Should Power Assited Systems be Allowed?

I know I'm talking to myself ... but ...

I ran some numbers and did a little bit of research on the Schock 40

Ballast: 1800#
Strut length: 7ft
Max Cant angle: 55 deg
Time to transit 110 deg (tack): 12sec

At max cant of 55 deg the ballast is displaced about 5.73ft to windward, giving a RM of 1060 lb/ft

110 deg in 12 sec is just under 1 RPM

1060 lb/ft of torque @ 1 RPM = about 2 HP

It doesn't take much to move the ballast.

A 5000 psi pump weighs about 40 lbs and is 12" long with a 8" diameter. Maximum shaft RPM is 2400.

Put the pump inside the ballast bulb and but a feathering prop on the end. The prop turns through a 4:1 step up planetary gear so the prop RPM is 0-600 for 0-2400 at the pump.

Run the pump output line into the hull through the strut.

At 6 MPH (5.2 knots) a 14" pitch prop gives 600 RPM and a pump RPM of 2400. This gives you 40 gallons/hour and up to 5,000 psi to work with.

At 600 RPM the prop would be pretty efficient and the only added drag when not driving the ballast would be the blade area.

The weight of the pump become part of the ballast, but its not as dense as lead so the bulb would have slightly higher wetted surface.

The prop is at the end of the strut so it won't ever break the surface while driving the pump. Since the pump is in the ballast bulb the prop and pump can be in alignment so there is no loss from drive angle and no extra drag since the propshaft is in line with the water flow.

I'm not sure how big a diameter you would need @ 14" pitch to generate 2 HP, but it can't be very much.

So there you have it. A self contained wind powered ballast pump that can cant the keel of a Schock 40 in the same 12 seconds as the stored power system, takes up less interior space, and save the weight of 4 lead/acid batteries.

Not so tough.

 

OK, so why not a "rotating keel" (which might bear some resemblance to a propellor) driven by a 1000 hp+ aeroplane engine? Alternately, our canting keel engine could have a massive water cooling system, (which might look remarkably like a jet drive). If they have to have an engine running all the time then they are powerboats. Why they allow powerboats to race in the Sydney-Hobart, but still dont allow multihulls is beyond me.

 

A bad good thing?

I hate to wish missfortune on any one, but these CBTF's are an accident waiting to happen. This technology would be fine for around the bouys racing such as the America's Cup.

Once both foils and the ballast strut (formerly called a keel) ar sheared off due to an underwater collision, the now rudderless, ballastless boat can safely overturn dumping its startled crew into pee warm water where all kinds of spectator boats will be available to fish them out. Great television. Great fun. And the boat can be re-strutted and re-finned in a matter of days and be right back at it.

Its stupendous speeds will be easily filmed by passing helicopters for all to see. And its zillionare owner can be a permenent fixture on the bow with his arms reaching for the sky and his voice exclaiming, Leo DeCaprio like,: "I'm King of the world!" as his sail boat passes just about every powerboat in sight.

I'm completely up with that. After all, as a traditionalist, I have nothing against half a dozen guys 'riding de pry' with their fitted dinghy never dropping below hull speed. This is all great fun. And the Aussies have their 18's which are even faster.

The thing is, none of these boats are intended to be out of sight of land or nearby crash boats (or less than sympathetic competitors, for that matter).

Now, with off shore racing, in the freezing Southern Ocean, no less, I have real issue with a technology that makes boats so vulnerable. Here you are combining very high speeds (did one really go 40kts?) with a very vulnerable steering and ballast system. Any 'sea junk' worthy of the name should be able to rip it apart with no problem at all.

Having an offshore rule system that not only encourages these things, but practically forces people into to them (if they care at all about winning) is, in my opinion, not only unfair, but mennacing as well. The dangers are all to clear. I suppose I could design an unballasted scow and race it and probably, if luck is with me, get away with it a few times. And maybe win every down wind race in sight. In that case, I would be banned, and rightfully so.

