Offshore 30' ish class development

Originally posted by Crag Cay in the Stability/Seaworthiness threadYes that's certainly one hat that has been thrown into the ring and has also gathered a bit of momentum. However the range of options for a class at this size is probably represented by the Class 9.50s at the high powered end and the Koopman VQ32 at the other.

Whilst everyone is agreed that the jump in offshore race boats from 6.5's to Class 40 is too big, the debate is about how to fill the gap. Mini 6.5's can be seen as little versions of the Open 60's in their complexity and (relative) cost. The Open 50's, 40's and 30's are also scaled versions of the same thing, but never really took off as the savings they represented were limited. Class 40 then came along and offered something radically different in concept and numbers soared as they met a real need.

My concern with the Class 9,50 is that it is again a scaled down version of, this time, the Class 40 with a few further material restrictions. Is this enough to differentiate it from the Class 40's, or do we need to look at something more than just cost cutting if we are to (hopefully) attract another surge in interest in short handed sailing?

30 footers should be the most popular class by far. We need to learn the lessons from the Whitbread / Mount Gay / Open 30 / Figaro classes, etc and make sure we end up with something that is not only financially attractive to the average sailor, but is one he /she wants to sail.


Sorry I just did not want to hijac the other thread and I found your comment on this interesting.

First I would have to disagree that every one thinks the jump from Mini to Class 40 was too big. I would speculate it is the fastest growing offshore racing class ever. However from the Ministas point of view it is a big leap.

I like the 950 idea. It achieves the right balance between open class raciness and affordability for the common guy. I think there is alot of appeal in the individual nature of open style, as opposed to the production sameness of the Figaro type. There are many who want to identify with and fantasize about racing against the pros. They want something a little differnet than the next guys, but still recognisable as a type, without going to the wild expense of the carbon boats. On the other hand you still have to attract the more serious offshore racing guys. This is the real key to selling these.

As to it being a scaled version of the Class 40, I think as long as the 950 is not expected to be a Southern Ocean boat it will be even more successful than the Class 40. 1000 mile races, or at maximum, the Transat or Transpac they would be a ton of fun relative to their expense.

 

Hi there, thanks for doing that.

Firstly, as I said, I wasn't implying any criticism of the Class 40s in any way. I think they have got it just right and the proof, as always, has been the number of people who are buying and sailing these boats.

And by 'big jump' I guess I meant that there was room between the two (6.5 - 40) for another class. However it's a 'size point' that has been tried before with the Whitbread / Open 30 but with a spectacular lack of success. I'm just keen we don't add another tomb stone into that particular grave yard. I also recognise that there are production boats (traditionally the Figaros) that have, or could, do good service, so again we have to be sure why people aren't flocking to these either.

The Class 40 is a success because it was market lead. It recognised a need amongst sailors and gave them what they wanted. I'm keen that we respond again to need at 30ft and don't merely assume that a downsized 40 will be a hit.

So I have been doing my own market research triggered by a couple of clients that have approached me. It's not exhaustive, but it's a start.

Cost: The Class 40's are still big boats, and despite representing fantastic value, do cost hundreds of thousands of euros/dollars to get on the start line. They are also large boats to dock / lift / store / fit out, etc. The Minis are complex and although stock boats and 'pre-loved' ones are readily available, really competitive ones are again far from cheap.

Versatility: The Minis operate almost entirely in their own little world. Whilst objectives like the OSTAR might feature big in people's plans, few want to get a boat exclusively for one race (common in the Mini fleet), they want a boat that will also be useful around the buoys or perhaps a weekend away. But even for the owner obsessed with short handed sailing, it's important the boat is not excluded from any of the more popular classics (STARs, AZAB, Bermuda 1-2. RBI, etc) This pretty much requires Cat A, OSR1, which in turn dictates about 30ft ~ 6000lb minimum. But they don't want an IRC plodder either.

So far the Classe 9.60 ticks all the boxes.

Ball-si-ness: The final consideration is the one that may decide the numbers who embrace this class. Doing the MiniTransat in a 6.5 is a really big deal. If the weather turns shitty for them leaving the Bay of Biscay, the human cost can be on par with high altitude Himalayan climbing. They are extremely demanding to sail and punish those who make mistakes. I have no problem with any of that and it even has merit as a way of sorting out the wheat from the chaff amongst those who aspire to professional, open class, big boat sailing.

