Quant 23 Foiler Scow

Quant fleet in Switzerland-more pix to come:
(003 on two sets of sails-one guy lent another his old sails-Michi)

 

Fleet video-light air:

 

Quant 23-Test weekend for Foiling Novices:

 

Great picture of the Quant 23-the worlds first keelboat foiler and one of the few foilers of any size that will takeoff in a 5mph breeze:

 

Its the new AC boat , but slightly larger

 

There are a very small number of people who know what the rules for the next AC boat will be, and only if the rules specify the design quite tightly does anyone know what the boats will look like.

One thing for certain is that it will be a lot larger (almost 3 times the length) of a Quant 23, it will not be smaller.

Doug's claim that a Quant 23 will "take off in 5 mph of breeze" is unsubstantiated.

 

====================
That is false. I was told that the boat would takeoff in 5 kts by both Michi(owner of the company) and Hugh Welbourn, the designer. See post 41 and the bottom of post 122 in Michi's own words. There are several other references to the light air performance of the boat including that it foils upwind in 7-8 knots.
There is a cool description ,probably still on the website, where the Quant 23 was out with a Moth and foiling A Cat in very light air and foiled before either of them!
From Michi:

Another day of testing on Lake of Garda without the conditions one would expect. Very light northerly breeze. We went out to do some practicing in the light and to look for speed and angles - also best heel angles - while sailing upwind in displacement mode.

As you all know, good lightwind performance is vital on the lakes of Europe and elsewhere maybe as well - and the development from the proto to the production boat definitely went in the right direction.

------

As "We sailed upwind that the day - just the two of us - when Roger suggested to bear away, trying to foil under kite. He obviously did that before, when i got stuck in the office. I thought he is joking - but we did and then somebody took this pic!(see pix below) I estimated 4kts true around my nose - a sailing coach nearby on a RIB told us later about the measured true windspeed in over 2m above waterlevel: 3.5kts!
I am fully aware that you never know about the layers of wind higher up in the rig. But however, foiling in these conditions is new i guess. And A-Cat and Moth-Sailors
in the neighborhood said that there was no way to get up and going (a bit later we actually passed one of the latest type of foiling A-Cat on leeward, coming from

behind) ".

 

Is a claim by a manufacturer "substantiated"? There have been many manufacturers who claim that their boats are the best of their type and they can't all be right.

Is there evidence that the Quant 23 is going around racecourses faster than any other modern trapeze powered "keelboat" with such a low ballast ratio? I'm keeping a lookout for race results and don't see them crushing the fleet regularly, or even winning regularly.

 

-------------------------------
The discussion isn't about how fast the Quant is or isn't- it is about light air takeoff.
And yes it was substantiated not only by the manufacturer and designer but by a sailing coach nearby who actually measured the windspeed. Professional observations further substantiate the Quants phenomenal light air take off performance with a description of a foiling A Cat and Moth still stuck on the water when the Quant flew.

 

Since the information about the "sailing coach" came from the same source, it's not independent substantiation. This isn't claiming that anyone is being dishonest, it's just that a manufacturer is not an unbiased source of information about their own product or about what evidence they use to promote it. There are innumerable other products that claim to be the best. Since they cannot all be true, we know that we cannot believe such claims.

Here's an example; Quantum claims to make "the fastest and most efficient sail shapes and structures possible." Ullman claim to have "the fastest sails". They can't both have the fastest sails, so we can't believe them both.

If we don't believe all the sailmakers' claims, why should we believe the claims from Quant? And if the Q23 has great light air performance, why isn't it winning more races? If it's not winning lots of races then why use it as a model for an AC boat?

 

If you believe that these people are reputable* and that they are telling the truth then that means the Q23 has remarkable light air performance. And that has been well substantiated.
Casting aspersions on Michi and Hugh to make an obnoxious point is just wrong. These guys are well respected and would no more make up BS about any boat of theirs than fly to the moon. Doing that would kill their reputations.
Suggesting they would because some other manufacturers might have is totally wrong and offensive.

 

Someone's nose–o–meter and someone else nearby saying they read something on some unnamed, uncalibrated measuring device is proof of nothing. It's opinion, and doesn't substantiate your claim at all.

