Sydney-Hobart 2006-Battle of the Canters

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

Actually, you should read more carefully: that was an editorial comment not a comment by a poster.And WE are afraid you might not WANT to read it so WE posted it here for your enlightenment.
As to "fixing" the commentary: you simply can't change the fact that ,in winning the Sidney-Hobart, Wild Oats crushed the fleet and did it with movable ballast -it just plain won't go away no matter how much you distort the editorial content from SA!

I can and do read SA. One of the nice things about SA is that they seem to have run off the posters that blather on about some subjects. Like the editor(s) at SA I don't much care who doesn't like or agree with my opinion. IMO, the editor(s) of SA are not a source of news. I have no idea what your motive is in posting his crap here.

You cannot change the fact that Wild Oats and her ilk require running engines and altered rules to compete at all. You also cannot change the fact that the high tech whiz-bang Rube Goldberg creations that you are so enamoured with are about 20% slower than boats that don't break those rules.

At one time Sean Langman was one of your hero's ... his trimaran trying to be a mono hull was one of the designs that represented the future of sailing ... When one of the people that has been there, done that, decides for a real sailboat instead of a motor-sailer it should tell you something. When the people that re-wrote the rule to allow W-O and the other power assist boats then turn around and change the handicap of the VO70's to favour W-O, who to you think is running the show? The little guys or the big bank-rolls?

It should come as no surprise that the biggest, most expensive boat should take line honours. That the "little" VO70's were able to stay in touch with boats almost 30 feet longer should say something about the quality of the CBTF designs ... a 98 foot boat *should* pull a horizon job on a 70 foot boat. The big boat should be 20% faster. W-O should have averaged 12.2 knots to Ichi's 10.3 ... Does CBTF slow her down? How can a good 98 foot design be only 0.7 knot faster than a 70 footer? 11 knots for W-O is a S/L of 1.11. 10.3 knots for Ichi is a S/L of 1.23. That would indicate that CBTF is not such a great idea. Skandia also averaged 10.3 knots ... only 1.04 S/L.

These are not remarkable numbers. Yendy's managed a S/L of 1.18 ... better than W-O and not CBTF. Might even have a fixed keel ...

Biggest, most expensive boats winning line honours should not be news.
Boats that average only 1-1.2 S/L are not great advances in design.

But if you and the editor of SA say they are ... I'll consider the source.

PS. The winner was built in 1973 and averaged 1.07 S/L ... CBTF boats at 1.04 to 1.11 hardly seem to be advancing the state of the art by much.

Congratulations to "Love and War" for winning on handicap!

[CT 249]

The national radio has just had the third live cross about the IRC honours within about an hour........plenty of interest in the media. Rob Mundle, who has been going around the world following the Volvo as a journo, reckons that if the rule wasn't working so well the fleet would be only half the size. So that's the word from a mass-media sporting journo.

[gggGuest]

Originally Posted by RHough

You cannot change the fact that Wild Oats and her ilk require running engines and altered rules to compete at all. You also cannot change the fact that the high tech whiz-bang Rube Goldberg creations that you are so enamoured with are about 20% slower than boats that don't break those rules.

I am no fan of craft that need to turn on the engine to tack, and its quite legitimate to discuss whether there ought or ought not to be an exemption permitted by class rules or whatever to allow such things to race. But the fact is that such things are permitted.

And as something like 75% of active racing sailcraft - all dinghies and all sailboards for example - "break" one or more of the series of rules to which exemptions like that are allowed, then I think your point about them being rule breakers is pretty much nonsensical. Its not really very far from saying that its breaking the rules to travel by train, because the rules say you can't travel by train unless you buy a ticket, and buying a ticket is evading the rules that say you can't travel...

[RHough]

Originally Posted by gggGuest

I am no fan of craft that need to turn on the engine to tack, and its quite legitimate to discuss whether there ought or ought not to be an exemption permitted by class rules or whatever to allow such things to race. But the fact is that such things are permitted.

And as something like 75% of active racing sailcraft - all dinghies and all sailboards for example - "break" one or more of the series of rules to which exemptions like that are allowed, then I think your point about them being rule breakers is pretty much nonsensical. Its not really very far from saying that its breaking the rules to travel by train, because the rules say you can't travel by train unless you buy a ticket, and buying a ticket is evading the rules that say you can't travel...

75% of active racing sailcraft require altered rules? I don't think so. Care to expand on that point?