But if we are to grow the world of short handed sailing, I think we also need to include those whose aspirations stretch perhaps no further than the OSTAR, who want to compete in these types of races but then go back to work and families. So to use a parallel from the inshore world (albeit one-designs which I'm not suggesting), are we looking for an offshore J92 type boat or a Mumm 30? Is this class just another stepping stone for aspiring sailing rock stars or do we want 'everyone' to buy one?

I favour a challenging, fast, fun, attractive good looking boat that, with a degree of effort, commitment and skill will take a regular good sailor to sea for up to a month. A boat that lots of people can afford to buy and run. Whose scantlings allow for competitive home construction by the skilled amateur and that look like they belong to the 'short handed sailing world' (as opposed to Beneteau's corporate image) and finally that fully compliment, and increase the appeal of, the already established range of Open Class boats.

I just feel the Open Class 9.50 might be a bit too 'Mumm30-ish'.

(Or in numerical terms, which side of 30 do we want the SA/Displ ratio, for instance?)

 

We are on the same page on most of this. And I think we both sense that this has huge potential if good decisions are made. I agree that the balance is delicate and some consideration will guarantee a healthy class.

One of the draws for the Class 40 and I think the 950 is the lack need for crew. Many I have talked to are just tired of trying to maintian reliable crew. There is a small percentage of experienced racers here in the states that want to have the choice to do a Bermuda race without getting hit with all the hassle and expense of crew. Others are just tired of the handicap rule ***** fights. Some of them are seeing these boats as a way to escape this. It is a small percentage but still significant. And I think it will grow.

Initially most of the potential buyers will get the SA/Displ issue and sail accordingly. This horsepower is essential to to keep the attention of the better sailors, which in turn draws the attention of the average guy. More toned down versions of the same boat can be made available in the way that Pogo has done. Muzzle them, don't Geld them. Then they are just another Mid size Chevy in a marina full of them. Most guys that buy Ferarris drive them around town in second gear...thats ok they are funding the teams that generate the image that sells the cars.

I tend to want to keep them as sporty as possible and still able to take the wife for a daysail or even camp for a night.

 

By the way this might be of interest to some:

Single-handed sailors will be gathering in Southampton on 17 March for the first Solo Sailing Conference organised by Racing at Petit Bateau Ltd.

The agenda will include the latest developments from the Class 40 scene with presentations from top designers and builders with feedback from the skippers on how these awesome boats perform on the race course.

All the forthcoming amateur solo races will be represented with news from the Mini class in UK on their events, Jester Challenge looking ahead to 2010, OSTAR 2009 and Petit Bateau's own races in 2007 and 2008.

The exciting new class 9.50 proposal by JM Vidal will be show-cased for the first time in the UK by the design promoters.

This is the first such gathering of solo racing enthusiasts in the UK and promises to be a landmark pre-season event in the solo scene.

The conference is being held at Royal Southampton YC from 2pm to 7pm on Saturday 17th March 2007. Tickets are £25 in advance and are available from
racing@petitbateau.org.uk

 

I agree it certainly is all a matter of balance. I also agree crew issues can be a big driver for this sort of sailing. I am 'between boats' at the moment as I realised I was spending more effort (and money) as a tour operator arranging other people's holidays than I was actually campaigning the boat. I hope there's a special place in heaven for race boat owners as we've certainly deserved it.

But having the ability to still do Cowes Week or Tarbert Week from time to time in this '30 footer' would be attractive to me and I'm sure a lot of other potential owners. Getting the crewed aspect of the class right from the word go would do wonders for its appeal. Howabout limiting the crew to 4 for non water balasted crewed races, so kipping on board is again an option? No more renting crew houses!

I still have reservations about who the class is pitched at. The Mumm 30 and to a degree the Melges 24 all suffered over here by being over cooked. There are always some who will have their egos puffed up by being in the same fleet as 'the pros', but most would rather race a boat that stretches, but doesn't overwhelm, their abilities.

