Sydney-Hobart 2014

Nothing new. What about these picture of Comanche from the same chevalier blog?

 

Yep, and since sail carrying power is often related to cost, it looks as if the canters would fare badly in a speed-for-dollar ratio.

Nice renderings and a great comparison of the boats, though. There's a reasonable spread of design approaches, which will make for interesting watching.

 

Sydney-Hobart

======================
Nonsense!

 

When arre you gonna answer on graphpene within designers limits for next cup or do I have to go to Tom Speer? Might be a lawsuit in Paris.

 

"Nonsense" is not exactly a very logical argument, Doug.

You love posts full of numbers and ratios about your designs, so why not look at numbers and ratios here? The ratios here are that the rebuilt 100' fixed keeler Rio 100 is rated at 87% of the speed of the canters, with about 70% of the sail area of most of the canters; only 58% of the sail area of Comanche. A new fixed keel supermaxi could be expected to be a couple of percent quicker than Rio, perhaps, but it may well have a rig that is not much bigger because of the limited righting moment.

A supermaxi with the extra righting moment created by a canting keel should cost more, all else being equal, because the extra righting moment means that loads are much higher. A boat with bigger sails also costs more, all else being equal, because labour and materials costs are higher. The canting keel systems are not cheap, either.

It's not at all hard to see that a fixed keel supermaxi with a rig that's 30% smaller will cost about 10% less to own, and therefore be faster for the dollar than a canting supermaxi.

Of course, it is also possible that fixed keelers could also follow the same route of increasing weight, beam and sail area. This could be an interesting discussion, one that a one-word post like "ridiculous" will not add to.

One of the reasons I don't like the current supermaxi limits (and I know it's a personal matter and that the owners don't care) is that they may have encouraged the tendency to just pile on sail area and sail carrying power. It looks as if every succeeding supermaxi has carried more RM and more sail than the previous boat, although one can well doubt whether the last couple of boats have gone too far.

It's just personal preference, but as a spectator I like to see more variation in design; I prefer rating limits to LOA limits because that allows very different designs to have a chance. I think the last Hobart fought under an IRC limit was a battle between the 90' Alfa, the 98' cruiser/racer Leopard of London, and the radical 66'er Xena; an interesting battle between two boats in opposite corners of modern design and another boat in the middle.

It's unlikely that Rags will win but it would be nice to see the lighter approach work.

 

With that logic we would never push any limit. The last 1% always increases the cost exponentially. Seeking the last 1% is what humans do, we compete. Let the guys that can afford it do it then see what can be learned from their efforts.

Personally I like sailing one design... you want a race? Then don't hide behind a boat! Offshore racing mostly shys away from that concept.

 

Here are a couple of interesting shots of Wild Oats and two of its appendages:
click-

 

There's a big difference between a class that encourages development to go into areas of diminishing returns, and a class that encourages development within restrictions that keep designs from going into all of those areas of diminishing returns.

Classes that have dimensional restrictions DO push limits - and arguably they push more limits and create more innovations than other classes. Look at Moths - very restricted LOA and sail area, and for years they have been pushing many limits. Look at the Mini Transats - restricted sail area and draft, and they created the canting keel the supermaxis use. Look at 12 Metres - lots of restrictions and yet they inspired the CBTF configuration used by the early supermaxis, as well as a lot of minor development.

Carbon spars, foam sandwich construction, carbon hulls, mylar/film sails, squaretops, bendy rigs, even wingsails and wingmasts - they all came from classes that had strict restrictions on dimensions and/or design.

Even the multi guys can accept that tighter restrictions on dimensions make for better classes and boats - Nigel Irens said (in his talk in Sydney a few years ago) that the ORMA 60 tris were too extreme and that they and the class would be better if they had less sail area.

There's a reason that guys like Sean Langman have dropped out of the supermaxi race; he (and Ludde Ingvall, I think) have said that a novel low-budget effort like that of Nicorette or Xena just can't compete when the only limit is LOA.

