Notable open & development class racers....

I'm totally with Chris on this. Whilst we all like to sail our boat as fast as possible, we don't necessarily want to sail the fastest boat. There are two factors that conspire against designs that feature pleasantness as well as speed. The first is that development classes only reward speed - its all about being first over the line. The other other factor is that most developments are carried out by experts, who sail all the time and constantly improve their skills. For them, ease of use is not an issue, because they have the time and ability to develop any new skills required. On an individual basis, they are becoming better and better sailors every day. The standard of the average sailor, however, remains constant (give or take improved teaching techniques and facilities). The difference in ability between the top and the average is therefore ever increasing, putting new developments beyond the reach of Mr and Mrs Average. 18' Skiffs and Moths are two classic examples. Sure, they are showcase classes and lead the way in many developments, but there numbers have dwindled. The 18's got so bad, they had to call an end to the arms war, whilst the Moths are now unique enough to have a dedicated niche following. Although they receive a lot of media attention, they are not practicle for most people to own. The time needed to learn new skills and the hassle of launch/recovery, put the vast, vast majority of sailors off. Speed is not the be-all and end-all of desirable charecteristics in a boat. If it were, we'd all be sailing cats. Where Phil Morrison, in particular, has been clever, is designing boats that are still pretty quick, but a lot more manageable and easy to own than some other designs.

 

Actually, for people who really want a custom raceboat (not a one design) development class dinghies are practical. Campaigning one is generally far cheaper than campaigning at the top end on an Olympic one-design class, and they are cheaper and more portable than keelboats for those who wish to transport their boats to various venues.

I understand that in England, the Classic Moth class is now basically a one-design (the Europe dinghy is another one-design that spun off from the Classic Moth class). But on the U.S. East Coast (and in one location in France) Classic Moths remain an active development class where most people build their own boats which combine innovation with practicality and ease of construction. This allows them to identify and adapt improvements quickly. It's evolution accelerated. For more on Classic Moths see post #29 in this thread. For more on the Classic/Modern Moth distinction here in the U.S. see www.mothboat.com.

One can sit at a computer refining CFD codes & VPP programs to do their development, or one can build a small boat and go sailing, competing against others who are doing the same. Which is more "practical"?

 

Have you looked outside the window here today? I'm afraid the computer is far more alluring! But I agree with your sentiments in principal.

 

In the UK there are 3 Moth derivatives - the Europe (not really considered a Moth, but is one), the British Moth (a 1930's? style boat, only really sailed on tiny rivers) and the International Moth (which is the one that got narrower and narrower and is now on foils). The Int Moth used to be very poular in the UK, but the move to very narrow hulls and finally foils has seen numbers drop significantly. Don't get me wrong, they look great but they are not practical for most folk. Attendance at National championships was far higher in the 1970's when the boats, whilst still a leading edge develoment class, maintained some sense of reality. I really think we have missed a trick by making the class too advanced. I'd still keep the current Int Moth, but the void it left behind as it progressed needs to be filled. I think that is what the US Classic Moth has done and it would be good to have them over here, they seem to be in the spirit of how the Int Moth used to be.
I totally agree with you about trial and error being better than computers for dinghy design.

 

The down cycle has been about 20 years here in the US, with no upturn in sight. There is no rule under consideration that I know of that will give the same opportunities that IOR and MORC did.

IMS in the USA sure didn't, there was no IMS racing for boats under about 40 feet, and no real significant IMS turnout at all. IRC is not really a rule in the same sense, and not catching on in the US anywhere except where it is mandated, mostly for good reason.

Minis are not good for the type of racing most people do and will never be big in the USA. The cost of a competitive mini pretty much precludes the cheap entry level home design and build.

The Open 40 would be at least $200K US for a frontrunner custom build, so not really an entry level project.

I know some old Quarters are being revived, especially in Britian and some in Europe. It was attempted in San Francisco about ten years ago, about a dozen old quarter pounders were refurbished and raced, but people lost interest. I can't believe anyone is building new, just refurbishing old, right? If new ones are in build can you tell us about them?

