Notable open & development class racers....

I strongly support this idea, too!
Cheers.

 

Sorry, I have created some confusion by the term "nice little cruising boat". I was thinking about Farr's first keelboat, Tituscanby. Farr's champion skiff crew decided to build a "nice little cruising boat" and Farr designed Tituscanby for him. She promptly cleaned up the South Pacific Half Ton championships, then at the age of about four (an eternity in early IOR days) she was about 5th in the worlds despite being only about 27 feet long.

She was a "nice little cruising boat" because she was a cheap boat with good accomodation, but because she was a breakthrough in concept, design and sailing she kicked butt among the serious racers and was perhaps the fastest boat out of the many hundreds of half tonners built in her day.

She's a classic example of the sort of boat that a closely typeforming rule won't allow, because she was out-of-the-box thinking, much shorter and lighter and smaller in rig than the state of the art boats of her time. Farr's first One Tonner, Prospect, was also a "nice little cruising boat" that kicked the World Champ of the time, Pied Piper and Ted Turner, all over the ocean despite being fully fitted out down below and having a cheap simple rig.

There were other examples of similar thinking; ragged-arse young guys who were building new-style boats, often cheap and sometimes dual-purpose, that could fit into the existing fleets and race in the same class everywhere, whether you were Swedish (Norlin) or Kiwi or British.

I agree it's nice to see good cruisers on the line; it works in IRC in distance races. Okay they are slow, but so is a Finn and they attract some good racing.

 

Yes, but we are talking about boats. I believe we all want to sail fast boats.

I have read an interview (to a typical amateur sailracer) where a guy was saying he was going to sell his beautiful and fast boat to have a less fast boat, because he wanted to win races. It turns out that his boat had a bad rating and the slower boat had a much better rating and it would allow him very good results, and probably to win, on compensated time.

A racing sport where you have to change your racing machine for a slower one, in order to win races is quite obtuse to me.

Perhaps we have some contradictions here. First you say that with an open rule we “end up with a boat with a massive rig and wide beam for its overall length” and then you say that “they are NOT outstanding performers in many terms in many conditions”. It seems to me that you think that other kind of boats, not wide beamed boats, could be competitive under the Open rule. So where is the problem? People that don’t like this kind of boats just have to design other type of boat. The rules will allow it, provided it is a 60ft boat.

And I don’t know if you are right, I don’t know if a VOR60 with a canting keel would not be competitive with the Open60’s. Probably there would be some circumstances where they would be faster. I am not defending the shape of the Open 60’s, I even find narrow boats more beautiful, but I am primarily interested in efficiency. I want to know what shape gives the better performance (form follows function), not only regarding speed, but also seaworthiness.

I believe that in a near future we will have a big around the world race against the prevailing winds (there are a lot of them that follow the trade winds, it’s a question of time till someone picks the idea of a different one). I believe that in such a race a narrower boat will stand a good chance against Open60’s. I am all for it.

Because we are talking of racing, and racing is related with speed.

I don’t agree with what you have said about F1. Sure, the cars suffered limitations to prevent excessive power and to maximize safety, and yet you can see that modern F1 keep beating the lap times of the older and more powerful cars. This means that the increased superior technology is able to make cars that can turn faster, break harder and are better performers. You say F1 are boring races, and I mostly agree. But in Europe I guess we are as much fascinated with superior technology as with the racing in itself and with good reason: Nothing in Motorsports has contributed as much as F1 developed technology to the modern car performance and safety.

I believe a top International professional Oceanracer class should be based on superior technology, research, innovation and development aiming at boats with a superior speed and seaworthiness. It should be a relatively Open class that allows different types of boats to compete, providing they can be competitive and have the same length. Like in F1, the only objective should not be having an interesting and fair race (if this was the objective, all F1 cars would be equal), but also to develop better and faster cars.


