Quant 28-foil assist keelboat / DSS

[mojounwin]

The data so far sounds promising, but there does seem to be a lag with DSS becoming mainstream.

Cheers
Mojo

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by mojounwin

The data so far sounds promising, but there does seem to be a lag with DSS becoming mainstream.

Cheers
Mojo

=================
There are only a very few DSS boats. There is a company in England getting ready to do something like a 45' cruiser/racer. I think that as long as the world economy is in turmoil its unlikely something new like this will have a chance to become "mainstream".

[CutOnce]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

=================
There are only a very few DSS boats. There is a company in England getting ready to do something like a 45' cruiser/racer. I think that as long as the world economy is in turmoil its unlikely something new like this will have a chance to become "mainstream".

There are more than just economic issues.

A suitably re-inforced watertight horizontal trunk crossing valuable accommodation/crew space is a major issue. So is docking issues in many marinas. The extra cost of adding another biggish foil to a design isn't trivial.

The performance potential increases are the result of compromises to crew comfort and usage of the boat when NOT racing.

I don't know about anyone else, but having to regularly climb over a three-foot wide, three foot high barrier to get to the head or to find a different headsail might get tedious after a few hundred times. If the benefit of the technology is only worthwhile to people seeking the last 5% performance advantage, I can't see any production volume even in good economic times. Just my opinion, I'm sure others will disagree.

--
CutOnce

[sharpii2]

Originally Posted by mojounwin

The data so far sounds promising, but there does seem to be a lag with DSS becoming mainstream.

Cheers
Mojo

Probably because, correct me if I'm wrong, it's patented.

IMHO, there are two mistakes a patent holder can make when it comes to licensing fees: charge too little, or charge too much.

The Wright Bros made that mistake when they invented the concept of banking an airplane to turn. (Believe it or not, that concept escaped some of the best engineers in Europe.) Their license fee was way too high, and they ended up all but killing airplane development in the USA until after WWI (the USA patents apparently weren't enforce in Europe).

If the patent holders on this new technology decide to charge a reasonable fee per device ($10 being too little and $10,000 being too much), they will probably not only make a tidy sum, but also see the use of their device become wide spread.

Charging too little beats the hell out of charging too much. This is because of a thing called 'demand elasticity'. If the price of something drops below a certain threshold, demand suddenly increases well out of proportion to that price drop, meaning that the seller actually makes more money for accepting a lower profit margin, than she/he would demanding a higher one.

In the case of this device, the fee could be based on the size being used, or it could be in proportion to the cost of the whole boat. I would go with the former rather than the latter, because 'cost of the whole boat' can be a very debate-able issue (do you mean actual 'cost to build' or do you mean 'market value'). Size is not.

IMHO, the license fee should be per square unit of area ('unit' being 'square feet' or 'square meters').

[sharpii2]

Originally Posted by CutOnce

There are more than just economic issues.

A suitably re-inforced watertight horizontal trunk crossing valuable accommodation/crew space is a major issue. So is docking issues in many marinas. The extra cost of adding another biggish foil to a design isn't trivial.

The performance potential increases are the result of compromises to crew comfort and usage of the boat when NOT racing.

I don't know about anyone else, but having to regularly climb over a three-foot wide, three foot high barrier to get to the head or to find a different headsail might get tedious after a few hundred times. If the benefit of the technology is only worthwhile to people seeking the last 5% performance advantage, I can't see any production volume even in good economic times. Just my opinion, I'm sure others will disagree.
CutOnce

Very interesting points.

But I think the market for this thing is in light displacement, high performance designs. Such designs already have deep keels with bulbs, or even canting ballast keels. This device could be a less expensive alternative to the canting keel. The bulb keel, which would probably stay, needs better support than it usually gets (see 'keels again thread'). The solution would be to build the cockpit over this device and the bulb keel strut and making the accommodation and running rigging compromises necessary to do it.

The bulb keel, now relieved of intense point bending loads (the span between the bottom of the hull and the cockpit sole would be able to flex) would almost certainly be more secure, and the loads on the foil deploying mechanism would be an order of magnitude less that of a canting keel.

The boat would certainly be more expensive than one with just a deep bulb keel, cheaper than one with a canting keel.

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by CutOnce

There are more than just economic issues.

1) A suitably re-inforced watertight horizontal trunk crossing valuable accommodation/crew space is a major issue. 2) So is docking issues in many marinas. The extra cost of adding another biggish foil to a design isn't trivial. 3) The performance potential increases are the result of compromises to crew comfort and usage of the boat when NOT racing.I don't know about anyone else, but having to regularly climb over a three-foot wide, three foot high barrier to get to the head or to find a different headsail might get tedious after a few hundred times. If the benefit of the technology is only worthwhile to people seeking the last 5% performance advantage, I can't see any production volume even in good economic times. Just my opinion, I'm sure others will disagree.