I know of a yard where an old Peterson pin tail QT and an old production Holland daggerboarder are sitting on trailers. They could prbably be had for next to nothing, but the cost of bringing them back to race form would be many times more than they would ever be worth. I once thought about buying and refurbishing an old Peterson fractional daggerboard QT. I came to my senses in time. It would have cost more than the original build by at least double to put it in shape. At the same time a friend had an old Whiting QT, Magic Bus type, and it never raced once since it was an ongoing refurb project for more than 10 years.

 

historical(hysterical?) perspective

Geez, in 2006 under a thread on "Notable open and development class racers" some posters can't help but focus on THE WAY IT WAS-very few contributions about new designs,new technology(like hydrofoils), square top rigs,etc..
One guy bemoans those pioneering designers that are pushing the envelope of sailboat design as "maddened" by speed. Others agree that there is no hope for individual pioneering effort anymore( absolutely untrue). What gives?
The revolution in monohull design pioneered by the Moth foiler developers and by David Lugg's I14(the first 2 person bi-foil monofoiler), ,Thomas Jundt with the Aussie 18 on foils( the first three person bi-foil monofoiler), Simon Maguire's M4 -a candidate for a Peoples Foiler- is growing into other areas like the project by the Out 95 guys to develop a 100' bi-foil monofoiler, the work being done by the CBTF guys in using a foil to generate righting moment on a monohull and more. Like the top west coast "speed freak" (and all round great guy) who told me that foils on monohulls were "inevitable". And the top sportboat racer from Australia who recently contacted me about his idea for a foiling sportboat(also inevitable).
I think that these pioneers and evangelists of speed are great for the sport! And the use of this technology and even less "radical" versions of it such as foil assist will change the way monohulls are designed for the better. It's already being pioneered in large multihulls like Ormas and the use of foils in some beachcats is improving pitch stability- like it already has in small boats like the pre-foiler Moth and the I14.
There is exciting stuff being done in lifting foil development and application particularly the full flying monofoilers--steadily increasing in length ; the technology is bound to find a place in sportboats and larger. In fact, the technology already exists to build selfrighting sportboat monofoilers.....
So I'd think it would be appropriate, in a thread like this, to discuss this kind of technology(and other cutting edge technology) and how it will affect the design of monohull sailboats in development and open classes. And to celebrate the pioneering "speed freaks" who have for a long time and continue now to contribute so much to sailing. And no, it's not just speed....

 

So tell us where young talent might find a way to prove thier worth against the best in the business today, at an entry level price point.

Does this boat sail today? Who does this boat race against? If I had a foiling I14, what would I do with it? Reach back and forth in Long Beach Harbour by myself?

IF this boat proves to be significantly faster than the existing Euro fleet what will happen? Either the rules will be amended to keep him out, or there will be less boats on the line.

No news about this project for ages. It doesn't seem to be going toward production at all, let alone becoming a "Peoples" anything.

There is no chance you'll see any 100 foot version of that boat on foils. This was probably just something said in passing, yet you take it to mean there is significant research and a real possibility. There is probably little chance you'll ever see a 100 foot version at all. I doubt we'll see a second boat of the 32 foot version.

You also keep posting about a couple of other 100 foot sketches that will not see the light of day. A couple of years down the road from their first showing we see and hear nothing about them, yet you continue to talk about them like they are real.

What work are the CBTF guys doing, other than trying to collect checks? How many CBTF boats were in build this year? How many are on the build schedules for next year?

How many Backman 21s have been built? How's the 30 foot backman coming along? How fast was the Melges 24 mod with a canter versus the M24 fleet? How much faster is the canting Sport 8 versus Vivace without the canter?

Name names. Who is the West Coast guy, and what does inevitable mean? Is it like Flying Cars inevitable?

Who is the sportboat sailor and what is his build schedule?

What would you do with it? I know of no class that would allow such a boat to participate in a race, inshore or offshore.