About speed for cost, I believe that would apply only to initiation classes, much like in car racing, with the series of inexpensive and relatively fast “fornula” classes where you can learn and enjoy before reach the F1. Of course only the best continue as professional drivers and only the very best reach F1, and it should be the same regarding a top international ocean racing class, a class for professional racers, in true racing machines.

About sail area versus length, I believe that length is more appropriate, because it will be much more useful in what regards the contribution to the development of new, faster and more seaworthy cruiser boats.

If sail area was the common factor, we would have very narrow boats, with a small interior, boats not very practical for cruising. For having the same interior space of a 40ft, you would have to have a 50ft and you would pay a lot more for a marina place. I believe that the 50ft would also be more expensive to build and it would be a boat that would sail with a lot of list. One of the good things with the Open60’s is that they are optimized to sail with 10 to 15º list.

I am in favor of all class of races, from club races to cup races, but let’s not confuse amateur racing with professional racing.

I am talking of the top class, a class for professional oceanracers raced in the most advanced boats, boats that should be as limited as possible (safety safeguards, a limit on draft and length and not much else).

The existence of this class doesn’t disqualify or diminish all the other sailing classes, but as in F1, all the best pilots would fight to reach there.

regards

 

Global Challenge is such a race. The most successful boat is indeed narrow. (Van Den Heede's aluminum Adrien).

http://www.vdh.fr/gb/global_challenge/parcours.htm
http://www.challengebusiness.com/global/index.asp

 

Hello Milan,

That’s not really what I am talking about.

One it is not really a race, but an attempt to beat a record:

“The Global Challenge consists of beating the record for sailing around the world single-handed and without stopover from East to West.
It is a circumnavigation of the world "the wrong way round", i.e. against the prevailing winds for the majority of the voyage (the descent of the Atlantic, rounding Cape Horn, Australia, the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa, and returning up the Atlantic).”

http://www.vdh.fr/gb/global_challenge/presentation.htm

The other is an amateur race that is raced on 12 identical steel boats (you can race that one, you have just to show up with the cash).
This one is a very good way to get a practical and intensive course on seamanship .

"In Autumn 2008, 12 identical 72ft ocean racing yachts will sail from the UK, ready not just to survive those conditions, but to race through them. Each yacht will be crewed by 17 ordinary men and women led by a professional skipper."

http://www.challengebusiness.com/global/index.asp

No Milan, I was talking about a real Pro race with Open60’s and by open 60’s. I don’t mean that they would all be large transom similar boats, but that they would have a max of 60ft lenght. Fact is that I would like very much to compare, in one race against the prevailing winds, the performance of a Vor60 with a canting keel, with the performance of a typical Open 60.

What I am talking about is a kind of Vendee Globe the other way around.

About the Adrien, the boat that holds the record (2004), it is a 84ft, and a beautiful boat, and as you say it is a narrow boat, but I believe that its performance can be easily matched by a canting keel boat, if he manages to stay in one piece. Such a course would also be a fire test on canting keels, and for it, it would be necessary to make them stronger.

 

Hi Paulo,

Yes, it would be very interesting race, but I don't think that open 60's are the optimum type for the racing in the wrong direction. In such race, flatish bottom with a very wide stern for planing wouldn't be as advantageous. I expect that a scaled down "Adrian" would be a better choice. Narrower hull with much finer bow and a rounded bottom would slice easier through the waves, with a less bouncy ride, giving a bit more "comfort" to the crew and less stress to the boat. Canting keels could give sail caring power which narrow boat lacks.

Scantlings all around would have to go way up producing heavier boat (compared to the normal open's standards). Structural strength would be a major issue. And yes, it would be an ultimate testing ground for canting keels technology development. If they can survive that, they'll survive anything.

 

Tokyo Trash Baby (from SA)

"Homebuilt" sportboat:
Tokyo TRash Baby
Address:http://tokyotrashbaby86.tripod.com/

 

Some of us actually have some experience with these things. Attached are some photos of pages from the bulletins for the Professional Yacht Racing Association from 1979. The plan was to race unlimited 40 footers. I was a member of the association.