--
CutOnce

-----------------------
1) In the layouts I've seen the board in no way compromises any significant interior space. I have looked at including a DSS system in the Trapwing prototype where a crew sits in the boat-the board and associated rigging is underneath the crews legs-taking up no space that would be otherwise used-and that is an 18 footer.
2) The board is designed to be retractable and would therefore not be, in any way, a factor in docking.
3) That is just simply false!
---
--Look at the illustration here: http://www.quant-boats.com/home.html
No obstruction of the cockpit of the Quant 28 at all.
--JK 50- http://www.jkyachts.com/ no interior obstruction whatsoever.
Picture below: DSS 25 cockpit-no obstruction whatsoever

[CutOnce]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

-----------------------
1) In the layouts I've seen the board in no way compromises any significant interior space.
2) The board is designed to be retractable and would therefore not be, in any way, a factor in docking.
---
Look at the illustration here: http://www.quant-boats.com/home.html
No obstruction of the cockpit of the Quant 28 at all.

The Quant 28 is basically a large dinghy if you'll permit the analogy. So, yes I agree the DSS trunk isn't an issue in this particular case.

If this were a more consumer-friendly boat with cabin, sitting headroom, head, auxiliary and V-berth the DSS-trunk would certainly be a challenge. Dealing with centerboard/lifting keel trunks, seating and table space is an issue in any design under 30'. Adding the horizontal trunk for DSS would certainly make things challenging.

The most likely target market for this type of boat is the performance day sailor sport boat segment - like the Viper, Elliots, Shaws, VX etc. This segment is very cost sensitive to begin with - wild battling for the $25-$30K folks (and the Melges 24 folks at $35K+). Can't see anything knocking Melges out of their current high end sweet spot marketing wise - much like dinghies, fleet discipline is king and rebellions are put down mercilessly. The VX and Viper are the ones to beat in the econo-sport segment right now - but the $25 price is hard to compete with.

The other elephant in the room is .... weirdness. The DSS idea is new, non-traditional and brings a whole new set of tacking/gybing procedures into the game. Keelboat folks already have to deal with running backstays, winches and rail meat crew - adding another person to move a board on every tack/gybe will be tough. It is a lot more work for an incremental performance gain.

Sailing is a quirky sport with some folks loving tradition and others willing to embrace ... anything. Not surprising to me the "tradition" folks seem to outnumber the non-traditional folks about a 40:1 (my guess only). Even in great economic times, buying the first boat of any type and waiting for a fleet to race in is a lonely gambler's game - and the established local players will do anything to prevent others from buying the second one.

--
CutOnce

[Perm Stress]

For a boat accommodation, it is not that difficult to push DSS trunk below the floorboards, in the space already taken by structural grid that hold the keel. Any protrusion upwards for board shifting mechanics could be more or less hidden inside saloon table or settee, or ... .
So, with some ingenuity, interior impact will be minimal, if any.

[Doug Lord]

Thanks PS! I posted this before in this thread but it is worthwhile to do it again. This is from the Quant 28 site and shows their foil control system under the cockpit sole:

click on image-

[Perm Stress]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

Thanks PS! I posted this before in this thread but it is worthwhile to do it again. This is from the Quant 28 site and shows their foil control system under the cockpit sole:

click on image-

In my view, the DSS foil trunk top outside of "drive box" could be just above the foil itself. This is not much difference in height from normal structural grid on the bottom.

[mojounwin]

Hugh W. Has documented on forums in the recent past to say that the licensing fee is about the cost of a new main sail and then obviously there will be the cost of the equipment. I would certainly consider it if I was to build again, but would be nice to see a few others dipping their toes in first.

Cheers
Mojo

[Waylandsailor]

Does anyone know the present status of DSS? I sent an e mail a week ago and never received a reply. I'm especially interested in the 50 foot DSS cruising boat that should have been launched by now.

[Doug Lord]

Who did you contact? I think "JK Yachts" is building the 50 footer. A new lake racer is being completed-a bit larger than the Quant 28 as well as a Mini Proto Class boat using DSS.
I'd like to know if you e-mailed thru the DSS site or not-if you did you can e-mail me and I'll forward it to Hugh Welbourn.

http://www.jkyachts.com/
There are pictures on the site under "Gallery" of what appears to be the first hull........

[Doug Lord]

Exciting and significant race report from Michael Aeppli regarding the Quant 28:
"If another proof of the potential of the Quant 28 was necessary-Geneva-Rolle Geneva last Saturday was the race to shut everybody's mouth doubting the DSS system in general and the Quant 28 in particular."

see balance of report below--
Race results, p8, "Allianz Suisse"

click on image:

[Wuzzi]

This device is going to go the way of the canting keel for recreational boats, leaving the marketplace to the very few racing dedicated designs. There was quite a bit of hype generated regarding canting keels on these pages when they first made an appearance in the racing world. Major claims were made as to the swinging open door to super performance for boaters everywhere and that the devices would soon be found on recreational boats from forward thinking companies. It never happened.

My guess is that the same thing will happen to the DSS system. Too much added cost, too much added complexity for the boat owner and ultimately, too much of a distraction from simply going out on the water for a fun day of cruising around with the family for very little real gain.

Can you just imagine the conversation between the Dad and the teenage son when good old Dad tells the kid to get down to the marina early in the morning (yeah, sure, like that's going to happen) so that he can dive the hull to clear any growth that exists on the DSS foil that would prevent it from being functional?

When Mr. Suburbia gets a whiff of that reality, I'm afraid that it would mean the end of the DSS as a viable addition to recreational boats. I suspect that the remaining market in racing is further divided to the point where the DSS application is going to be a non-starter as a successful commercial product.