One of my concerns is that the powered maxi-boats are so different from production boats and are so obviously are not pure sailing machines, that regular sailors don't relate to them. The number of boats in the maxi class is dropping. The costs are escalating with the new technology. In the case of the S-H, the powered canters did not prove themselves to be much faster than conventional boats when you compare S/L ratio averages.

Why should we embrace technology that does not improve the boats? Change for changes sake? The racing would be better with more boats. There might be more boats if they didn't require such a large investment in systems. When a 30+ year old boat can average the same S/L performance as the powered CBTF monsters, can a case be made that re-writing the rules has improved anything?

To compare the performance of the altered rule boats to standard boats does a disservice to the boats that don't require the exceptions to race. To exclude boats that race under the unmodified rules and then award records to to boats that do is hypocrisy.

CBTF has been around for over a decade, if the technology is so good, why don't we see production CBTF boats? Why don't we see CBTF dominating every level of mono-hull racing? Why was a non-CBTF VO70 faster (based on S/L ratio) than all but one of the CBTF boats?

Allowing powered systems has tainted the sport for little or no gain.

Originally Posted by RHough

Allowing powered systems has tainted the sport for little or no gain.

----------------------
Just ridiculous! I imagine that by now every major ocean race has been won by a boat using movable ballast and many records have been broken by movable ballast boats-production and custom-and will continue to be.
When confronted with the undeniable results of the incredible power and speed of these magnificent sailing machines the "anti-techno's" led by the by the self proclaimed Chief"Retro Dude" come up with a concoction of absurd,twisted fantasy "facts" to show that the boats really aren't that fast afterall.
Unbelievable! And I do mean unbelievable....

[gggGuest]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

incredible power and speed of these magnificent sailing machines

Having said that Doug if I have to cart a damn engine around then it might as well earn its keep properly and drive a propellor. Similarly if I'm going to dangle ballast off the side of the boat to keep it upright then I'll put it in low drag air rather than high drag water, make it hull shaped, call it a multihull and go street faster than any canting keeler. Other folk's opinion differs, and that's fine by me.

But the power rot set in with the long distance stuff invisibly - when it became normal to drag an engine and fuel around in order to drive the electrics, navigation equipment, water maker etc. Once that was accepted - and I don't really remember it ever being controversial - then using the engine to drive ballast as well was just a change in degree, not a step change. If folks want to ban engines then be consistent and ban them for everything...

Originally Posted by RHough

75% of active racing sailcraft require altered rules? I don't think so.

Yeah, rereading the rules not 75% any more since 49 now permits toe straps where not excluded by lifelines, but by rule 86racing rules 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 may all be legitimately changed by class rules. Sliding seats, trapezes, arguably harness lines on sailboards, certainly pumping by sailboards, pumping being allowed in some weather conditions by other craft, use of "lifelines" to "hike" ie dangle from on some inshore keelboats, and jibs with roach are all examples... Bearing in mind how many more sailboards there are than anything else on the planet, even if they're not raced, and the use of propulsion exceptions in so many dinghy classes then it probably does get near 75%...

[BOATMIK]

Hi All,

In the end I couldn't resist and have to say something.

For 100 years or so the definition of "sailing" has not involved engines. By allowing engines they have virtually eliminated the possibility that alternative systems will be developed.

If they had not been allowed there would have been a good chance for people with the big momey to develop a method of canting without them.
___________________________

Doug: "every major sailing race has been won by canters"

This is misleading.

We all know that a 40ft multi would get to hobart first in the conditions of most Hobarts at a fraction of the cost and complication of the canters.

The Yachting Officials involved (I was tempted to write "the bozos that administrate our sport") have been happy to monkey with the definition of "sailing" to allow the canters but still refuse to allow the tiniest of changes to allow proper, seamanlike, well proven multihulls.

And the multihulls are still proper sailing boats.

Michael Storer

[BOATMIK]

Originally Posted by RHough

One of my concerns is that the powered maxi-boats are so different from production boats and are so obviously are not pure sailing machines, that regular sailors don't relate to them.

The real reason that regular sailors don't relate to them is simpler than that.

It is one pure moment when the engine is turned off and the boat starts to move silently under sail.

The best moment in sailing.