CBTF technology is, in my opinion, a wonderful innovation. And I think it has its place. But the lonely, freezing, Southern ocean is not it.

Race them, if you must. But, like multi's, in a seperate class. Because, as Lorsail himself freely admits, they are a vastly superior 'go fast' technology.

If it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the America's Cup Class.

Imagine an ACC race that was not decided by by the boat that got ahead first, early in the race, but by one that went 45kts rather than 40. And one where the spectator boats had to have WOT just to keep up with the contestants.

Enough bitching for a Thursday.

Bob

 

Cbtf

Bob, I'm sure you know or should know:
1) there are no CBTF boats in the Volvo Ocean Race
2)CBTF boats designed by Reichel- Pugh have never had any catastrophic failures of the type occurring on the VOR boats.(knock on wood)Lumping the CBTF boats interchangeably with VOR boats is not accurate or fair.
3)CBTF boats have won and set new meaningful records in the Transpac, Bermuda Race and the Sydney-Hobart.In addition there are quite a few CBTF equipped cruising boats around with hundreds of thousands of ocean miles. Canting keel boats ,on the whole, have an excelent safety record going back over 20 years.
4) the Farr designed VOR boats scare the hell out of me-very ,very scary.
5) New and developing technology is bound to have failures and everybody involved knew that these boats had no track record and were brand new, untested in combat for the most part.No one is forced into this race and the caliber of sailor on these boats could easily have deduced before hand that there was a HIGH LIKELYHOOD of trouble during an around the world race on a brand new design. I'm a little amazed at the nature of the trouble so far but not that there is trouble. I hope nobody gets killed....

 

2)CBTF boats designed by Reichel- Pugh have never had any catastrophic failures of the type occurring on the VOR boats.(knock on wood)Lumping the CBTF boats interchangeably with VOR boats is not accurate or fair.

Both CBTF and VO70's use engine power to sail faster. They can be lumped together in a thread about power assist. If someone wants to start a thread about whether the VO70's would be faster with CBFT than they are without it, feel free.

3)CBTF boats have won and set new meaningful records in the Transpac, Bermuda Race and the Sydney-Hobart.In addition there are quite a few CBTF equipped cruising boats around with hundreds of thousands of ocean miles. Canting keel boats ,on the whole, have an excelent safety record going back over 20 years.

Please read this as "A New Class of boats have set New Class records in ..."

CBTF or any other power assisted system used in a cruising boat is not really relevant, cruising boats motor-sail regularly, using the engine to move ballast and trim sails instead of turning the prop is just changing the method of using power to sail faster.

4) the Farr designed VOR boats scare the hell out of me-very ,very scary.

Correct, failures of some boats designed to a Class Rule is a reflection on the designer, not the rule. If I designed a CBTF boat that failed spectacularly, it should be a reflection on me, not CBTF. But that's not the topic here.

What the post and poll shows so far is that most people feel that power assisted boats should race against each other and not against traditional boats. This is in line with keeping multi-hulls separate from traditional boats.

In light of that, the question becomes, "Could power assisted systems give a Mono-hull similar performance to a Multi-hull of the same length?" Modified rule boats are pretty new in the sailing time-line, the fastest modified rule boat so far is a VO70 that is over 20% slower on a 24 hour run than the record holder. (536M vs 702M)

The true value of power assisted systems would be shown in a race that allowed power assist in all boats and allowed any hull/sail combination to enter. An "Open 30" rule where the only limit is a maximum LOA of 30 metres, would include the "Super-Maxis" and many of the big offshore Cat's and Tri's. Let them race head to head using whatever power assists they want.

 

The true value of power assisted systems would be shown in a race that allowed power assist in all boats and allowed any hull/sail combination to enter. An "Open 30" rule where the only limit is a maximum LOA of 30 metres, would include the "Super-Maxis" and many of the big offshore Cat's and Tri's. Let them race head to head using whatever power assists they want.

This has to be the equitable outcome. I don't see the point of racing greyhounds against dachhounds and compensating for the length of tail.