The development of the Cork 1720 OD day boat has been interesting. The original momentum for the class came from established members of the Royal Cork YC who were tired of crew baby sitting. They wanted a dayboat that would give them all the fun without hassles. They even had Castro put 'bath rails' along the gunnel so no one could do 'ungentlemanly' things like hike out. But as they often sailed in the evenings, they did allow the option of a mast head kite to make the most of those dying summer breazes.

However, the hotshots soon discovered that you could carry the big kite in all winds if you had the skill. So the founding fathers of the class fell away and it quickly became yet another 'grand prix class' with sailmakers dominating the top slots. Now the class has introduced a 'club' version to broaden its appeal.

Although a 'two tier' version of the 9.50 might keep the appeal of the class as broad as possible, getting people to join a 'second division' or 'B team' is not always the most powerful marketing stratergy.

Will you be at Southampton?

 

Nice. I wanted to open a thread about this new class, but I have been to busy. I am glad you have done it .

I believe this class is going to be a success. For racing solo a 40class boat at 100%, you have to be an expert sailor. I believe that these boats will be a lot easier to explore and a lot less expensive...but fast anyway.

Lot's of talk about this Class and even some designs and an existing boat that it will fit in the class, the Bongo 960 (Rolland).

Some links and the project of the Class Rule:

http://www.minitransat650.com/950 rules 2.pdf

This one permits you to give opinions and to contribute to the Class Rule.

http://www.minitransat650.com/simple/index.php?topic=221.0

http://www.fox-tech.co.uk/projects.html
http://team.seasailsurf.com/admin/spip.php?article34
http://seasailsurf.com/seasailsurf/actu/spip.php?article4250
http://www.minitransat650.com/simple/index.php?topic=233.msg1492

 

I won't be at Southampton unfortunately, but we shall be expecting a comprehensive report from you. If you are forced to fail us, I have an aquaintance from here who will probably be there to further his interest in the Class 40 and he can update me, or at least round up any documentation that is available on the topic. I would rather get the story from somebody that is keen on the class.

The idea of shorter course racing with limited human ballast only (no water) is one that has been brought up for the C40s. I think it is a great solution. If you can't find decent crew, and because the boat is built as a single hander, you only need someone talented enough to shift his lard from one rail to the next. A couple of semi talented crew would get you by. Of course, around the cans would still require some talent but coming up with 4 is not too tough.

I have not done any estimating of the cost of a hull for one of these, but I am expecting that they will be cheap enough that something really cool will happen as a result. I can see that development in the Class 40 is going to happen rapidly as a result of the cost and exploding interest. If the 950 is close enough in nature to the 40 development will trickle up from the cheaper hulls and rigs of the 950. Something like what the Mini does for the 60s.

One of the things that is going to dissappoint many is that the price drop from a 40 to a 950 is not going to be as drastic as they imagine. There is no getting away from the cost of all the equipment, even if the hull, deck and rig are cheaper. I've talked to many class 40 dreamers and they are quite startled at the starting line price of a 40 after they see initial cost at under EU 200k from the builder.

Another advantage that I just realized is the draft. A number of people here have initially shown an interest in the C40 and been dissappointed by the draft limiting their access to their cruising grounds. This just might make the difference.

Sorry for the rambling, it is late and I should be sleeping.

 

It's a nice looking boat and seems to be a good set of rules. It's also funny that another new class that's causing a lot of interest has banned deck spreaders, canards, and canting keels, which some keep telling us are the way forward. If they were the way forward why is there so much interest in classes that ban them?

I'm not in the loop of the Open class boats and I no longer dream of sailing the Atlantic singlehanded, so maybe I should butt out. However, I'm in Crag's court I think. Couldn't the new 30 take a lead from the development class dinghies that have been running for many decades?

The popular development class dinghies have small/medium size rigs and are designed for skilled or highly skilled amateur sailors. That gives them a wide appeal second-hand, so the front end of the fleet can sell their old boats easily for little loss, and buy new boats to develop design. Smaller rigs also make boats cheaper; sailmakers sells sails by the square metre, not by the LOA of the yacht.

So why not reduce rig size and end up with an boat that is efficient on a small rig (like the NS14, Merlin Rocket, Moth, Int Canoe. National 12 etc) rather than a blown-up skiff type? Despite the marketing from the skiffs, they are (with one local exception born from liquour and gambling laws) much LESS popular than the small-rig development classes, and they have actually done LESS for design development.

