The perils of edgy design offshore

"Slime-d away"? That's trolling, pure and simple. It adds nothing to the conversation. How about a little more light, and a little less heat?

 

Gary
No you are back to Polemics,
It might pay to look up what polemics means as opposed to discussion since you seem to do this on purpose to avoid addressing the real fundamental issue.

Then we can start a discussion rather than your usual obfuscation and sideways jumps away from the subject.

 

Hey I'll tell you what, here is something "edgy".

Why don't you show us, with your vast depth of knowledge and design skills and sound engineering and show us, so we may review and bask in your superior depth and knowledge of naval architecture in showing us the future. Show us what is "edgy" and how YOU achieve it and how YOU justify it and how YOU can claim it to be edgy and how YOU are confident that it shall pass all design reviews of safety, whilst still being "edgy".

For someone with such strong views and vastly superior knowledge in leading edge design, this is child's play for you...com'on, let's see what YOU mean, show us where we have all been going wrong.

 

Moth Sailors ???? what do they have to do with the issue ? Development class or unorthodox designs sail in a completly different world, under the protection of crash boats, sail inshore and have a whole universe of events to compete in .

The KIWI yacht was an unorthodox round the cans racer which was totally unsuitable for amateur ,club level ,offshore sailing.

Unothodox offshore racers like the Mini's operate separtate from club level events, sail under extreme regulation , in consultation with the best architects and are sailed by the finest sailors. The KIWI yacht would never be allowed to compete in these offshore events.

Race committee's organizing amateur offshore events have a duty to reject odd ball designs and encourage wholesome yachts. Wholesome design can only be identified by current naval architects in consultation with the consumers of yacht design.

 

I'll second that. It will probably cut to the chase since Gary may have a boat or a design that's similar in some respects to Wingnuts. That would explain his rather odd avoidance of the subject while bouncing around trying to discredit anyone who doesn't like Wingnuts.
And not only people but the whole field of Naval Architecture and Physics and SOLAS .........

 

Okay, ignoring the witless sarcasm; I've already said I prefer the wing design of the Jim Young Rocket 31 (see right image). The O.J. design has some buoyancy in the hull/wing junction but not as flared or as buoyant as the Young boat. But if on the O.J. design, then the wings should be able to be "unlocked" (maybe they already are capable of this) by rope to cleats over deck to windward- so that if the leeward hull went under, the outer, flatter wing area could be released. In fact it would be better to sail with the leeward wing released anyway in hard conditions, since the boat relies on crew to windward for extra power. If you look at flared hull designs, and there are many today, there is good lift and buoyancy to leeward, a la the Young and Elliott and other NZ designs. Flared Elliott boats have done many ocean miles and the Rocket has also done Pacific crossings so I don't see why other flared wing designs like the increased ballast O.J. Rogers boat, could not do the same.
And talking of unconventional and different designs, take a look at the latest mini-Transat easy winner, the scow bowed 6.5 metre 747 - which the few vociferous experts here would have all decried as a ridiculous design when first observed. But they be/are wrong.
Since you experts want my expert opinion; if I was designing a 35 foot ocean race monohull, (which I’m not) but here’s my 5.5 x 2.25 m Cox’s Bay skimmer, which perhaps could be enlarged (if I was to do such a thing), I’d put a sealed wing mast/soft sail rig on it, not only for better pointing and speed performance but also to avoid a complete knockdown should that occur, retain the same ballast as the increased O.J. design, increase the hull flare to wings and yes, that would be an offshore race boat for an expert crew. But actually, I prefer the multihull.
Now, it's time to hear about the performance, meaning capable of winning, expert designs of Ad Hoc and MJ.

 

So, first of all what is the SOR of the design, or in simple language, what is the objective of the design, what are you "aiming" at?

Secondly, can you please define what you mean by "some buoyancy".

And then after which explain how this relates to the designs' SOR.

Once you have done that can you please supply the GZ curve so we can evaluated how your design satisfies, or not, the SOR.


This is just the first basic steps, which being an 'edgy' designer, is child's play for you to supply...as it justifies your SOR

 

Of course we do...but supported by evidence, otherwise we are into a religious debate, based upon faith not facts!

