Should Power Assited Systems be Allowed?

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by RHough, Dec 29, 2005.

?

Should Power Assisted Systems be allowed?

Poll closed Mar 29, 2006.
  1. Yes

    8 vote(s)
    19.0%
  2. No

    14 vote(s)
    33.3%
  3. Yes, but only in One Design Classes

    17 vote(s)
    40.5%
  4. Who cares?

    3 vote(s)
    7.1%
  1. Roly
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 508
    Likes: 23, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 222
    Location: NZ

    Roly Senior Member

    Lorsail

    Firstly Doug, thanks; your provocative stance has been most educating!

    Though your purist hearts may bleed these new boats couldn't fail to excite the real sailor inside you.)...
    I agree with Randy, I searched;Multihulls at this stage, go approx. 20% faster.
    20% more excitement!

    You just won't know what to call it( them)

    Huh!...... Aberrations, I think was used by someone. And the obscene amounts of money required to own one makes no sense to me personally.
    Owning/sailing a multihull is a feasible option on my wishlist.
    Saying that,It is ridiculous suggesting they(CBTF) should be banned and they are not a significant advance in the evolution of the monohull.

    Though your purist hearts may bleed these new boats couldn't fail to excite the real sailor inside you.)...[/B]

    Double Huh!.....Is that the Real sailor that starts up the motor to get
    it to do the work of the crew to make the boat sail faster? If the crew can't
    do the work......DSQ or DNF, depending if the motor stops!
    I have another name for this kind of mentality and I don't use it very often,
    not very charitable!
    Sportsmen know when they have won fair and square.
    Purist hearts? Most crew would give their eye teeth to sail fast boats, but not race them aided by their motor and win,with a clear conscience.
    Saying most people want to win regardless is like saying most people are thieves. (not that you said that)

    BTW if you want to lend me a CBTF for the weekend, I will gladly play with it!!:D
     
  2. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Praise the Lord, Brother!

    Wow!! "Power assist" is MORALLY wrong?? This is getting crazy! I advocate or should I say defend "power assist" on boats too big to move the ballast efficiently any other way-I think it's a great idea to have big boats(mono's or multies) sail at a level comensurate with the technology available to build them. I think it is a GREAT idea on boats to be sailed by disabled sailors and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the Preacher Man that tells them that not only are they not sailing but what they are doing is MORALLY wrong!!!! Lord have mercy ,Randy! I'm for equal rights for big boats: why shouldn't these boats be able to be built, designed and raced? And be fairly rated on handicap? They are sailboats with movable ballast period-and entitled to go after any record any other sailboat is.
    I'm for disabled sailors rights to have extremely fast boats at their disposal instead of just Sonars and 2.4 meters and the UD 18.
    I think it is disastrous to put unfair moralistically presumptous limits on the application of technology to sailing by saying:"if its too big to move by hand or sheet by hand don't build it"; how short sighted can you get??
    ======================
    (USA)2,You said:" If you compare ANY monohull to a multihull of almost any sort it would look slow"
    And:
    "Fact: multihulls are faster than monohulls so if you want to look slow compare it to a multihull".
    Oh ,Really?
    According to Phil Stevenson on SA he just beat a Tornado downwind that was flying its spinnaker:
    The Tornado has 1.8 times the length, 8.2 times the righting moment, 3.2 times the sail area up wind and 6.7 times the sail area downwind as compared to a Moth. This kind of thing is what Langman and Bethwaite are looking at and would have been thought impossible two years ago. The bi-foil monofoiler has enormous potential in it's application to boats like Maxi Skiffs in combination with on-deck movable ballast and other forms of movable ballast and the results could be as astounding as these. And Phil is not the only Mothie to beat cats: Rohan Veal has raced against a whole fleet of A class cats and won.
    The point is that the competitive use of just two foils on monofoilers (or ANY foiler for that matter) to win races just started around 2002 with Rohan Veal on Ilett foils.And the first bi-foil Moth sailed only in 1999. This technology is brand new since until that time all foilers had three foils with the exception of Millers hydrofoil windsurfer.
    The applcation of this new technology to big boats in combination with Power Ballast Systems is just a rocket waiting to be launched.
    That is if a Preacher Man doesn't have them all burned at the stake.....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 7, 2006
  3. marshmat
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 4,127
    Likes: 149, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2043
    Location: Ontario

    marshmat Senior Member

    I should note that name-calling is not considered civilized conduct by most adults. That is the domain of Grade 5 students.