So why not have a small(ish) rig boat, and maybe increase coachroof area for potential cruising life later? It could be a very nice, efficient and fast boat, in the same way as a Merlin or NS14. Ok, it won't be super-quick, but this is a 30 foot leadmine. It's not super quick no matter what you do.

One thing that worries me about the Open 40 is the huge gap in performance (according to the French handicaps) between the racer and cruiser versions. Maybe the minimum displacement should reflect the cruisier boat. Alternatively, do that the popular Micro Cuppers do and have separate divisions for Proto, Racer and Cruiser racing together.

Yes, this is a recipe for a slightly slower boat (slower for the LOA, perhaps faster for the $). But dinghies prove that this recipe works, and so do boats like the Farr 40 which are not full-on speed machines. On the other hand, I once did a count of the "high-speed" development-class sportsboats and yacht classes that died stillborn or close to it; I think there were about 18 or 25. Each of them seems to be an example of the problems of making it fast and aiming at the pros.

As Crag says, maybe the "more serious racing guys" aren't really the keys to selling these boats in numbers. As to sailing against the pros, one thing I notice is that I really enjoy sailing against the very best in a class like Lasers, where you can knock off the world champ at times if you work hard at it while still having a normal life. In contrast, in pro and and Olympic boards, a good amateur just gets eaten by the pros due to the fact that the intrinsic design opens up a big speed gap. That's just depressing.

Many other people seem to feel like me. A class that (due to its design) creates a comparatively small gap from good amateur to pro seems to attact people and be fun; a class that (due to its design) opens up a massive gap between expert and pro seems to often die quickly.

Just my 0.1 cent's worth

 

CT 249
I take your point, but I can see that our perspectives are very different.

Successful rule writing is like sex...everybody thinks they are good at it and nobody knows why the ones that are, are.
When it comes to writing ocean racing rules in this part of the world the French are in posession of the crown, the sceptre and the orb. We are in no position to argue with their success. However they have very kindly thrown this out there for us to voice our opinions. They are as aware as anybody that races like the Vendee have the potential to be considerably bigger than they already are. It would really facilitate that growth if the rest of the world were involved. The sole purpose for these classes is not to entice us into the ring but it is certainly part of it. It would serve as an incubator for all of us.

In order to write a successful rule these days you first have to be a person or a group that is connected, believable, and in the case of ocean racing, understand the mind of the ocean racer.(Whew now there is a job). You have to have been around the scene for long enough to really understand it's subtleties. Guys like Vidal hold that sort of influence and he and his pals will ultimately call the shots. I am OK with that...I have to be anyway. So if he is going to allow anything we say to influence the decisions made, our opinions must be within the confines of the spirit of the rule as basically outlined.

Their goal is the advancement of the professionalism of the sport of short-handed ocean racing. The development of the big IMOCA races into world class sporting events. To do that they need a "Farm Team" to incubate the stars of the future. Learning to be a fighter jock involves first flying a Cessna, but you don't jump to an F16 from there.
That is what this rule addresses. It is not primarily to sell more production boats to the average guy that needs a platform to drink beer on Saturdays. (Although if he is a dreamer he may help by buying one) The primary purpose is to edge close enough to that market to fund the development of racing, and still have something that is a real trainer. That is the delicate balance.

I suspect that any opinions that we throw out there will affect the rule, as it stands, by very small degrees. Weight and stability regulation methods, bow sprit type, how much interior furniture that is required, number of water tight bulkeheads, that sort of thing. I doubt that rig size will be see much of our influence. However the regulation of weight distribution will affect control of the structual integrity and RM, so there will be some affect on the sportiness of them.

I see their approach as highly informed, well intended, very sportsmanlike and having the potential to become even bigger than the Class 40. They are saying "come on over and play you guys, these things are ton of fun" And, when it comes to baking bread and writing ocean racing rules, I must defer to their success!


Keep in mind that the handicap rating, IRC, PHRF, whatever, has no bearing on the decisions made concerning these boats. You can be sure you will be rated right out of the picture. If you care this is not the right racing class for you. I spit in the general direction of handicap rules.