MIK

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

----------------------
Just ridiculous! I imagine that by now every major ocean race has been won by a boat using movable ballast and many records have been broken by movable ballast boats-production and custom-and will continue to be.
When confronted with the undeniable results of the incredible power and speed of these magnificent sailing machines the "anti-techno's" led by the by the self proclaimed Chief"Retro Dude" come up with a concoction of absurd,twisted fantasy "facts" to show that the boats really aren't that fast afterall.
Unbelievable! And I do mean unbelievable....

Yup ... the title "Retro Dude" is one that Mr. Doug Lord gave to me after I failed to embrace one of his flights of fancy. If the antics of Doug Lord are the future of sailing, it is a title that I wear proudly!

As always, Doug attacks the poster and does not address the facts.

Skandia with it's power assisted systems manages 1.04 S/L while a 1973 S&S design sails the same course at a S/L ratio of 1.07 ...

I thought that if C A Marchaj finds comparing trends in S/L ratio speed has merit, it might show how fast or slow the powered contraptions really are. I suppose that D Lord should have no problem disputing the theories and opinions of C A Marchaj. Instead we see him state that Marchaj's comparision of S/L ratio speed is "a concoction of absurd,twisted fantasy "facts" to show that the boats really aren't that fast afterall."

D Lord knows more than C A Marchaj ... who knew?

GGG...

Powered systems that increase safety through more accurate navigation and communication are in no way comparable to powered systems that supposedly increase boat speed. I would have no problem banning internal combustion engines for generating electrical power. It would spawn lower power requirement systems, more efficient water, air, and solar charging systems, and smaller, lighter storage systems ... all good things.

From the Notable thread(due to it's relevance here):

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

---12.75' Moth foiler-max speed (so far): 27.9 knots-uses movable ballast.
---Aussie 18-max speed-(so far): 30 knots-uses movable ballast.
---VOR70-max speed-(so far):40.6knots; 23.45 knots for 24 hours-uses movable ballast.
---Alfa RomeoII(sistership to Wild Oats)-max speed-(so far):35 knots-uses movable ballast.
---Open 60-max speed-so far-30 knots-uses movable ballast.
------------------
And this is just the begining: movable ballast applied to big boats in much the same way it is applied to dinghies is revolutionizing monohull speed-now just 10% below that of the fastest multies. And those fast multies use hydrofoils! When mono's begin to use hydrofoils in combination with movable ballast that gap will go away.......

===============================
Happy New Year!

[CT 249]

I'm not quite sure that going from engine-powered instruments and lights to engine-powered systems is just a change in degree. The engine came along as a safety and convenience item long before there were electronics in offshore racers* and when nav lights were oil-burning. I think the first set of electronic instruments in Australia, for example, were installed when the Aussie team went over to the UK for the 1965 Admiral's Cup. Long before that, engines were mandatory offshore here. As late as 1973, I think, the French still didn't have engines in boats as big as the 40' Finot Revolution.

Since engines were already there, and nav lights were already there, it was no great change in the sport to link the two. And there was a fair bit of controversy over electronic aids to navigation like Loran when they first came in, but the obvious safety aspects were a factor that made them hard to keep out.

Watermakers were a line call as far as improving performance, I think, and only apply to trans-ocean racers.

So the use of engines for lights and electronics wasn't a big leap. It really made life easier and safer without making the sport fundamentally different. When I started ocean racing at 16 it was all sextant work (no Loran here, no radio beacons between Sydney and Noumea), shifting to GPS is incredibly cheap and hasn't changed the basics of the sport.

Just in my opinion, there's more than a change in degree in using the engine to move parts of the boat, rather than move electrons. The change in moving the gear into "forward" when you're charging the batteries is minute in some ways, but it has an enormous effect. Same with canting, or it's not a revolution.

Even if it IS a degree change, it's still the old slippery slope argument, isn't it? Sometimes you must stop changing things by degrees, or we'd be sailing to Hobart with coach boats giving feedback on sail trim, we'd roll the boat all the way through calm patches, we'd have full routing and tactical advice over the radio all the time rather than just weather reports, etc. It's only a matter of degrees (many degrees, but just steps) between having a big RIB and 240 foot powerboat around as a tender for your maxi, and having your 240 foot powerboat smoothing the seas in front of you......

It's like pumping, a certain degree of latitude doesn't change the sport but unlimited use does. Which brings me to the (very valid) point about exclusions from other rules. Since windsurfers brought in pumping, they have (1) found the numbers competing have gone into a massive decline, despite the fact that the boards go faster, thereby indicating that sometimes you MUST take a stand; (2) can no longer race against craft that don't pump as they used to. Actually theoretically we can, but it would be totally unsporting since some boards rate like Lasers but can beat Tornadoes in very light winds. A Laser could also beat a Tornado if they changed their pumping/rolling rules by just degrees, and it would destroy the class. So a change by degree can have enormous impact, as we all know.