    The point that has been made many times, and which I will try to clarify again, is this: Most canting-keel maxis are dependent on their engine. If the engines die, if they run out of fuel- the boat is a dead duck. This is different from a leadbelly or multi which can sail indefinitely with no fuel or motor.

    Nobody is denying that CBTF is a big step forward for monohull racing. And when foils make it to the maxis, that too will be a step forward for the big mono. What is being disputed is whether a boat that can only sail with an engine running can be fairly raced against one that can sail indefinitely as long as the crew are alive.

    Allowing foils on monos is much like allowing cats and tris. It's a perfectly valid idea that's held back by rules and money. A Moth on foils is not a monohull, it's a hydrofoil- there is a very substantial difference from both a physics and a regulations perspective.

    Possible solution to the needs-engine-to-cant thing. When you need to gybe, two guys go sit on top of the keel box and pedal away on a crank that's geared-down to the keel strut. Yes it will take a bit longer. But I would feel that the boat would then be on comparable footing to conventional monos.
     
  4. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Apology

    I was not intending to call names just to draw a parallel; I was responding in what I assumed would be understood in a humorous way to what I considered an outlandish comment: that using power to move ballast on boats that can't effectively move it any other way was "morally wrong".
    I apologize to anyone who was offended by my comments.
    =========================
    Matt, you said the Moth on foils is not a monohull. In the Moth class the first foil system to win a race was a set of surface piercing foils mounted to each hiking wing plus a t-foil. This configuration was banned as violating the "no multihull" provision of the Moth Class rules. The bi-foil arrangement was subsequently approved as a "monohull configuration". Last year, Les Thorpe won the Australian Moth Nationals against a fleet of foilers on a non-foiled boat and on this past Wenesday he was fourth out of 29.
    I think the bifoil configuration is now recognized as a monohull configuration of a hydrofoil system. Multihulls need to have three or four foils for full flying foiling though it's conceivable that they could sail on just two at a time.
     
  5. usa2
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 538
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 11
    Location: Maine

    usa2 Senior Member

    Doug, Phil S's boat is a foiler. Once again you are comparing boats which are not supposed to be compared. A flying monohull is obviously almost as fast as a multihull, but so is a glider, which is also windpowered.

    Foils on boats make sense, but you should not race them against boats that dont have foils. Just like you should not race boats with one hull against boats with 2+, or boats with canting keels against boats with fixed.
     
  6. BOATMIK
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 300
    Likes: 17, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 190
    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

    BOATMIK Deeply flawed human being

    I am completely unaware of moths carrying ANY ballast. They don't even require lead to get them up to minimum hull weight - there's no minimum hull weight.

    Ballast on multis only makes sense if you can get rid of it - so waterballast is a sensible option. It has the biggest effect if you stick it in the windward hull. So the ballast centre in a performance multi will be 60 to 75 percent of LOA to windward

    The MAXISKIFF has a keel that moves the lead ballast a few feet to windward - maybe 10 percent of LOA. Tiny amount of power in relation and you can't get rid of it when you want.

    The MAXISKIFF also has outriggers for crew and possibly waterballast there. It is nothing like 60 percent of LOA to windward of the Centre of Buoyancy.

    On the other point - if the outrigger "pods" are not meant to touch the water - why have 'em? If they will hit the water - why not make them more hull shaped so they won't slow the boat so much?

    This is how silly arbitrary rules ruin potentially good boats - "talking with the RORC" The guys who brought you overlapping headsails, banned full length battens, brought you bumps and gave an excessive rating advantage to less stable boats.

    This is the same game being played out now with canting keelers. Arbitrary rules limiting the speed of boats.

    If the MAXISKIFF is trimmed right on a broad reach on the point of balance with apparent well forward it will be moving quick (for a monohull - it wont be able to generate as much righting moment as a multi).

    Now if the boatspeed drops the apparent wind will move aft - sticking the nose in a wave, sudden change of wind velocity or direction. The MAXISKIFF will either have a sudden increase or reduction in heeling force.

    Because of the MAXISKIFFs size and configuration you just can't reduce the righting moment by moving the keel and the crew fast enough (it is a longer difference to run! and the crew weight is low in proportion to the size of the boat)

    So it will just lie over on the pods, apparent will reduce further - it will take a good minute to get sailing again.