 

The reply below was before I noticed New York was awake. I take your points and like the flight training analogy. It helps illustrate my concerns.

We have the F16's/Eurofighter in the Open 60 / 50 / 40 / multihulls.
I believe we have the jet trainer (Hawk / Goshawk, etc) in the Class 40.
We certainly have the Cessna basic trainer in every dinghy and regular boat afloat.
We even have the advanced stunt acrobatic display aircraft in the Mini 6.5m!

But with the 9.50, are we not looking for the equivalent of the T6A/B Texan II, advanced trainer, where those who can fly really well, start on the road to being a combat pilot? For me the Class 9.50 / Class 40 / Open 60's progression shouldn't just be a step up in size and cost, but also skill level and demand.

**************
I think your 0.1 cents worth is very valid. The parallels you draw between development class dinghies and skiffs eloquently conveys the same message I was bludgeoning to death with the keel boat example.

I have been fiddling about with the rules this morning and some figures might help. Sail Area / Displacement ratios, using the convention fore and aft triangles show that both the Class 9,50 and the 40 are a bit more powerful than the Mumm 30 (~ mid to upper 30's against low 30's for the Mumm) but significantly higher than a J92S which is 26.

Incidentally I have used the J92S in some of these comparisons as its displacement and general size is similar to the 9.50.

However if you use all the plain white sail area, which is valid as these boats have square topped mains and leaches well outside the 'bounding triangle', the differences are quite marked. Whilst the J92S and Mumm 30, with their restriction on jib size and more conventional mains, see their SA/Displ only jump slightly, the 9.50 and Class 40 both jump to 43 (ish).

There are also some anomalies in the rules that I haven't been able to resolve. Later I will read the French version to see if something has been lost in translation. But in case someone else has some views this is what is puzzling me at the moment:

The bowsprit on the 40 is limited to 2m (6.5ft) forward of the stem, but on the 9.50 it is 3m (~10ft).

On the 40 the minimum average freeboard is 1.1m but on the 9.50 the maximum average is 1 metre. Why would you limit maximum freeboard if you are trying for a high STIX or AVS?

With the 40s, there is both a maximum mast height and a maximum sail area. On the 9.50, there is only a maximum average hoist height for main / headsail / spinnaker combined, with an upper mast limit and boom restricted to inside the transom line. There are no other sail measurement restrictions. This would seem to drive one down the route of vulnerable square headed mains with their expensive hardware and big lapper headsails which again will need more expensive rollers, cars and winches. I haven't explored whether the height of the centre of effort (hce) component in STIX is enough of a constraint in a (Cat A) boat of this size to control these factors. Views?

I can see why the 3m draft of the Class 40 would be a concern in some sailing areas. But is 2.40m (~8ft) any more attractive in a 30 footer? I know with keels size does matter, but I would like to see the performance impact of limiting draft to say 2m (~6.5ft).

Costs: These are from John Corby, who has his production 29 ft IRC racer (of similar displacement to the 9.50) built in Poland in similar materials, including the T-bulb keel, but with an alloy mast, and he quotes a price of around 100000 euros, inc tax but without sails.

As the 9.50 rule has the trade off between water ballast weight and beam, I have developed two designs of identical displacements, rigs and keels. One is at B rule max (3.75m) and the other extremely narrow (2.5m for trailering). I am hoping to run both models through a Stability Analysis and VPPs to see if it throws any more light on the wrinkles in the rule.

 

In response to your question about deck spreaders etc. The idea was to build an inexpensive trainer. One that as closely mimics the sailing characteristics of an Open 60 without the expense, without the distractions for learners and within the price range of keen sailors. Most of the items you mention are expensive. I would have never guessed how poor the speed to cost ratio was on some of those items. Look at the results of the R du R and the Class 40 finishes relative to the Open 40 and 50 finishes for proof. Pretty impressive.

Keep looking at this as a means to fund trainers and it makes more sense.

 

On the 40 the minimum average freeboard is 1.1m but on the 9.50 the maximum average is 1 metre. Why would you limit maximum freeboard if you are trying for a high STIX or AVS?

I suspect this has been mis translated. It confuses me as well.

