Notable open & development class racers....

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Vega

Juan Kouyoumdjian:


In what direction would you like to see an evolution of the Class America?

That’s funny because that question was also made to Bruce Farr and our answer is very close: A little bit more of 600m2 of sail area, around 90/100 ft length, canting keels…and more liberty on the class rules (regarding design).

The problem is that Chris Dickson (BMW/Oracle) is very conservative. He likes heavy boats. I don’t expect big changes.

I wonder why people continue to use "heavy" to describe the ACC boats. In fact in racing trim (crewed) they have a lower D/L ratio than something like a Melges 24 (crewed). They are lighter for their length than most of the IRC type raceboats currently being built. They are not heavy boats.

I suspect JK's comment about Dickson is relating to the current boats. I'm sure Dickson likes boats at the "heavy" end of the current rule. All the fast boats are at the long/heavy corner of the design envelope. It is a waste of time to work the short/light corner.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I suspect JK's comment about Dickson is relating to the current boats. I'm sure Dickson likes boats at the "heavy" end of the current rule. All the fast boats are at the long/heavy corner of the design envelope. It is a waste of time to work the short/light corner.

IIRC that was true of the 12' also, the long heavy corner paid, the short/light corner did not.

Didn't the IACC go from wide to skinny too?

After the trouble they had with VOR boats?
----------
Untitled Document
Address:http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe...nting%2035.htm Changed:11:17 PM on Monday, December 11, 2006
----------

canting%20farr%2035%202.jpg
Address:http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe...r%2035%202.jpg Changed:10:48 PM on Monday, December 11, 2006

[Vega]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I wonder why people continue to use "heavy" to describe the ACC boats.

If a sailing boat is not so narrow, a bigger part of the stability would come from form stability and for the same sail power the boat would need less ballast.

If the boat has a canting keel, for the same sail power, the boat would need less ballast.

I think both things would contribute to a lighter boat. Perhaps it is this is what Juan means, when he says the Class America rule gives comparatively heavy boats.

[Stephen Ditmore]

Perhaps the better comparison, then, would be a Transpac 52 and an Open 50. In this case it is the Transpac 52 rule that requires a simpler, presumably less expensive boat, with no movable ballast and only one rudder allowed. This would be a comparison of classes that have been around for a couple years now.... so both have had a chance to dial in near optimum boats within the constraints presented.

Forgive me for asking this when I could probably find it in previous postings, but do the Class 40 boats have movable ballast? Or are they wide simply because they are allowed to carry a lot of sail relative to their length & displacement?

Also, what is the difference between Class 40 and 40 foot class 1, the rule that Doug Lord's Schmidt design was apparently designed to race under? http://www.sebschmidt.ch/portfolio/01194/

[Milan]

Originally Posted by Stephen Ditmore

...do the Class 40 boats have movable ballast?...http://www.sebschmidt.ch/portfolio/01194/

Water ballast is allowed, max 1500 liters, 750 liters on each side. Here are the rules:

http://www.class40.com/index.php?section=14

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Vega

If a sailing boat is not so narrow, a bigger part of the stability would come from form stability and for the same sail power the boat would need less ballast.

If the boat has a canting keel, for the same sail power, the boat would need less ballast.

I think both things would contribute to a lighter boat. Perhaps it is this is what Juan means, when he says the Class America rule gives comparatively heavy boats.

There is ample proof showing the narrow ACC form is much faster on their W/L courses than a wider form. A wide/light/short corner boat would not be competitive. If there was less weight/length trade off in the rule and there were some reaching legs maybe things could somewhat equalize, but I suspect the long/heavy/narrow boats would still prevail.

Sure the boats could be lighter with canting keels. The canting keel maxis prove that out. But what would be the point in match racing? For me, the closer the boats stay the more fun the race. The ACC boats go upwind and downwind at a close enough speed so the gap doesn't increase too much after rounding the weather mark. This is good for match racing.
With lightweight boats the first boat to the weather mark would plane away as soon as they got their spinnaker up, making a 2 or 3 boatlength lead the the windward mark into 5 or 6 boatlengths before the following boat was around and set. So there would be less ability for the trailing boat to attack, leading to a boring race.