Of course, we can also look at other sports. From Formula One, Moto GP to bicycle racing, they have stringent restrictions on many dimensions of the gear that is allowed in the major events. They don't just allow in any car lor motorbike within a certain length or engine capacity to race F1 and Moto GP, and they don't allow you to turn up to the Tour de France with any bicycle that fits within a certain length. The restrictions that are there encourage development through other avenues than simply doing things like increasing engine (or rig) size; for example the current fascination for aero road bicycles is often said to be caused by the imposition of a minimum weight for bicycles. Ironically, the weight restriction pushed development into a different area, which actually improves performance more!

As events from the Moth worlds to the Tour de France show, restrictions don't stop people from pushing the limits and creating development - they can just steer it in more efficient directions. And yes, I'd love to see more one design offshore racing, but that probably won't happen until we start stressing development in terms of speed, and start stressing development in terms of making the sport more popular and affordable, which is in essence the same sort of thing I'm advocating with restrictions on the maxis.

 

Sure... but there is plenty of limited stuff already. To limit everything is a mistake.

But the wouldn't if certain people had their way, foils would be banned.

Look @ IOR and the distorted boats it produced... limits need limits.

In the areas that where not limited... which is kinda my point.

That is no argument for limits everywhere! Control freaks stifle what might be.

F1, good case in point. The regs have put cost through the roof and are destroying the sport! These new engines have pushed costs to extremes in that area, they have driven two teams to the wall this year. They basically try and regulate every innovation out of the sport causes higher cost as teams spend more money searching for a way around the current regs. Looser regulations would make the sport more viable IMO. Control a few key dimensions an capacities then let the designers do what they do. Control freaks are killing F1 talk to a few hardcore fans.

What? You suggest that they'd have not there anyway? You can't be serious.

Sorry, that is the arrogance of control freaks... they think they can predetermine the "more efficient directions".... by and large they can't!

Freedom must be left somewhere... people can opt for what they want if that is the case. You seem to want to control it everywhere! One size don't fit all... comrade!

 

Oh stop misinterpreting what I said for your own dishonest purposes. Nothing I said indicated that I want to control everything.

The fact is that classes with multiple limits (like Moths with their restrictions on LOA, beam, sail area and hull configuration, which gave us wings and foils) and even classes as tightly controlled as 505s and Contenders gave us innovations like the early carbon spars and hulls. These classes demonstrate that you can have much tighter limits than the supermaxis do and yet still create innovations.

You claimed that I lied when I said that I did not give you a bad rep. What I said was the truth. If you are so arrogant that you assume that people lie repeatedly when you have not the slightest evidence of it, then you are not a person worth dealing with. You've just become the second person I have ever put on ignore, anywhere.

I assume your avatar is of a failed fascist dictator - it's quite apt for you!

 

Yet you seemingly want to shut down freedoms where they exist, not happy with the myriad limited classes. Who is being dishonest?

WHY? This serves no purpose at this end of the game! Budgets are not the issue for these guys so let them innovate!!!! It is really being petty seeking to drag them into some class structure that you deem suitable. They are not building these boats to race 'class'.... they can go 1000 places and do that. They want to push limits, they have the money to push limits so why on earth whine about it??????!!!!!! It is not like it actually effects you in anyway... despite the spurious cost concerns you raise.

The language used reflects your ensuing post exactly and the timing is also an exact match. No one else had a dog in that fight... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then...

Go on use ignore, those that lack integrity tend to.

+ I laid no such claim! I simply stated that I don't believe what you are telling me. There is no proof to my satisfaction that it is correct.

It is private joke Joyce! LOL that is amusing the guy who is advocating more control is calling the guy arguing for retaining a small amount of freedom a dictator! Do you hear yourself?

 

Just to keep our overseas members apprised, the latest predictions are for light winds at
the start of the race, then strong headwinds for a day, followed by light winds on the last day or so.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-22/sydney-to-hobart-fleet-in-for-bumpy-ride/5982998?section=sport

 

I wish we could regulate the weather!

Maybe we will break some of the big boats! What fun that will be.

 

You blokes need to get some Christmas cheer and good will towards men (even dumb ones on forums).

 

Why? Spoil my fun.