The entire industry was excited about this. We had contacts for Television exposure. The sports marketing company IMG was involved.

Not one boat was built, not one race went off.


A few years later I was part of a group that worked hard to obtain a sponsorship package for the Ultimate 30 professional series. We put a deal together just in time to see the series die in the second season.

In the UK the Ultra 30s were built based on the Humphries Ultimate 30 champion design Fyler. The series lasted a couple of years and died.


Somehow the European Lake circuit has had some success with the Libera Classe boats, but at a rate of only one new boat every 3 years or so it isn't really that successful. The unlimited multihull group that sails the same races has died off in favor of the OD Decision 35s. People don't like the idea of spending huge sums of money, only to be outspent and outdesigned the next year, rendering their investment worthless.

I would love to see a great "fast" boat rule. When I look at the Farr 40 fleet I wonder why they aren't sailing PYRA-type boats. They are pro crews, don't race offshore (for the most part), and if you are going to sail with pros inshore why not go twice the speed? The owners must have their reasons.

 

Rules and Boats

"B", it's unfortunate that your project(s) failed but that doesn't mean that CT's "nice little cruiser" rule, Vega's Hot Shot Pro 60 Rule,or my "Super Sport" sportboat Rule would also have to fail-given the hindsight so widely available now. New technologies now make it possible to develop truly revolutionary boats
substantially faster and more seaworthy than any previous era's "trully revolutionary boats....
And a sport boat rule could allow a wide range of people and organizations to participate.
--------
Given your experience how could a sportboat rule similar to the one I proposed be made to work?

 

Yes, to a point. I don't want to sail a boat with a stripped out interior, pipe berths, a camp stove, and a cedar bucket and call it cruising.

I would certainly choose a 10 knot boat over a 15 knot boat if the 15 knot boat is going to jar my fillings loose and the 10 knot boat has a seakindly ride.

People that blame rating systems and would give up a boat they like just to win races, will have excuses to loose no matter what. If the boat does not rate well, and it can be proved that no one has been able to sail it to the rating, there should be an appeal process. If the the boat is raced under a measurement rule, you have to optimize it for that rule. If the boat still cannot sail to it's rating, you have spent a bucket of money to find out that you have a poor design for the rule you race under. Or you might not be such a great sailor?

Guys like that should try One-Design. It removes the option of blaming the rating for poor performance.

In a OD fleet the difference between first and last is equal to a rating error of many seconds a mile. Most whingers don't claim their rating is wrong by 20-30 seconds a mile, yet that is the spread in OD results.

 

Interesting discussion. Vega.

Re "Yes, but we are talking about boats. I believe we all want to sail fast boats."

There is overwhelming evidence that most people do not want to sail fast boats. Look at what Beneteau sell; not really fast. Look at what people race in the world's strongest dinghy country, the UK - mostly slow boats. The most popular skiff types (heavily promoted, very fast) are about 30th most popular classes and are selling much slower than slower craft. Even in Sydney, where the Skiffs come from and where they are heavily subsidised by gambling and liquour laws, far more people sail slow boats like Lasers.

"I have read an interview (to a typical amateur sailracer) where a guy was saying he was going to sell his beautiful and fast boat to have a less fast boat, because he wanted to win races. It turns out that his boat had a bad rating and the slower boat had a much better rating and it would allow him very good results, and probably to win, on compensated time.

It depends on why the slow boat had a good rating. Did it have a slow rating because it was much cheaper? Did it had a slow rating because it was safer? Did it have a slow rating because it was less complicated? Maybe it's good for the sport if a cheaper, simpler boat with accomodation is encouraged. My kid's bike, my mate's fishing dinghy, and my windsurfers will go faster than almost any keelboat. Keelboats are never very fast for their length and speed so why get so worried about another knot?