 

Power Ballast Systems

You know, almost every ocean racer uses the engine to charge batteries;is that Power Assist?
I just can't get it in my mind why we all think it's so cool for an 18 footer to be powered up by a significant proportion of it's overall weight moving to weather on a trapeze but the same thing is not ok for big boats where the ballast couldn't be moved effectively except by some form of engine.I've read all the flights of fantasy about a prop on the bulb etc but when you look at it realistically the best sailboat designers in the world feel that using the diesel to move the keel is the best solution on big boats. Without that ability those boats would be relegated to being fixed keel lead bellies or sailing extremely ineficiently. As far as racing against other boats goes I think it is perfectly acceptable as long as the rule in use is fair to all of them. If the rule is fair that would mean that sometimes the super boats would win on handicap and sometimes they would lose on handicap. Which is,as best as I can tell, exactly what has been happening.(While Oats and Romeo were first and second on handicap Konica Minolta was third-AHEAD of a number of other canters).
As to records:if a sailboat is allowed to participate by the rules in any particular race or for any particular record and that boat obeys the rules then any record that comes from her participation is just as valid now as any record or race result in the past.You say it's not fair because special waivers have to be in effect but those are the same waivers in effect for any race that allows the crew to use a trapeze!
The fact is that the big 98 footers are operating and deriving their motive force in the sameway as do trapeze boats- only at a much larger scale where human power is not practical(as judged by the top sailboat designers in the world). I see no reason that they shouldn't be able to sail in any handicap races that rate them fairly and see no reason at all that any record set by them is less of a record.
This stuff is here to stay and as long as these boats are fairly rated and raced according to the same rules other boats have been for years,whats the problem?

 

You say it's not fair because special waivers have to be in effect but those are the same waivers in effect for any race that allows the crew to use a trapeze!

Those are ONE DESIGN classes.

This stuff is here to stay and as long as these boats are fairly rated and raced according to the same rules other boats have been for years,whats the problem?

They aren't, that IS the problem.

The IRC rule prohibits fast sailboats, and modifies the rules so that boats can use engines to sail faster. Not even almost as fast as fast sailboats, just faster than some sailboats.

Physics is a funny thing. What works at one scale does not work at another. I proved that a Schock 40 would be just as fast without using a stored power system. I can to the math to prove that a Stupor-Maxi would be just as fast without using a donkey engine. The reason that the designers don't use a wind powered system is because they got the rules changed so they didn't have to.

 

"You know, almost every ocean racer uses the engine to charge batteries;is that Power Assist?"

yes and no. It is assisting by providing electronic navigation and so forth, but that doesnt help you go faster(Unless you bring weather routing and other things like that into it. but thats another story). It is not moving the righting moment out to weather of the hull, therefore allowing you to go faster by carrying a more powerful rig.

"I just can't get it in my mind why we all think it's so cool for an 18 footer to be powered up by a significant proportion of it's overall weight moving to weather on a trapeze but the same thing is not ok for big boats where the ballast couldn't be moved effectively except by some form of engine."

Becase the 18 footers are powered up by their crew on the rail, to have a boat that significantly powered up at that size requires the crew to be physically fit, and engines have always been shunned by the racing sailboat crowd.
I agree with everyone who has said to make the power assisted boats race in their own classes, as its like comparing monohulls to multihulls. They dont race eachother(usually), so why should PA boats race non PA boats. It isnt fair to the non powered ones.