 

It's true that one design remains king in the U.S. But, in addition to Classic Moths, there's been recent activity in I-14s, International Canoes, and A-Class Catamarans. And if people want to build their own fast keelboats they can generally find places to race them: PHRF, IRC, or Portsmouth. The upcoming thirtieth anniversary of the singlehanded Transpac is noted at http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14598. There's the Bermuda 1-2. There are two divisions of Mini 6.5s, depending on whether you want to spend $40,000 or $100,000. Or one can build a GP28 and be the first on the block to have one!

There's a small effort going to continue the Mount Gay 30 movement in a new form: Level Design 30. See http://sailingsource.com/w30/.

One-design sport boats have drawn far more participants than development classes here in the U.S. The business model depends on their being popular, after all. But development classes exist, as does handicap racing, if you look for it.

I encourage you (Paul) and Doug to propose a new class, complete with rules. Here's an example: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14598. Are you on board with Rob, or would you propose something else? Should C&C build a production Level Design 30 or Class40?

Sometimes proposing a solution is easier than proposing the right problem. But as you point out, Paul, without the latter, the former occurs in a vacuum.

 

Stephen, you're right (like PI Design and Paul B are right, IMHO), there are still some places to sail development class boats. But wouldn't you also agree that it's harder to make a real splash in the current scene? The older classes gave new designers a place to show their skills against the established top designers, in a way that Portsmouth or PHRF or open sportsboat racing arguably doesn't. If you went out and won the Half Tons or One Tons, you did it against the giants of the time, from all around the world, in roughly the same type of boats that almost all offshore sailors sailed.

If you go out and design an outstanding 25 or 30 footer today, what comparable boats from the top designers will you be racing against? You can't show that you are better than Farr or Finot, because you don't get a chance to take them on, head to head in similar boats that raced level and could be raced competitively at most places, in the same way that they got to take on the top designers when they were young. If you win the Minis or Sportsboats, it doesn't necessarily show that you can design a PHRF or IRC winner.

Someone like Steve Thompson has been very succesful in Sportsboats, but he hasn't cracked the wider market in anything like the manner Farr, Faroux, R/P or other designers of an earlier age did. It's no wonder; a T7 may be faster than a Melges 24, but everyone knows that R/P and Thompson are designing for different markets. The mere fact that a T7 can beat a Melges doesn't prove that Thommo is a better designer than R/P, so he can't get the same sort of instant reputation that an earlier generation of designers got from their victories. I thought Sportsboats were really cool when they arrived here in Oz. I did some of the first articles on them. Then I realised that many of the "advances" in design consisted of taking the same shape and spending more money on construction so you could have a lighter boat with more rig and more lead, and more expense. In the end it seems a bit barren, and I think the market has largely agreed. Without class rules, you're not proving anything. Even such a deeply wonderful boat as the Stealth 8 hasn't got a market, and it can beat the flat-out Bethwaite 780 AND has accomodation.

You could also say that the Opens, Level Design 30s etc are pretty specialised. Why would a guy from Newport RI or Newport Beach or Newport Australia or Niewpoort Belgium get a Mini, LD30 or Open 40? Okay, two of them may find a Transat is within their reach, but when the racing is largely about Transat racing the boats end up in a form that's not ideal for other racing. The LD 30 would probably suffer from the same problem as the Whitbread 30, Whitbread 25, ILC 30., ILC 40, ILC 25, IRM Half Ton, IRM 36, TP 42, MORC 22, JOG 6.7, Level 30, Super 30, 780 TY, Level 8000 etc etc etc suffered - you can't get critical mass to achieve decent class racing in a boat that isn't well suited to local racing*.

The list above isn't complete. The idea of a fast little flat-out racer has been tried time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, and it has never caught on apart from one or two exceptions limited in time or place. So with respect, why would we bother trying another one, unless there is a fundamental rethink?

I find it bizarre that in the past, those of us raising queries about such boats have been accused of being conservative, but surely the real conservatism lies in failing to realise when yet another updated attempt at the same sort of concept won't work? Jeezers, the British and French generals of WW1 were more awake to new ideas than the guys who propose yet another class of small yacht that can't race competitively in general fleets, or another boat that will just go faster**.

The solution could be simple; 1 - recognise that the massive list of failed classes is proof that the idea of creating a small GP racer class from scratch is doomed. Recognise also that just going faster is not enough to attract sailors.