There is a place in sailing for wide, powerful boats with moveable ballast. I don't think match racing is the place for that.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

After the trouble they had with VOR boats?

You try to get people to buy into your design ideas for foilers, after your "monofoiler" wouldn't fly?

[Vega]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Sure the boats could be lighter with canting keels. The canting keel maxis prove that out. But what would be the point in match racing? For me, the closer the boats stay the more fun the race. The ACC boats go upwind and downwind at a close enough speed so the gap doesn't increase too much after rounding the weather mark. This is good for match racing.

There is a place in sailing for wide, powerful boats with moveable ballast. I don't think match racing is the place for that.

I was not expressing, my personal opinion, only Juan and Farr opinions, but I think that the America Class should be the F1 of the seas. Sure, they should be competitive in equal terms, but they should be the ultimate in boat speed, performance and technology, and they are not (even if they cost as such).

The thing that pisses me more is the incapacity of those big boats to race with more than 30kt of wind. I find that quite ridiculous. Older ones could cross-oceans. These ones can’t take a blow.

[Stephen Ditmore]

Originally Posted by Milan

Water ballast is allowed, max 1500 liters, 750 liters on each side.

Thanks, Milan. That will bias parameters toward wide beam less than the 10 degree rule, but it still clearly results in a wide boat having more righting moment from water ballast than a narrow boat.

Originally Posted by Vega

I think both things would contribute to a lighter boat. Perhaps it is this is what Juan means, when he says the Class America rule gives comparatively heavy boats.

Displacement is a parameter measured by the America's Cup Class rule. A lighter boat would have to have either less sail area, less length, or both. ACC boats are upwind oriented, and the rule is intentionally biased toward heavy boats to keep the match racing close and tactical. Movable ballast is not allowed. If it were would boats get lighter? Perhaps, but if that's your intent why not just reward displacement less? Comparing any of the more downwind oriented classes with the AC boats would be comparing apples to lamb chops. But if you feel there's some development in the America's Cup Class that's transferrable, or an interesting reason one boat might be faster than another, feel free to mention it!

You appear to be correct about the relative pricing of a GP42 versus a Class 40. According to the figures at http://www.reichel-pugh.com/Grand_Prix_42_Brochure.pdf, a Chinese built GP42 is a $600,000 boat. But you've made some big performance claims for the Class 40. On any given course under any given set of conditions, with both boats comparably crewed, either one's faster than the other, or they're nearly equal. Why should their having different prices keep us from asking the question? It seems far more reasonable than comparing either with AC boats.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by RHough

IIRC that was true of the 12' also, the long heavy corner paid, the short/light corner did not.

I guess someone should have told that to Blinky Ben so he wouldn't have designed the boat that finally took the cup from the US.

Originally Posted by RHough

Didn't the IACC go from wide to skinny too?

ACC boats today are all very narrow.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Vega

I was not expressing, my personal opinion, only Juan and Farr opinions, but I think that the America Class should be the F1 of the seas. Sure, they should be competitive in equal terms, but they should be the ultimate in boat speed, performance and technology, and they are not (even if they cost as such).

F1 cars are not the ultimate in performance either. They have rules, and within the rules are things that make them slower around the track. The intent is to keep the racing interesting. So it seems maybe the ACC boats are more similar to F1 than some think.

Boats sailing in the AC during the 12 Metre era were never the ultimate in speed across all types of racing either. In fact they were terrible, outdated things for a long time.

Originally Posted by Vega

The thing that pisses me more is the incapacity of those big boats to race with more than 30kt of wind. I find that quite ridiculous. Older ones could cross-oceans. These ones can’t take a blow.

Why would that make you angry? F1 stops races during bad conditions. The idea of match racing on a closed W/L course is close, tactical racing. If the boats were configured for 30 knots they wouldn't be very perky in 10.