 

The Elliot boat pictured lacks all the desirable features of an ocean racer. There is nothing edgy about it. It was concieve to beat the rating rules with low righting moment.

The overhang to generate righting moment with crew weight, lack of heavily cambered decks and cabin house buoyancy and just look at the sheer clamp... classic CHINE TRIPPING in a broach.

Choose a better boat to sail offshore.

 

The Perils of Edgy Weather in Any Boat

=====================
Good points, Mike. I guess what concerns me is the possibility of some sort of backlash from the WingNuts incident where no one will be able to choose to sail a well designed edgy monohull with "skill and understanding" even with "well understood danger". I'm concerned that this incident may be used as a pretext for prohibiting even well designed but edgy monohulls from racing in the Chi-Mac -or anywhere else.
I hope I'm wrong.

 

It's a valid concern. Regulatory bodies of any sort are generally reactive, instead of proactive. They tend to sit on their butts watching the status quo, until something happens. Then they energetically and noisily overreact, to prove they're on top of things.

And I think that concern is at the heart of Gary's posts too; he just doesn't have a particularly diplomatic or focused debating style (to put it diplomatically...).

 

Ah well, Troy, can't help myself - when confronted by arch conservatism I just have to stir the smug turkeys up - and obviously this does not convince, or diplomatically, alter their entrenched viewpoints.

Ad Hoc, my simple point, that you apparently can not visualize, although it is there in front of you, is that the swelling at the junction of the wing/hull on the OJ design, provide more buoyancy than a direct flat wing/hull connection ... and therefore, in a knockdown situation, adhering to Newton's Law, provides some extra opposing displacement force, the boat floats higher.

Further to the hypothetical design, that I have not designed, a larger version of the Cox's Bay skimmer, 11 x 4.5 metres, wide and powerful, I'd go even further and treat the design exactly like a multihull, that is a flared hull, blistered deck, semi-scow bow, same as CB skimmer, designed 5 years ago by the way,, two wing mast/soft sail rigs, (same as skimmer) providing a low but powerful setup, also sealed for buoyancy, two angled, asymmetric and adjustable, daggerboard foils, somewhat like Terrorist, if you can remember that boat, also similar to the Volvo and IMOCRA near vertical, anti-leeway boards, these exiting through the bilge curve, quick fill and emptying water ballast tanks below floors, and two underhung transom rudders. Of course, like a multihull, this boat would not self right ... so forget your curves, it's a mono/multi ... and sail it skillfully, which goes with out saying is required for any race boat.
Okay, there's my design, a pseudo multihull, sailing in the multihull division of the big lake race, but at the same time, unofficially of course, in your mind, you'd be racing the monohull fleet ... because the multis would eat you.
Still waiting for your renderings Ad Hoc, MJ and any others, all welcome; so far zilch, nothing, zero, nada.

 

This is the crux of your imagined viewpoint. To concede that vessel behavior is a predictable science somehow threatens some deep tennent of your religion?

Could you quote from anything I've posted in this thread that supports the Arch Conservative line ?

Just one quote will do.

Otherwise you are just mounting your soapbox again and writing insults in lieu of common sense.

You still don't have the balls to actually directly say that you think Wingnuts was a suitable and seaworthy boat. Instead there's this frantic and baseless attempt to redifine the issue and attack the science that said the boat was clearly unsuitable long before the accident.

 

I've posted before about the issues here.

One is a choice based on full knowledge and acceptance of the characteristics of the boat. But then a risk assessment needs to be considered sensibly by the entire crew every time you set sail. Considering Course weather sea state, other wise known as common sense.

The other is race regulation to stop the gamblers from going offshore anyway in a high risk situation in unsuitable boats. Or skippers who try and believe away the clear indication that their boat will be likely to founder.

Racers have accepted control long ago in the interest of their sport and mostly it works quite well.

Naval architecture provides a very predictive science for not only performance but safety. Race organisations and individuals can then choose how to use that information. Thats' the real issue rather than for example Gary's approach at frantically trying to discredit Naval Architecture.

 

So there isn't a design you can post, and a concept is not a design.

If you would like to start another thread we could discuss the concept and your imagined SOR. But this is a blind alley . You were only called out on this because you were demanding others post designs. I'm not going to play that game on this thread.

Wingnuts is the subject of the thread, lets keep it on track.