2- try to work out why 1 happens, instead of just repeating the same mistake. In the past this step seems to have been limited to saying "the boats were too slow" - but the fastest classes have had no more success.

3 - create new class that actually learns from old lessons, rather than following the failed old "faster= popularity" mantra.

I think you could design the right class***, but arguably it's not possible while people cling to the idea that going fast, even on leadmines which are always slow per foot and dollar, is the key. Interestingly, there is one fairly conservative (in dimensions) Development class with a lid, and it's got about 450 boats currently racing - the Micro. Why it doesn't get more publicity is beyond me (the language barrier) but the fact that its top designers are little known proves that even an enormously popular class may not be a springboard for young designers, if that class is out of the general racing stream.

Doug, the reason we were looking at what has happened in the past is to find lessons for the future. But there is a lesson that was taught repeatedly in the 19th century, through the 20th century, into the 21st, that people still refuse to learn. This lesson is that going faster and making boats expensive, hard to sail and obsolete overnight does NOT help a class. Any discussion on "new" ideas like squaretop mains and foils (a mere 50 or 60 years old) should surely accept that, because only if that is taken into account can the development classes become strong again.

We are NOT against development - we are trying to highlight the problems so that they can be cured. There were over 200 Moths in NSW when I was a kid, now there are about 30. The downturn is not due to a wider problem - Lasers get over 120 boats to the MASTERS states alone. If the lesson that speed does not equal popularity had been learned earlier, we could have reworked the Moth class with stronger separate divisions for Scows, and something like the Classics as well. We'd probably have MORE Moth foilers these days because kids could have got into the Moth class more easily. But when boats like skiffs and narrow skiffs came along, anyone who had the imagination to work out what could happen and say "hey, this could be a problem" was ignored, if I recall rightly.

I was one of those who said "oh, these skiffs are hard to sail but people should just train harder". I didn't have the imagination to put myself in the position of someone who did'nt have enough time to train harder. I failed the class by not agitating for a Scow class back then.

This isn't about me, but some insist on saying that anyone who has reservations about heedless development is a conservative. To those who insist on playing the man, I may say that I've already had one class I created designated as a National class this year, although it's early days yet****. But it's interesting that for all the BS that people are unwilling to accept change, bringing the new class out proved that they are in fact very willing to apply new thinking - as long as that new thinking respects the idea that you don't make something that is expensive and hard to use, and that makes sailing look less accessible. Nor am I against speed - I raced what are probably the fastest things around a course a fortnight ago (did okay, considering it was my second attempt since the World Championships in that class many years ago). That class (slalom windsurfers) died for many years - classic proof that speed does not mean popularity, and it can in fact mean death.

And yes, Doug, I altered my post very quickly. I did so because I thought I was over the top. I said nothing as harsh as those pushing for change have not said many times, but I retracted what I said.




* unless you want to have a pro world-girdling programme like TP52s.

** yep, you can design a class like Class 40 or Mini, which are cool. But it's not very practical for a kid in Auckland to get to a limited-entry event on the other side of the world to prove his skill. Why not a class that would kick butt (for the buck) in Newport Harbour or Auckland?

*** Think moderately small rig (lower costs) like most succesful development dinghies, rules designed to allow boats with a light cruising interior like the cruising version of the Open 40 to be competitive, the ability for lift or fixed keels to compete, low costs, and the ability to be a good all-round performer under the rules used at most clubs. Just an idea......

**** And no, I'm NOT saying it shows any amazing thinking - I thought of it and spec'd it but didn't design it, it may not really catch on, while novel in that area of the sport it was pretty much a development of another class in another area of the sport, etc.

 

There's truth to that, CT. Part of the problem is that reporting on the designers has declined in English language magazine coverage. Mini 6.5 designs by Magnen? Who's Magnen? There are designers winning out there, but are they getting enough follow-up coverage?

That was one motivation for starting this thread. You'll notice I started right off pointing out where a young U.S. designer who recently opened his own firm (Tim Kernan, formerly with Morrelli/Melvin) is doing some interesting & competitive boats.

