someone who has cold hard results on the board.

3) He is as keen on spreading the love and promotion about old boats like small gaff rigged cruiser/racers as about fast boats, so he's not one eyed. He doesn't pretend the newest and fastest is anything amazingly better than the "normal" stuff, he thinks it's fun but nothing to lose perspective about.

I really wish more people would follow his line.

Yep, the low-budget O40 and Vega's interest in them is great. But I just think Sean's way of doing things is refreshingly different, compared to what happens most of the time these days. It reminds me of what (to me) were the great days of offshore design in the '70s, when you'd get people building a cheap cruiser/racer at home and then having a huge impact with it (Tituscanby). Or building a cheap quarter tonner with a Soling rig and doing well at the worlds in it, and then cutting it in half, sticking three feet into the middle of the hull, an extension to the mast and extra panels in the sail, and doing well at the half ton worlds a year later (Tuscany B). Or a teenager building a Farr-style 36 footer in concrete (because his dad was a concrete boat builder) and winning the Singlehanded Trans-Tasman in it.

It's a bit like the way people used to build their own Moths here, whereas nowadays they just tend to order the latest carbon boat. An entire scene, a very interesting and productive hotbed of ideas, has been lost. Those pushing for the latest supposed advance have too often failed to look at the consequences, because they are so concerned with getting an extra burst of speed that they ignore the other things that matter in the sport.

Another canting keel sportboat-imp: uses a wing a la Dovell and Procyon rather than a forward foil/daggerboard(s):
Sports 8 canting keel sail sports boat from down under
Address:http://sports8.com.au/specifications.html Changed:11:58 PM on Wednesday, September 6, 2006

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by CT 249

It reminds me of what (to me) were the great days of offshore design in the '70s, when you'd get people building a cheap cruiser/racer at home and then having a huge impact with it (Tituscanby).

It is a real shame that the entry way for young design talent has been lost. In those old days you reference there was the small IOR arena, Quarter and Mini Tonners, where a young designer could cheaply show his stuff. Holland started with his own Quarter, Farr's was designed for a friend and Farr raced with them, Schumacher did his own Quarter, Nelson's first was a Quarter, Peterson managed to scrape together finds and did a One Tonner himself, etc.

Most of those guys would not have made it today. Some wouldn't have fit well in a "corporate" office while they learned the trade and made contacts.

Outside of IOR we had MORC, a nice rule for boats under 30 feet. Lots of home designs and home builds did very well under that rule in the 1970s and early 80s. The mid 80s brought an arms race with custom carbon builds and kevlar sails and the class died.

Now we have most owners who would have been playing in the rating rule boats sailing in their Farr 40s or J105s or Melges 24s. The OD sailing is good, but it doesn't give any opportunity for someone with a new design idea to give it a go.

I would love to see a worldwide class grow where a young guy could draw something up and slap it together with wood and epoxy, then go and test his idea against the best in the world. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Vega]

Originally Posted by CT 249

« Or building a cheap quarter tonner with a Soling rig and doing well at the worlds in it, and then cutting it in half, sticking three feet into the middle of the hull, an extension to the mast and extra panels in the sail, and doing well at the half ton worlds a year later (Tuscany B). Or a teenager building a Farr-style 36 footer in concrete (because his dad was a concrete boat builder) and winning the Singlehanded Trans-Tasman in it.

... because they are maddened by the desire for an extra burst of speed and lack the imagination to look at the other things that matter in the sport.

Because they wanted to win, like everybody and they can no longer win with a garage boat. Good old days are gone, the days you could win with a home made machine and not only in the sailing world.

In the 80's I was doing desert racing (motorsports) and I have seen those good old days passing away, the day I was overtaken by Vataneen and his Peugeot Dackar machine at the middle of a 500km race. I was racing a motorcycle and I was a middle of the pack runner (started to run at 35) but normally I was as fast as the fastest car. That day Vatanenn waited more than an hour to see the second car arriving.
From that day on, for winning, a garage car was not enough; you would have to have a true factory racing car and big, big money, and of course, be a good driver.