    Compare with a multi which hits a lull or sticks it's nose in a wave which they do regularly with only occasional misadventure (remember we are talking Grand Prix here - not boats for the Mums and Dads).

    If a multi loses power it just drops back on its other hull and keeps sailing,

    If an increase in power bear off hard and throw sheets and maybe vang. (The power skiff will do the same) but about 50 percent of the time you can end up in an underpowered state - which is when you plop back down on the other hull.

    It is possible to talk about an idealised position on a multi where the windward hull never touches the water, but it does sometimes with no ill effects. The MAXISKIFF may well be a pig in the same situation of power flutuation

    We will see when it gets built.

    Even when built it will have some of the virtues of a multi as it is approaching the same configuration - but it will have many vices uniquely its own -
    ie
    1/ it will be slow in absolute sailing terms
    2/ it will be much harder to sail than a multi
    3/ it will be prone to drama

    A good boat for the America's cup!!! Give us something to watch.

    Anyone who is able to sail it effectively will be like Sean Langman - a sailor of the highest ablity, but he will sail a multi much faster still.

    Can you remember the article from years ago when Cam Lewis (Olympian in 470s) went on his first race with Bruno Peyron? One of the great bits of yachting journalism ever.

    My paraphrase from memory - We went around the mark off France and headed off to Spain at 28 knots - there was so much spray that we couldn't face forward and had to steer watching the wake astern."

    It is over 15 years ago now.

    I am a monohull sailer from way back.

    The MAXISKIFF simply demonstrates that to get more speed you need to adopt more multihull features.

    The funny thing is that we know the endpoint of such development already


    Michael Storer
    my boat pages
     
  7. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Maxiskiff

    Michael, the "ballast" I referred to on the Moth was the crew.
    Bethwaites idea was to use sliding deck ballast + crew in the pods with a fixed keel for selfrighting purposes.Langmans idea was to use a canting keel coupled with waterballast and crew in the pods.
    I believe that if the fixed or canting keel was made as deep as possible with the minimum ballast for self righing from a pitchpole and the deck ballast was powered(for speed) with a significantly wider beam that the pods could be reduced a whole lot.I think it would be ideal if the entire wing rack+ ballast could be moved F & A as well. I imagine that a refined version of a Maxiskif would look more like that than either
    of the sketches. And to maximize speed the boat would use a retractable main foil and rudder t-foil with an electronic altitude control system. I think such a monohull might be able to beat a "normal" multihull in all conditions.
     
  8. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    When two runners race against each other the faster one wins. When one of those runners uses steroids to run faster it is morally wrong, It's called cheating.

    Steroids don't win races. The athletes using the steroids win races.

    Power assists don't win races. The athletes using the power assists win races.

    If one is cheating, why isn't the other one?

    If the rules get changed to allow steroids, comparing the performance of the steroid users to the runner's of the past that did not use steroids is also morally wrong. They would have been cheating under the old rule, so their performance is not comparable.

    Sail racing was a sport, when power assists were used it was cheating and morally wrong. Just like using steroids.

    Now some people have changed the rules for some classes and some races, using power assist is no longer cheating under their rules. It is still cheating under the basic rules of sailing. Thus it is still morally wrong. Comparing the race results of a boat that races under the steroids allowed rule to boats that raced under the no steroids rule is morally wrong too.

    Aids to disabled athletes are not available to able-bodied athletes. For an able-bodied athlete to gain advantage from using such a system it would be cheating and morally wrong.

    Powered wheel chairs allow some disabled people to enjoy some of the outdoor pleasures that able-bodied people enjoy. They cannot generate the same feeling as running or riding a bicycle although they may reach similar speeds.

    When athletes compete it is called Sport. When athletes use engines it's called Motor sport.

    The power assisted boats use engines, call it Motorsailing, call it Motorsport, call it anything you want but it is NOT sailing.

    Boats don't have rights, the laws of physics govern sport. Just because I can't clean and jerk 500 pounds do I have the "right" to use a crane to help?

    If the only way you can sail is to motor sail, that's fine. No moral issues at all. It only becomes a moral issue when you refer to the results and claim a sailing record.

    The mindset that allows some athletes to consider steroids an option to improve performance would also consider using a motor to improve a boats performance.