You would have to go back a long way in the history of the cup to find boats that were really seaworthy. Even the J Class boats were tempermental things. The "crossing on their own bottom" requirement was really nothing but a ploy by the US to force challengers to have boats built heavier than the defenders (who did not, and could not, cross oceans).

[Vega]

Originally Posted by Stephen Ditmore

You appear to be correct about the relative pricing of a GP42 versus a Class 40, Vega. According to the figures in http://www.reichel-pugh.com/Grand_Prix_42_Brochure.pdf, a Chinese built GP42 is still a $600,000 boat. But you've made some big performance claims for the Class 40. On any given course under any given set of conditions, with both boats comparably crewed, either one's faster than the other, or they're nearly equal. Why should their having different prices keep us from asking the question? It seems far more reasonable than comparing either with AC boats.

The difference in price means that in light and medium winds the GP42 has a huge advantage. The price (and the rules) gives him the chance to be an all carbon boat, much lighter and with the best sails available (the sails of the 40class are limited).

I guess that the only set of circumstances that would provide a fair comparison is strong winds. But of course this would be a limited comparison.

About my claims on the 40class boat, they are not my claims, they are facts. If you have doubts, I can give you the sources.

About Class I, Class II and Class III and the performance of the 40class on the only big race they have done, I will quote jehardiman, in another thread:

Originally Posted by jehardiman

.

This years (2006) Route de Rhum has some interesting statistics ....

Monohulls
IMOCA (60') 1 retire (dismasted) in 11 (note 1 retired for family reasons, add in if you wish, but not a boat failure)
Class 1 (50-60') no failures in 4
Class 2 (45-50') no failures in 4
Class 3 (40-45') 1 abandoned (structural failure with leak, sunk), 1 retired (dismasted), and 1 retired (?) in 6
Class 40 (40') 1 abandoned (knockdown with structural failure in keel, sunk?), 1 retired (boom broke) in 25.
Vessels lost 2 of 50: 4% (or 2 of 51 = 3.9%)

About the Class 1,2 an 3, they seem to be open boats. About the performance of the first 40class boat : It had beaten all Class I,II and III boats, with the exception of one ( arrived sooner by one day), beaten some Imoca boats and several bigger cats.

I believe that this performance has to do with the seaworthiness and great performance of the 40class boats with heavy weather. This year was the edition with heavier weather, at least for the monohulls. The Big cats were lucky and managed to pass before the storms.

Regards

[Vega]

Originally Posted by Paul B

F1 cars are not the ultimate in performance either. They have rules, and within the rules are things that make them slower around the track. The intent is to keep the racing interesting. So it seems maybe the ACC boats are more similar to F1 than some think.

F1 are the most technologically advanced race car series.

I don’t think we can say the same of the Class America, in what regards to boats, except in costs.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Vega

F1 are the most technologically advanced race car series.

I don’t think we can say the same of the Class America, in what regards to boats, except in costs.

F1 may be the most high tech form of racing currently available. That does not make them the ultimate in speed, they could be faster. Their rules prevent that. F1 racing is really rather boring, mostly a parade throughout the grid, despite the technology. The aerodynamics of the cars prevent passing in many instances (example: you cannot follow closely enough to pass in any corners where you need aerodynamic grip).

Horses for courses. An F1 car would not win an NHRA drag race. They would not compete in Paris-Dakar. They may not survive a LeMans 24 Hours.

As much as I dislike NASCAR it is generally accepted to be a more exciting race to watch than an F1 race. Higher technology does not neccessarily make for better racing.

I don't know of any other class that currently has higher technology than the ACC boats, especially given the nature of the racing (inshore, closed course, match racing). Some other classes (V70) have characteristics like canting keels, but that isn't really higher technology. It is considerably less high tech than things not allowed in F1, like fly-by-wire.

If we want closer match racing we would keep the performance down. If we want a more boring, follow the leader match race we would increase the speed potential of the boats. Why not use ORMA 60s?