But there are designers who have come to prominance in the last decade. Botin+Carkeek, Mark Mills, etc. Many, but not all, are European. New Zealander Greg Elliott designed the maxi Maximus, which has brought him attention. Bakewell-White has been noticed. I like Steve Thompson's work, too, but it would be wrong to claim that lesser known New Zealand designers haven't had any breaks. Too bad the America's Cup home team relies on outside designers like Clay Oliver and Botin instead of mining the local talent pool.

There is the example of I-14 designer Paul Bieker coming to prominance. He's now chief engineer for the BMW/Oracle America's Cup effort. His rise wasn't meteoric, but from winning in a development class he's gone on to being respected by enthusiasts as one of the best designers (and composite engineers) in the business. If I were sitting on a lot of money looking for something to do with it, I might just ask Bieker and Juan K to sit down and draw me an Open 60 as soon as their BMW/Oracle responsibilities are over and they've caught up on their sleep!

 

Yes, Tim has an office. He was involved with the Columbia 30. There seems to be some issues with that project between the builders and designers. Aside from that, the boat doesn't seem very fast for the size and light weight compared to others. The deck layout and sailplan look horrible to me. I'm sure there was compromise called for, but the result is less than I would expect.

His one other race boat, the 68 foot Peligroso, looks very nice. I race against it from time to time. But we don't know if it is fast compared to what another design office would do. Too bad the STP 65 rule (a bigger, more powerful TP52) wasn't around for that boat to be built to at the time. If it had been maybe Peli would have been racing head to head with a Barking Mad (recent R/P 66 canter) and Blue Yankee (recent R/P non-canter) if all those boats had a rule they could have designed to. Add in the new Farr STP 65 beigh built across the street from where I work, plus a new Andrews STP 65 in the works and we might have been able to compare the work of four designers on equal footing. Instead we have a mish mash of a 68 foot contemporary sled, a canting 66, a non-canting 66, and two box rule 65s, if they were all to meet up somewhere.

I don't know if Tim is doing any racing boats at this time. The success of Peli in local PHRF racing doesn't seem to have brought any big name programs to his door.

B&C came along as the right guys in the right place at the right time, finding a patron in the IMS ranks and proving themselves. If they had not joined together and found their first patron how would they have been able to show their abilities? Marcellino Botin seems like a very talented guy who got a chance. What about all the other talented guys who don't find the chance? There is no entry level venue for guys like them.

Mark Mills has been around a long time as well. He's been getting some IRC play now, but that isn't really like going tete-a-tete in the old IOR or IMS. We raced against one of his 46s a couple of weeks ago and sailed away in an old R/P 48 footer. If there was some sort of measurement rule that both boats were designed to we might see who actually did a better job. Sadly we have apples and oranges racing under handicaps with subjective input.

Greg Elliott has been around for 30 years. Maximus is his biggest, but he's got 50s out there twenty years ago. He never seemed to do battle in the rating rules, so we have no idea how he would stack up on equal footing.

BW has also been getting work, but how would he stack up against the best on equal terms? We don't know, except his TP52 was left for dead by the rest of the fleet. His 100 footer was built to an upper limit, then the limit was lifted so we don't know how his boat would be on equal footing with the R/P 100s, or the Don Jones, or a Farr, B&C, etc.

Bieker is a great I14 designer. I think he got the Oracle job because of his composite expertise, not because he designs skiffs. He hasn't really done any big race boats, just a couple of fast cruiser 35s and a couple in the 50 foot size.

Could he do a fast TP52 and compete with Farr, J/V, R/P, and B&C? Maybe, maybe not. But if there was a smaller intro class where he could compete on an equal footing and beat those guys he might get someone to take a chance on him doing a 52 or STP 65. At the moment it would be difficult to convince a top end team to spend the money and potentially waste a year on that sort of gamble.

Without a worldwide rating scheme there is no way to measure the talents that are out there. We've gone too long without one, and the great races of the past (SORC, Admiral's Cup, Clipper Cup, Southern Cross, etc) no longer exist where the best in the world would line up and see who has the goods. The same lack of a rule has made it nearly improssible for new talent to rise. It is a shame.