The product brochure says "Steady foiling from 6kts wind", which is about 50% more than your claimed "5mph". While that isn't "proof" of much either, at least it's a public claim that can be legally tested (if someone wishes to) and no doubt will be tested if enough people start sailing the boat in earnest. So I expect it's reasonably accurate.

Wind does not have the same speed everywhere, nor is it at all constant, especially on inland lakes. An anemometer in conditions that might be described as "5 kn of wind" could read anywhere from 3kn to 7kn at any particular moment in time. Two instruments as little as 10m apart might have instantaneous readings that vary by 50%.

Also, once a foiler gets foiling, the apparent wind will often allow it to sustain foiling in less breeze than it required to start foiling in the first place. So it would be quite reasonable for the boat to get foiling in a bit of a puff and sustain it even when the breeze drops a bit. And also for boats nearby to not get the puff at all, or to be in a lull. Get out on a lake and go sailing in a fleet.

The Quant 23 is a great boat foils very well in light breeze, but the claim that it will "take off in 5 mph of breeze" remains unsubstantiated. 6kn to 7kn is more realistic.

 

Good to see the old Doug is back. Let's see:

If you believe that these people are reputable and that they are telling the truth…​

No one said they weren't. You made an unsubstantiated claim as if it was fact. Michael Aeppli was relating
an anecdote that, roughly translated, says "I think the wind was light, maybe 4kn" but without any supporting evidence. You then decide to make a claim of fact based on it.

…that means the Q23 has remarkable light air performance. And that has been well substantiated.​

There's you flawed logic. You take an anecdote as fact and then say "it's substantiated". No, it's not. It's an anecdote, a story about an event based on recollections, without a single reference to a verifiably accurate wind reading.

Casting aspersions on Michi and Hugh to make an obnoxious point is just wrong.​

Your mock indignance on behalf of others is utterly misplaced, no one is casting aspersions on Michael Apelli. He just recounted his recollection of the event. However, you made a claim of something that is unsubstantiated. The issue is with you taking a few comments and extrapolating to make them absolute fact.

These guys are well respected and would no more make up BS about any boat of theirs than fly to the moon. Doing that would kill their reputations.​

Which might be why the quant brochure claims foiling in 6 to 7 kns, not 4.

Suggesting they would because some other manufacturers might have is totally wrong and offensive.​

You run off at the most obtuse tangents. It was an example of how obviously incompatible statements can be made by reputable firms. The conclusion of your logic is that no one should question the story because that would, ipso facto, cause offence to the story teller. More accurately, because you have taken offence.

You have taken an anecdote and transformed it into fact so immutable as to be, in your mind, unquestionable by anyone. Your claim remains unsubstantiated.

 

Well said Fred.

I specifically said that I wasn't claiming that anyone was being dishonest, so it is ridiculous to say that I was implying that. The issue is that no one who puts their heart, soul and money into a project like this can be unbiased, no matter how honest, reputable and upright they may be. Humans are subject to bias, and it's a scientific fact. How many people do we all know who reckon their baby is the cutest ever or their dog is the best ever? Read about the psychological factors involving cognition and you'll see the scientific facts of the matter and why we can't simply accept the words of people on face value.

Leaving all that aside, there's a simple issue. The boats have now been out for some time, and yet the results I can find indicate they have won no significant events. Maybe I've missed some wins, but I've found many races where the Q23s have been beaten by older conventional boats. If a design is consistently beaten by an older boat that carries around more lead and doesn't use a trapeze, it's hard to see why it should be used as the model for an AC boat.

I was spurred by this to look up the last Bol d'or results. Wow, the only Q28 was 15 minutes slower than the J/70 and slower across the line than the first of the old 25' cruiser/racer Surprises. So it leads again to the interesting question - if we look at the results of a design's good races, shouldn't we also look at the result of its bad races as well to get a true picture of its performance?

 

In my opinion, the observations of the professional builders and designers involved with the Quant 23 do substantiate the light air performance of the Quant 23.
Discounting their conclusions is just absurd.