Originally Posted by CT 249

But I just think Sean's way of doing things is refreshingly different, compared to what happens most of the time these days.
Those pushing for the latest supposed advance have too often failed to look at the consequences, because they are maddened by the desire for an extra burst of speed and lack the imagination to look at other things that matter in the sport.

"....compared to what happens most of the time today"?? "Maddened by the desire for an extra burst of speed"
CT, can you be more specific as to who these unimaginative,crazy speed freaks are?

[CT 249]

Look at Paul B's example. MORC racing was strong until the arms race of the mid '80s killed the class. Surely the people behind the arms race could have gone "hey, wait a minute.....if we push this too far, we'll kill the class. Let's stop and think about this".

Look at Vega's example, from another sport. In the pursuit of speed without a care for where it would lead, you got to the stage where you need "a true factory racing car and big, big money".

Look at windsurfing - typical 1985 board's average top speed (under a champion sailor) maybe 27 knots, and they sold 1 million boards.

Typical 2006 board's average top speed (under a champion sailor) maybe 37 knots, and they sell 80,000 boards. Why? Because so many other values were thrown away in pursuit of top-end speed. The industry didn't look around and realise that not everyone is a hotshot sailor with plenty of time and expertise. It just didn't enter the consciousness of most in the industry. They said "hey it works for me and my mates, so it will be good". They didn't think "ahhhh, but will it work for Joe and Joanna Average as well" and put themselves in J and J Average's place. So J & J stopped windsurfing. And them, instead of having the imagination to think "gee, maybe we went too far", the industry blamed the weather, or the world, or the kids of today, or computers - because to actually wonder whether they had gone the right way would have been too great a leap. Luckily that is finally changing.

The ORMA 60s may possibly be a similar example. When guys like Nigel Irens says things have gone too far, when reliability founders and costs increase and yet the class doesn't change direction, what could be more surprising than the 60 footer circuit drying up? There are other current classes with the same problem, where top designers and sailors tried to warn about the perils of development but were ignored.

You could say that people like the movers and shakers of the UK dinghy scene have a lot more imagination. They tried the skiff-type boats in the '90s, following the mantra that faster=better and more popular. Almost all of the first wave of UK skiff type classes (with the exception of one of the slower and more conservative ones) has fallen or is sick. So the Brits had the imagination and versatility to say "hmmmmm, looks like we got it wrong. Maybe we should think again. Maybe things apart from speed are more important" and they have gone on to make some very popular, important, significant boats that are actually getting lots and lots of people on the water.

If you think the post I wrote (as I amended it very quickly) is over the top, it's certainly nothing worse than those fighting for "progress" (which can sometimes mean going faster but almost destroying a class) call those who ask them to stop and consider the side effects. Look

[Crag Cay]

But these things are cyclic. When something moves on up and out of sight, there will be something (eventually) started to fill the gap. Loads of young people at the moment are building Open 6.5's (see Dix website for examples) and even the Quarter Ton class is back with new boats in build again.

I am working on a simple 30ft design that would be a suitable first step into short handed offshore sailing, such as the Petit Bateau series and RBI, Jester Challenge, AZAB OSTAR, etc. I think there is a need for a simple 'box' rule at about this size. (Less extreme that the Mount Gay 30s) I see it being a suitable first step before the Open 6.5, Class 40, Open 60 progression.

Even in motorsport the back street garages have reclaimed their traditions with the formation of 'Endurance Rallys'': Very tight rules such as no 4x4, no turbos, fully fitted interiors and a max of 1400cc. ( www.endurorally.com ) Their 'Lombard Rally' has just passed by here, and it was good to see so many 'ordinary people' back in their sport that was stolen from them by the WRC circus.

The same might happed in sailing once the ISAF realises for instance, that the GP33 class shouldn't allow full carbon construction.