A racing sport where you have to change your racing machine for a slower one, in order to win races is quite obtuse to me.

But just about every "equipment" sport puts restrictions on gear. F1 cars are highly restricted in many ways, and they have repeatedly changed the rules to slow the cars down. Rally Cars are highly restricted in many ways. Two Litre tourers, NASCAR, Aussie V8s are all highly restricted in many ways. The golf balls Tiger Woods uses are restricted in their length of flight. Golf clubs are restricted. Tour de France bicycles are restricted; if you turn up with a triathlon or recumbent bike you'll have to change it, yet (according to one calculator) the tri bike is 2ks faster (at 33kmh) and the recumbent 7km faster! Skiff racing has restrictions. Windsurfer racing has restrictions. Cat racing has restrictions (and the boom class of the moment is F18, a very heavy boat by some standards). Open Classes have restrictions. Since just about every racing sports restricts the speed of the gear, why worry about restrictions?


Perhaps we have some contradictions here. First you say that with an open rule we “end up with a boat with a massive rig and wide beam for its overall length” and then you say that “they are NOT outstanding performers in many terms in many conditions”. It seems to me that you think that other kind of boats, not wide beamed boats, could be competitive under the Open rule. So where is the problem? People that don’t like this kind of boats just have to design other type of boat. The rules will allow it, provided it is a 60ft boat.

Sure, you can design a boat that is narrower and has a smaller rig, and uses live crew instead of water ballast. My information is that such a boat would be faster around most courses. But that underlines that the Open style is not always faster and more efficient, as you seem to be assuming. It's just faster in some conditions, yet it's often held up as being the ultimate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CT 249 View Post
Why do we use speed compared to overall length as our measure of "absolute" speed, rather than speed for sail area, or speed for cost?

Because we are talking of racing, and racing is related with speed."

Yes, but (as you have partly discussed, thanks) why do we relate speed to overall length and not to sail area, cost, waterline length or other variables?

If we relate speed only to length, then we are looking at only two dimensions of a multi-dimensional object. Consider a theoretical 65 footer that has 75% of the sail, 75% of the cost, and 20% more seaworthiness and speed than a 60. Also consider a theoretical 60 footer that has 60% of the sail area, 50% of the cost, 120% more seaworthiness and 95% more speed than a 60.

If we relate speed to sail area, both these are faster boats. If we relating speed to cost, both are faster boats. If we relate speed to seaworthiness, both are faster boats. So why fixate on using just one measurement, length overall, to relate speed against? Why not consider classes that also measure speed related to sail area??
We are both interested in efficiency - why measure efficiency only against speed v length and not speed v sail area, or LOA x beam, or speed v the capacity to be sold cheaply and have cruising accomodation, or other variables?


If sail area was the common factor, we would have very narrow boats, with a small interior, boats not very practical for cruising. For having the same interior space of a 40ft, you would have to have a 50ft and you would pay a lot more for a marina place. I believe that the 50ft would also be more expensive to build and it would be a boat that would sail with a lot of list. One of the good things with the Open60’s is that they are optimized to sail with 10 to 15º list.

But if the rule is intended to teach us how to make better boats that are useful for cruising, why not do it more directly? It can be a long and involved path to take lessons from an Open racer and then apply them to a cruising boat that will have a smaller rig (because the crew is less powerful and doesn't want to sail always at 110%), higher displacement (because the cruiser will have an interior), perhaps some bow overhang (for anchor handling) and possibly less expensive for its LOA.

Why not include a minimum displacement that would be similar to that of a lightly-fitted cruiser/racer and learn lessons that we could directly apply to a racer/cruiser? Why not include a rig restriction that would teach us how to design a boat that could be driven by the sort of rig cruisers want? If we want to learn how to design a better boat with an interior big enough for cruising, why not ensure that the hull of our racers has a big interior? If we are worried about the cost of a marina berth, why aren't we worried about the cost of the massive rig and multiple roller furlers of an Open 60?