    No handicapping system can give all boats an equal chance of winning under all conditions. Some rules do a decent job of handicapping a small subset of boats fairly under a small range of conditions. In many races the conditions change so much over the course that the boats are not sailing in even remotely similar conditions. If the wind hadn't died in the S-H this year WO would have been beaten by a 37 year old boat. Boats or wildy different performance cannot be fairly handicapped by any system that I know of. IRC doesn't rate multi-hulls, because it cant. Because the rating system cant handle the boats the boats are not allowed to race.

    No one is against adding technology to sailing. Most sailors are against adding engines. Adding engines is not adding technology, its making a mockery of sail racing. Just like steroid enhanced athletes have make a mockery of other sports.

    If its too big to move by hand or trim by hand its prevented from being moved by the laws of physics. The basic rules of sailing even prohibit some actions that can be performed by manual power. The limits placed on sail boats by physics and the basic rules are natural limits. Adding power to the boat changes the limits and racing those boats is not the same as sailing a boat that remains inside the natural limits.

    BTW- it was not I that said all multi-hulls are faster than mono-hulls, that was usa2.

    However ... :)

    As you very well know, things like sailboats don't scale well. Look at the draft a IOM RC yacht has to have to sail well. The same dimensions would give a 100 foot boat a 42 foot draft. What works at the Moth scale doesn't work at either 1 metre or 30 metres.

    Designers have a choice, fight the laws of physics or work with them.

    Fighting the laws of physics makes no sense until you reach the limits of design using the laws in your favour.

    If you want to go faster, why not start with a fast boat? No amount of money will make a Civic into a land speed record holder. What makes you think that a mono-hull can be made into a fast sailboat?
     
  9. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    time out/microMOTH

    Check this out:
    microMOTH
    Address:http://www.microsail.com/micromoth.html Changed:1:14 PM on Thursday, August 25, 2005
    This boat is the first attempt by me to build a small monofoiler(LOA 36"). It is an incredibly difficult boat to sail and not worthy of being a product yet. It uses a Power Ballast System and manual (by radio)control of the mainfoil flap. Future versions will have a wand for altitude control and the whole rack will move fore and aft. I'm convinced that ,though this boat is too difficult, a more user friendly version can be built. It is very fast but I still can't keep it sailing very long.
     
  10. usa2
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 538
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 11
    Location: Maine

    usa2 Senior Member

    So basically you are saying that to make a monohull a fast boat it cant touch the water with its hull?
     
  11. marshmat
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 4,127
    Likes: 149, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2043
    Location: Ontario

    marshmat Senior Member

    When I said that the foiler Moth is not a monohull, that is from a physics standpoint. Regulators can say whatever they please; class rules do not change the physics of operation. To a physicist, a monohull is a vessel which is supported by the interaction of the water with a single hull, in the form of either buoyancy as per Archimedes or dynamic lift, or some combination thereof. A foiler's hull does not interact with the water- it is supported by Bernoulli effect via appendages. From the physics viewpoint, it is a wing-supported vehicle, not a monohull boat (except of course for when it is sitting still). Unless you want to call the foil itself a hull, the Moth foiler at speed is a hydrofoil, not a monohull and not a multi.
     
  12. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    foilers

    The bifoil concept used on a single hull is uniquely characteristic of monofoilers as is the fact that bi-foil monofoiler systems don't use the action of the foils to generate righting moment as do most multifoilers.
    This is usefull in helping to understand that the boat is still a monohull whether it is on foils or not.
    The Moth class is leading the way in defining the very real differences between multifoilers and monofoilers and I think that their experience and knowledge will be(and is being) applied to larger boats.
    This kind of stuff may be real important down the line when these definitions will have real meaning in big boats.
    The fact that the Moth class races foilers and non foilers in the same class may be important as well.
    One thing is for sure: a large well designed Power Ballast System equipped monofoiler will be extremely fast-just how fast remains to be seen but there is ominous evidence in boats under 21' that the monohull foiler and the non-foiled multihull or foil assist multihull may wind up changing places in the speed hierarchy. Time will tell....
    =================
    edit: Foilers can be very efficient in windspeeds of 8 to 25+ sailing at multiples of the wind speed :In the range of 8-20+ knots windspeed monofoilers have regularly beaten Formula windsurfers and numerous other high powered ,much larger planing boats including the I14 and 49er in conditions that suited both types; L'hydroptere(multifoiler) has,so far, done 39knots(45mph) in 21.58knots wind(25mph wind).
     