Interestingly even a forward-thinking guy like Phil S. sits on his foiler Moth and says that "air rowing" (windsurfers pumping in light winds) isn't sailing, yet again it's just a change in degree from normal pumping, and less of a change in degree than using engines to cant ballast. And the latest windsurfer class has banned pumping totally, yet another of the many, many examples of people banning technology for the good of the sport.

Canters break records, but I tend to agree with the guy who wrote "Every time we read "record smashed," it is almost hilarious. It takes a 100 ft canting keel maxi to "smash" the record established by a 60 ft sloop in the Sydney Hobart race. Check each major race around the world and you'll find new hyped, but meaningless records. Records in sailing should be about tremendous human achievements, performance, achievement and courage. We must get back to meaningful records. Just like in golf: The record on any course is meaningful. Certain technologies for balls or clubs are banned."

So how do we increase publicity? "People watch golf on the tube because people play golf. There are no crashes, multi-million dollar machines, adrenaline rushes.
Golf is a participation sport. The same should be true with sailing: We'll get TV coverage when we grow participation and people watch, like they watch golf."


RHough, I agree that the S/L ratio of the big canters isn't that fast compared to small boats, but canters are quick for their size. The S/L ratio of all big boats is slower than that of comparable small boats, canters or not, as we all know. The funny thing is that some people want to allow for the physics that make big boats comparatively slow, yet they don't want to allow for the physics that make cruiser/racers, old boats, cheap boats or small-rigged boats comparatively slow.




* I think there were no electronics offshore then. And I know that an offshore-size boat with no workable engine is a PITA from bitter experience.

[BOATMIK]

A second though (thats good for me in one day)

Doug: "every major sailing race has been won by canters"

With the Hobart, aren't they considerably larger than the biggest conventional boat?

Is this the case for other races?

And any except the smallest canters are still not sailing boats by the standard definition - so they don't count.

(just thought I'd re-emphasise the point) :-)

MIK

[BOATMIK]

Originally Posted by retro dude!!!!

Skandia with it's power assisted systems manages 1.04 S/L while a 1973 S&S design sails the same course at a S/L ratio of 1.07 ...

Hey Man,

I think you may be onto something here.

I know Love and War (the 1973 boat) quite well - it is a veteran of races when they were set up to be tough tests of skill and holding the boat together.

It is a veteran of the Fastnet, many Sydney to Hobarts and perhaps more importantly all the little gnarly offshore races that used to be up and down the NSW coast - which in some years were a real test of boathandling and seamanship. You could break a boat as easily in them as you could in the Hobart

Most were overnight or a bit over 24 hours.

But they have all been discontinued - the big boys didn't like them I believe. Expensive because of the gear breakage and no newspaper headlines.

But back to the point - well built, maintained and sailed boats like L&W will handle virtually anything that the sea can toss at them.

But I wonder how much the latest speed freaks have to slack off to avoid breaking the boats in conditions that some of the older boats were considering "moderate" (at least two of the crews in contention for handicap honours mentioned this)

The S/L ratios might indicate something of the type is happening. The canters are perhaps too heavily optimised for speed in ideal conditions?

MIK

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

From the Notable thread(due to it's relevance here):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Lord
---12.75' Moth foiler-max speed (so far): 27.9 knots-uses movable ballast.
---Aussie 18-max speed-(so far): 30 knots-uses movable ballast.
---VOR70-max speed-(so far):40.6knots; 23.45 knots for 24 hours-uses movable ballast.
---Alfa RomeoII(sistership to Wild Oats)-max speed-(so far):35 knots-uses movable ballast.
---Open 60-max speed-so far-30 knots-uses movable ballast.
------------------
And this is just the begining: movable ballast applied to big boats in much the same way it is applied to dinghies is revolutionizing monohull speed-now just 10% below that of the fastest multies. And those fast multies use hydrofoils! When mono's begin to use hydrofoils in combination with movable ballast that gap will go away.......


===============================
Happy New Year!

It had no relevance there either.

AFAIK Moth's and 18's do not use ballast (moving or not) .

Equating crew weight with ballast shows that you have no grasp of the concept.