You are interested in singlehanded 60 footers despite the fact that they are much slower than 90 footers. You are be interested in monos despite the fact that they are much slower than multis, so why is it illogical to be interested in cheaper dual-purpose boats? The LOA and the number of hulls and crew are all factors that slow a boat without making it less interesting, why then are other factors that slow a boat seen as being so bad?



"I don’t agree with what you have said about F1. Sure, the cars suffered limitations to prevent excessive power and to maximize safety, and yet you can see that modern F1 keep beating the lap times of the older and more powerful cars. This means that the increased superior technology is able to make cars that can turn faster, break harder and are better performers. You say F1 are boring races, and I mostly agree. But in Europe I guess we are as much fascinated with superior technology as with the racing in itself and with good reason: Nothing in Motorsports has contributed as much as F1 developed technology to the modern car performance and safety.

Sure, F1 cars do allow high tech, but not for everything. The point is that design and technology is very heavily restricted. Wings are highly restricted. Weight is restricted. Power is restricted; small engines, no turbos. Replacement of engines is restricted. Tyres are restricted in size, tread and replacement. Ground effect is restricted. Clearance is restricted. Six wheelers are banned. Cockpit size is restricted. Active/reactive suspensions are banned. Launch control is banned. Traction control is banned. ABS is banned. Sliding skirts are banned. The fan car was banned. The number of valves per cylinder is restricted. The number of cylinders is restricted; their angle is restricted. Engine weight is restricted; pre-coolers are banned; rpm can be restricted; variable valve timing, inlet geometry and exhaust geometry are banned. Injectors, plugs and ignition are controlled. Composite engine blocks are banned. Engine materials are restricted. X-wings are banned. Airboxes are restricted. Front wing height is controlled. 4wd is banned. Two-way telemetry has been banned. Engine cover bodywork is controlled. Fuel is restricted in type and amount. Even practising and engine maintenance is restricted!

The current model of my mid-market Japanese station wagon has many features that are banned from F1. It's as if the Open 60s banned things the typical Beneteau cruiser has.

Why does F1 have such restrictions? Partly for safety, partly for cost reasons. Despite what you said about cost being no problem if the public will watch, even F1 - one of the most watched sports in the world - has cost problems that have seen entries drop by over 50% and several teams struggling. Max Mosely and the other heads of F1 realise that this is a problem and have said so publically, so how can it be ignored for sailing?

There used to be a racing car class with almost no rules - Can Am. It was great fun while it lasted but it died out, just like pretty much every unrestricted sailing class has died out.

F1 cars still break lap records, but (1) that proves that even with tight restrictions you don't stop development; ( 2 ) don't forget courses have changed - the Monza "Streamliner" (1976 I think) is still the fastest F1 race ever. It's as if the 1976 Transatlantic record still stood - and yet despite not having a faster race in the last 4 decades, F1 has a good image as a high tech sport.

"Of course only the best continue as professional drivers and only the very best reach F1, and it should be the same regarding a top international ocean racing class, a class for professional racers, in true racing machines."

Only the best reach F1? No way, rich F1 drivers who pay to race are a recognised problem and sometimes a major laughing stock. In the same way, world champs often struggle to break through; even Nicky Lauda's career was almost stopped because there was opposition (from his grandfather) to his borrowing large amounts of money. Read a few F1 biographies and the same story of struggles for cash to buy into a team at FF, F2/3000 and F1 level are repeated time and time again. It seems to be a terrible way to select the best. How many drivers of Lauda's talent failed because they didn't have his rich family and connections? How many drivers of the talent of Mansell failed because their wives wouldn't work hard so their husbands could buy their way into racing?