With the 40s, there is both a maximum mast height and a maximum sail area. On the 9.50, there is only a maximum average hoist height for main / headsail / spinnaker combined, with an upper mast limit and boom restricted to inside the transom line. There are no other sail measurement restrictions. This would seem to drive one down the route of vulnerable square headed mains with their expensive hardware and big lapper headsails which again will need more expensive rollers, cars and winches. I haven't explored whether the height of the centre of effort (hce) component in STIX is enough of a constraint in a (Cat A) boat of this size to control these factors.

Is it any different on any other Open class ocean racing rule? I suspect the max is subject to some debate but the ratio SA/displ is already a known factor and the max will be adjusted to suit the hull weight decisions.

I can see why the 3m draft of the Class 40 would be a concern in some sailing areas. But is 2.40m (~8ft) any more attractive in a 30 footer? I know with keels size does matter, but I would like to see the performance impact of limiting draft to say 2m (~6.5ft).


This is where the performance comprimises start to get too big. It still must be an ocean racer.

The bowsprit on the 40 is limited to 2m (6.5ft) forward of the stem, but on the 9.50 it is 3m (~10ft).

I was going to ask about this one as well. Wild guess...I am imagining a Mini type sprit. Retractable to within the deck. Incorporates bob and whisker stays which keeps it strong yet light enough to make sense on such a small boat.

 

205. FRANC BORD MOYEN
Le franc bord moyen ne doit pas être inférieur à 1 m.
Le franc-bord moyen est obtenu en divisant la surface projetée verticale des oeuvres mortes (jusqu’à la
ligne de livet, telle que définie dans l’EN/ISO 8666 avec interprétation des ERS pour les livets
arrondis) par la longueur de coque (Lh).

Yep, it's a mistranslation. "ne doit pas être inférieur' - must not be smaller

 

The reply below was before I noticed New York was awake. I take your points and like the flight training analogy. It helps illustrate my concerns.

We have the F16's/Eurofighter in the Open 60 / 50 / 40 / multihulls.
I believe we have the jet trainer (Hawk / Goshawk, etc) in the Class 40.
We certainly have the Cessna basic trainer in every dinghy and regular boat afloat.
We even have the advanced stunt acrobatic display aircraft in the Mini 6.5m!

But with the 9.50, are we not looking for the equivalent of the T6A/B Texan II, advanced trainer, where those who can fly really well, start on the road to being a combat pilot? For me the Class 9.50 / Class 40 / Open 60's progression shouldn't just be a step up in size and cost, but also skill level and demand.

Ah-hah...now I get it. But I still think you are trying to tame them down too much. I see them as an edgier boat. The step down only being in the pocketbooks that can afford them.
In my dreams I see a keen kid who has done the YC dinghy thing and some ocean racing with the old fat guys to Bemuda...then talking the old man into spending 50k or so and building a strip version in the garage. Short races at first. Only dacron sails. Less safety gear because they are limited to 50 mile escorted races around islands. The usual overblown self confidence, knocked flat by an unexpected gust and a hairy round up with a little broken gear. Finally, one day he feels that sweet spot and gets her to speed and he wants the real thing.
The analogy of flying is not perfect in that these boats do not have a throttle lever that you just have to push. Skill = speed, it is not built in to the vehicle. Planing speeds are what these boats are about. The day you get a skiff to plane is when you realize that being good enough to hold the boat on that fine edge is the real fun. Granted, you don't want falling off that edge to be too dangerous.

One of the things that young people need out of sport these days is seeing tangible indications of skill. The finish line results are not enough. Yeah they know that an OD win is a real test of skill. But they like the test to be physical and tactile and be obvious to an observer, even if there is not one. The challenge has to be much more than cranial, or a test of patience, it has to test their nerve as well.

I don't pretend to know where that performance line should be exactly drawn. I am , I admit, a little gun shy as a result of witnessing attacks by those who would have any fun regulated right out of boating. Open class boats have contributed more to the pure fun of sailing larger keel boats, in the recent past, than any other type out there. I am loath to state this because I don't want this thread to turn into this argument. As my opinion it clarifies why I will always push to keep these boats as edgy as the insurance companies will allow...and then maybe a little more.

 

I saw that you corrected this at LeoVs site, but you corrected it incorrectly. Reread what you wrote there and see if I am correct.