 

Great, informative post. I'll quibble with this one point, though:

Larry Ellison and BMW/Oracle are certainly a top end team, and my understanding is that Bieker's role in that organization, though it may not be hull shape, is very significant. Also, I suspect Jonathan McKee may advocate for Bieker on raceboat programs he's involved with. You may or may not see a lot of "Paul Bieker designs" out there (apart from I-14s and a few others), but you don't see a lot of Clay Oliver or Dirk Kramers designs, either. They're still major players.

STP 65? I'd love to hear more! What do you see out there?

 

You guys certainly now a lot more than me about boat racing and I am enjoying your knowledge, but it seems to me that we are talking about two different things on this thread.

One is about the best sailors and the best boats (“worldwide rating”) for them to fight with equal arms to see “who has the goods”.

Other about racing boats and the development that racing has provided (and is providing) regarding speed, seaworthiness and absolute performance. Of course this has to do with sailors too, but the focus is different. A rule that gives very close boats it will be more interesting in what regards equal opportunities to win, but a rule with relatively open boats will give an incomparable bigger development in boat’s technology with big implications in absolute performance and seaworthiness. Those improvements will quickly reach production boats, contributing effectively to better, faster and more seaworthy boats for all of us.

These are two different things and I am interested in both, but regarding boats, it’s in the last one that I am interested in.

 

Stephen, I think Paul's covered most of the points I was going to make. As he says, Greg Elliott has been around since IOR days; I think his Outsider was a minor sensation in 1981-ish. It took him almost 25 years from his first yacht to his first maxi; it took Farr, Holland and Peterson about eight. It took Greg 25 years to get attention around the world; Farr was getting worldwide press within 3 or 4.

I think Greg did two boats to a limit; the 11m (Easy Touch etc) which wasn't a bad boat but didn't beat the Mumm 36, and Maximus.

Plenty of people with good incomes have spoken about Bieker as the next Farr. But even a client as good as Jonothan McKee with a boat as good as Dark Star hasn't make an enormous impact. Imagine if instead, McKee and Bieker had been able to put together a boat that would take on other innovative (or less innovative) racer-cruisers in a true World Championship and beat the best from Farr, Beneteau, X Yachts, Juan K, etc. Imagine if instead of waiting until he could get a 35 together, he'd been able to start with a 25 footer (small enough to be easily bankrolled by one of his Int 14 supporters) with a decent fleet at home and across the world?

It's a good point about the lack of coverage of Minis in the English-speaking world, but then again whose fault is that? It's great if the class concentrates on Trans-Atlantic racing, but then it doesn't relate much to a sailor from Newport Harbour or Auckland or Sydney or even Cowes, where such a specialised boat isn't great value. Unlike the situation when Farr etc arrived on the scene, the boats aren't very relevant to the average sailor.

 

New boats, New Rule, New Way to Sail/also: Sailing Worlds BOTY 2007: Esse 850

Julian Bethwaite is the designer with the best known name that has suggested using on-deck movable ballast on his Pterodactyl-a 60+foot preliminary design-now being done in a smaller version as best I can tell. That kind of ballast system is a subject with enormous potential for dinghies/sportboats on up
as an adjunct to or instead of a canting keel. Bethwaite/Billoch's design(Pterodactyl) used a fixed keel with the on-deck movable ballast and was designed to be self righting.
****Sean Langman in the previously presented article says: "From that experience I believe that even our 98 footer some day will be able to sail on foils". He is working on a project with Rohan Veal to develop a 50 knot foiler as well...
--------------
****If the above technologies all come together in a single boat a truly revolutioary new type of selfrighting monohull could be the result. Here are some parameters for a boat or boats that could fit Stephens proposed rule(from the Sportboat-Design for Flight" thread)-Either or both could be adapted to the use of on-deck movable ballast as well:

=================================
And here's Sailing Worlds Boat of the Year for 2007-the Esse 850:
www.felciyachts.com
Address:http://www.felciyachts.com/p_scheda.asp?id=146