And why put the emphasis on a fully-professional scene doing long races, with a barrier between it and "normal" racing like Fastnet, Bermuda, Hobart or club racing? Why not look at a rule that will allow local hot spots to develop, with people learning their way and becoming noticed by performing well in their local club fleet and then doing well in say Block Island or Spi Ouest or Fastnet, rather than having to move outside into a more isolated class like Mini is on most places?

Finally, if we follow the pro/motor racing path, we may be going the wrong way. Here is Australia we have a strong motor racing scene and 99% of adults can drive, yet motor sport has fewer participants than sailing. Sailing (here) therefore is proven to be BETTER at attracting people who can do the activity into competition - why follow the path of a sport that is LESS succesful?

Wishes of the season and apologies for another long post.

 

Ct240, I will reply to you later, because I want to make a break. Let’s talk about real boats. Do you know this one:

http://www.open570.org/open/home.htm

It's a Finot design and it seems to be the French small performance boat of the moment.

http://www.finot.com/general/index_ang.htm

I have seen it at the Paris boatshow and I had an irresistible wish to sail one, so I am in the process of convincing a friend to buy one

The boat looks great and it is not very expensive. It cost, with performance sails (the complete set) and with a trailer around 20 000 euros.

The smaller 5.00 costs only 13 500 euros.

What do you think?

 

It looks like a nice boat. Fun, with good racing. The Handicap National shows it's not amazingly quick; rated a fraction faster than the old J/22, slower than a J/24 or Beneteau Fun. Currency and national differences and language problems make it hard to work out how it compares to other types in terms of cost etc. Looks a bit expensive for the size and speed judging from US $.

It's really great to see emphasis on a small boat. That's really healthy.

The Handicap National figures

http://www.ffvoile.net/ffv/public/habitable1/hn/tables/home2.asp?CL=TOUT&BATEAU=&GR=&Submit=Valider

are interesting. A quick look seems to me to show that the Open style is quick for its LOA, but perhaps not in other ways. That's great, it's good that people who like tthat type of boat can have one, it's just that maybe not everyone should be pushed towards such a class.

 

Yep, the Formula One regulations are just amazingly complex. There are 41 pages on "sporting regulations" , race conduct etc, and 58 pages of technical regulations - car design". They go as far as controlling the colour of the carpet on the podium. Its an unbelievably restricted sport!

http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

As I get older, and hopefully learn more, I'm coming to believe that all class restrictions are finger in the air stuff, and there's really no way to define what is "better" design other than the ability to win races withing a given formula. All boats seem to be type formed, and you can see in each generation how the current type forms of the various racing rules affect the dominant types of more recreational craft, just because that's what's familiar and is currently regarded as good looking. I'm not sure I see any way round this. There also seems to be a human tendency towards type forming when there's no actual pressure to do so: I guess you could call it fashion! Look at the way you can date a motor car design by looking at it, 70s car designs are different from 80s cars etc.

 

I mostly agree with the posts #161, #163, & 164 of Paul B, Vega, and CT 249. I think there's an emerging opportunity for designers in these new box rule classes, though, and they're better boats than IOR ever produced. So lets look to both Class40 and the Transpac 52 derivatives for new ideas and emerging design talent.

Perhaps we should also talk specific races.... after all, the genesis of the Transpac 52 and STP 65, which have in turn inspired the GP28, GP33, and GP42, was a specific race: the Transpac. Opportunities to race Class40 boats are initially rather specific as well. Should there be Class40s in the Transpac, or is there something about Class40 that makes it specific to Atlantic racing? What are the best opportunities for Class 40 racing on the U.S. East Coast? Bermuda 1-2? Marblehead to Halifax?

Vega: any unknown designers doing Class40s? Are there any interesting innovations on one or two boats that distinguish them from the rest of the fleet?

What's become of Laurie Davidson? Is he still living in Seattle? I get the feeling that controversies surrounding the design of the One World AC boats have really thrown him off his stride. Has he gone into retirement or something? Seems to me the team of Davidson/Bieker would really make sense (once the upcoming America's Cup is done).