 

Rules

Trapeze boats are raced against other boats in open regatta's all over the world.
The IRC rule prohibits fast sailboats?! Thats funny because Wild Oats won under the IRC rules in effect for the Sydney Hobart and Konica Minolta beat a number of other canters which leads me to believe the rule is very fair.One guy in the UK complains because his Schock 40 takes a big hit under IRC.So when you say that these boats are not sailing under the rules you're just plain wrong-you may not like the rules so work to change them but don't say that these big boats aren't following the rules. These boats CAN be rated fairly and I believe the rule is close to being right as it exists based on what has actually happened.
You didn't prove anything except that your idea may have merit. Until you race head to head with a powered system the question of the validity of your concept remains open; if you believe in it go for it. But don't impugn the motives of the best sailboat designers in the world.
The conspiracy theory that all designers of powered canting keel systems got the rules changed so that they wouldn't have to find a better solution is ridiculous. As has been pointed out the rule waivers predate canting keels so such assertions are just not correct- but regardless of that it is FACT that all these races have been sailed under the official rules and whether you like them or not they ARE the rules.

 

Trapeze boats are raced against other boats in open regatta's all over the world.

Name three. Name one where the trapeze boats are not racing under a class rule that allows the use of trapezes. Show up with a canting keel or trapeze equiped Star and see haw fast you get a DSQ.

The IRC rule prohibits fast sailboats?!

Yes, the IRC rule prohibits Multi-hulls. Any number of which are faster than the boats that IRC does allow.

Thats funny because Wild Oats won under the IRC rules

Wild Oats is not a fast boat. The race average was only 14.7 knots over 628 miles, fast boats can cover over 2900 miles at more than 29 knots. Wild Oats is slow. As for the IRC rule ... see above.

You didn't prove anything except that your idea may have merit. Until you race head to head with a powered system the question of the validity of your concept remains open;

Sailors don't race against power boats which was the whole point of this thread.

 

"The IRC rule prohibits fast sailboats?! Thats funny because Wild Oats won under the IRC rules in effect for the Sydney Hobart and Konica Minolta beat a number of other canters which leads me to believe the rule is very fair."

Well, IRC has problems with rating the big canters, as evidenced at Hamilton Island, and Konica Minolta only beat Skandia and AAPT on corrected time because those AAPT does not have a favorable rating due to her design at the old limit and Skandia was forced to slow down due to her keel problems and KM caught up enough to make up her time.

"One guy in the UK complains because his Schock 40 takes a big hit under IRC."

Schock 40's are not exceptionally fast, and if the canting keel is penalized by IRC (marginally it seems) then it would not surprise me that the S40 is not sailing to its rating.


"These boats CAN be rated fairly and I believe the rule is close to being right as it exists based on what has actually happened."

I think your right in that they CAN be rated fairly, but why do believe the rule is right? Wild Oats IX and Wild Oats X have shown that a 60 or 66 foot canter is almost as fast as a 98 foot fixed keeler.
Yet they dont rate as a 90+ footer.
IRC should rate the canters based on what they have done in reality, rather than what a bunch of formula's say they should do, because the boats are clearly much faster than the rule thinks.

"The conspiracy theory that all designers of powered canting keel systems got the rules changed so that they wouldn't have to find a better solution is ridiculous."

Who said the designers did it? I would have thought the owners would have had that done. Much like the Transpac rating limits are set...

 

As Doug has pointed out before Wild Oats and Alfa were the 1st two boats on both handicap and line honours in the S-H. But only just. The weather was very, very kind to them. A number of other (non-canters) boats were well and truly in the running for handicap honours until the wind went 'round to the west and blew like all buggery. I know - I was holed up in a very pleasant little anchorage for 4 days ( in my motorboat, with genset running and the tv and heater on )
The point is that whether you are talking about water-ballast, canting keels - even battery charging - a good handicapping system will take into account one boats advantage over another. The whole point of handicapping is to level the playing field.

 

You can't say that the handicapping is fair - or not - based on the results of one race. As I said in my last post, the weather played just as big a part in the handicap result as the style of boat did.

 

"You can't say that the handicapping is fair - or not - based on the results of one race. As I said in my last post, the weather played just as big a part in the handicap result as the style of boat did."

You are right about that. However, much of my information is based on the IRC results the canting keel boats (Wild Oats X, Wild Joe, and Alfa Romeo) had at the Hamilton Island Series. Alfa Romeo was so much faster than everyone else that she could save her time by a very large margin to win on corrected time.