  13. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    Hey Doug,

    You've made great points about the possibilities of new classes of boats. I would like to see how far they can push the envelope too. I think going for a ride on anything that can sail faster than the wind is a hoot.

    What no one has done is make a case for having the new classes race head to head with with boats that were built to a different rule. I've seen more than one web-site where a designer bemoans the move to one design racing.

    Sailors have come to the conclusion that boats must be similar to have even racing between boats. All measurement rules evolve typed boats. One Designs limit new technology, they have to in order to keep the racing handicap free. Every handicap rule system has ended up creating extreme boats that in many cases are slow for there size, but fast for their handicap. The IOR may have been the worst. The IRC rule attempts yet again to handicap both existing designs and new designs. The very idea is flawed, that is why it cannot handle multi-hulls. Multi-hulls and moving ballast boats use different dynamics to produce speed than a fixed ballast mono-hull. If a measurement rule treats one type fairly it cannot rate other types the same way because the rule was written around a certain type.

    The power assist question is simple, let them race one design and let any records they set be noted with the rule they sailed under. A little *PA note next to the record would do the trick.

    There are many classes of world land speed records, that doesn't seem to bother anyone.

    Ultimate records should be pure. The only requirement for a land speed record is that you stay on the ground. Sailboats will never hold the ultimate water speed record where the only rule is that you stay in contact with the water. Ultimate sailing speed records should have only two requirements, one that the boat never leaves the water, and two that the boat uses no power assist to enable it to sail faster.

    An interesting note here, the speed record boats don't use hydrofoils. Hydrofoils are a great answer for going faster with limited power. Boats that don't have enough power to plane can get it up using foils. As soon as you have enough power to plane properly, a planing hull is faster. Hydrofoils suffer from the same physics that sails do. The weight of the boat does not change, and the area of the foils does not change. Lift = weight. As speed increases so does lift, at some point the foils will break the water surface and lose lift. the speed range can be increased by changing the AOA of the foils, but the surface drag will still be present. A planing hull keeps the lift=weight constant by having infinitely variable surface area, that's why the drag curve for a planing hull is linear. Also note that ultimate speed record windsurfers aren't using hydrofoils either. The foiler Moths don't have the power to sail as fast as a windsurfer, so foils may well be the answer. Man it has got to be a blow to the ego when something as simple as a windsurfer is faster than a hi-zoot Moth. :(

    The new boats can have their new records, but they violate one of the basic rules of sailing so they should not be compared to boats that do not.

    It looks like one of the by-products of the VO70 class of boats is safer racing. They are faster in moderate conditions and and fragile in heavy conditions. They don't have to go deep south and look for gales to sail in to make good time. Not dodging icebergs has got to be safer. Of course we all know that most powered boats prefer flat water so I guess its no surprise. :)

    Anyone that sails knows that conditions play a major role in determining the overall average speed of an ocean race. It takes a combination of the right boat and the right weather to set fast times. Record that were set under abnormal conditions stand for long periods of time. On average over the same courses the big multi's are about 20% faster than the big mono's.

    I'm sure we've provide the forum with a good show, you get to play Don Quixote and see the world differently and I get to play Pat Robertson and preach the gospel according to Randy.

    Its time for me to give it rest, my preaching won't get you to see the folly of tilting against windmills. Your blind devotion to new gadgets to solve simple problems won't get me to accept powered boats in sailing races.

    Catch you later my friend.

    Randy
     
  14. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Movable ballast sailboats

    I think it's just as well Randy. A discussion of sailboat technology where one advocate claims another's position is "morally wrong" and that the other position is the same as advocating the use of steroids by athletes has gone way too far.
    I do believe, however, that having to use such tactics speaks volumes regarding the bankruptcy of the point you advocate regardless of whether the "majority" agrees or not.
    See the edit to my previous post regarding the speed of foilers vs planing boats.
     

  15. D'ARTOIS
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 1,068
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 321
    Location: The Netherlands

    D'ARTOIS Senior Member

    Yes, it is just as well - this is accelerating to the point of being a useless discussion; on the other fora I visit to sound out opinions pro or contra the canters, I see that there are more contra's than pro's for reasons as posted in this thread.

    I believe that I am not far from the truth when I say that many owners/sailors have 2nd thoughts about all the changes that have been allowed in favour of the step in of the canters.

    Where it will finally lead to we have to see as nobody can look into the future.

    The whole canting keel issue has appeared to me as something like the wisdom of the idiots.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.