Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!

Every new development is fraught with danger and the possibility of failure and everybody involved is aware of that. Reichel-Pugh and McConaghy- designers and builders of "Q" -are among the most innovative and successful at their respective trades worldwide-their reputations are impeccable.
The comments like " leading edge development becoming bleeding edge" development, "It DID NOT fail safely", "...great example of consciously deciding to NOT make mandatory systems failsafe", " sailing is a practical pastime(!?)" and more are unwarranted, unfortunate and completely without merit.
The designer, builder, skipper and crew deserve better particularly now when nobody outside of this small group has a clue about what actually happened. Nobody has a clue but here and on other forums there is no shortage of damning criticism based on pure unadulterated speculation.
---
What is known is that this small group had the guts, courage ,money, determination and and vision to begin the development of a whole new form of canting keel movable ballast system. The system uses some of the well proven concepts from the innovative CBTF system-twin foils for developing lateral resistance coupled with max movement of a canting keel. This small group of visionary yacht designers, engineers, builders and sailors has a tremendous history of successful innovation and should be accorded the respect they are due instead of being subjected to wholly uninformed, speculative criticism based on absolutely no factual ,firsthand information.

click on image:

 

I think from just looking at the capsize picture anyone can reasonably surmise what happened. The ballast mechanism failed to work properly. It is clearly stuck in the wrong position.

Doesn't take a genius to see this is a very unsafe machine.

It is so inherently unsafe that it's hazard is obvious to anyone who has ever been on a large sailboat.

If the keel gets stuck on one side or the other, the boat is in great peril.

I see no way to guarantee that won't happen. A manual back up system, where the crew can turn a crank to move the keel might help. But if, for some reason that gets stuck, your sunk. Maybe even literally.

If you have as much money as these guys do, maybe you don't care.

Certainly someone will come along and fish you out of the drink if things go badly. (that's why they have us little people pay taxes)

I am not condemning this because its a canting keel. I have said in previous posts that such is a proven technology. And even before it was, it was a likely one. That is because the original canting keels went no more than 30 deg. to either side. Even if they got stuck, the boat was still somewhat useable.

This particular example is a good idea taken to a bad extreme by middle aged adults who should know better.

Taking a good idea to such an extreme is not my idea of innovation.
All the superlatives (and scolding digs) anyone can utter will not change that.

 

"Q"- extraordinary innovation

=======================
You don't have enough information to make these comments-yet you do it anyway?! Too bad.....
But the facts and further development stands an excellent chance of doing just that.
You know, on Wild Oats the problem was that someone forgot to bend a cotter pin over as I remember it-it was a silly, minor mistake. Yet many, many people on numerous forums said things like: "Anyone can reasonably surmise what happened-the ballast mechanism failed to work properly. It was clearly stuck in the wrong position. Doesn't take a genius to see this is a very unsafe machine." Those type of comments were made years ago by people with absolutely no knowledge of what happened aboard Wild Oats-a problem, it turns out, that was a minor glitch that when fixed allowed the boat to pursue an extraordinary racing carrer with 4-5 Sydney Hobarts to her credit among others.
Making assumptions with no facts is a slippery slope...........

 

<removed>, whats this "we don't know - nobody knows"

of course we know in Sydney, a syn cable snapped, so what ?

the point is the redundancy

the keel ended up in it's default position, aided by gravity, it's physics you see

the boat rotated around that to it's default position

 

"Q"- extraordinary innovation

The fact that the system failed is not an explanation of why it failed. I've looked everywhere I can and as best I can tell there has been no information published by the engineer's, designers, or crew about the cause of the problem. Anything else is speculation-until the facts are presented by those involved, we don't know a thing as to why it failed.
I've written to Jim Pugh about it-I'm hoping his response will reveal more about the system.

 

I generally don't consider the Vatican a great source of objective discussion on problems within the Catholic church. It will be interesting to see what response you get.

Gybeset's ability to listen to the jungle drums in Sydney is probably the closest thing we've got to hear about what did happen. It has been my experience that sailors talk in bars about current events in their locale. I'm sure this capsize is a topic for talking during the consumption of cold beer there.

The interesting thing about this design is that the axis of rotation for the canting keel is inboard, and not on the hull bottom plain. This is how they are making it gain a significant range of rotation mechanically. As well, the lever arm to control the keel can be significant, which means less power is required than a shorter lever arm at the hull surface on the bottom of the hull. In many ways, the greatest area of risk and experimentation on this boat is the "band" of hull surface that must be moving and altering radius to allow the keel position to change so significantly. Canting keelers up to this point have not moved the whole hull surface to follow the keel exit point like this - and doing so with a variable radius bottom is pretty cool.

Since this is the major design departure/innovation, and it seems to function fine, I'd say this particular capsize happened due to mechanical issues as Gybeset has pointed out. Failure of the canting mechanism's components (synthetic lines breaking if his info is right) is not in the area of most innovation of this design. From a failure analysis and resolution standpoint this is a far easier fix than if the variable radius keel exit point had trouble.

Gybeset's points about dealing with functional failure of canting keel, apparent lack of redundancy and the extreme range of rotation are perfectly valid points to bring up in a discussion about this type of system. I agree with him that 180 degree or more rotation of the canting keel is dangerous - especially if that is the primary contributor of righting moment in the design. One bad 30 degree header windshift going upwind and it is entirely possible a boat like this could have more photos like this taken. Having the keel bulb that far out means the wind necessary to keep the system in balance better be steady in both pressure and direction.

Therein lies my lack of enthusiasm (so far) for this - there is enough constantly changing variables on the water to make theoretical solutions like this impractical in the real world. If all things were perfect, I think this type of system could work. But wind, wave, sea state and people are all imperfect - even if the design works perfectly. Racing windward / leeward with lots of other boats also creates imperfect situations.

I guess if you are willing to accept that Q is like a skiff or dinghy, and capsizes are fine, then the design may be perfectly acceptable. If you are expecting it to behave like a racing keelboat and provide the same safety, then Q may not be ready for prime time.

(For Stumble all these things can be derived just from looking at photographs and working out the mechanics necessary to provide the functions specified. It is pretty obvious to me.)

--
CutOnce

 

"Q"- extraordinary innovation

========================
This is uninformed speculation since none of the FACTS have been released by those involved.

 

Doug:

The boat DOES have 180 degrees of canting keel rotation. Fact.

The boat was built as light as possible, with the canting keel as it's primary righting moment contributor. Fact.

The boat is very narrow for it's length, with prismatic co-efficient optimized for low drag. Fact.

Narrow beam means there is low form stability when compared to beamier designs. Fact.

If there was a functional fail safe mechanism in place to cause the keel to return to the safe, middle position on canting mechanism trouble, this whole discussion would not be happening - because the boat would not have capsized. Fact.

Going upwind at 45 degrees or better with canting keel fully deployed to windward is only possible if the wind pressure balances the righting moment equally. Otherwise the boat would either heel further or heel to windward. Since the forces in play are in significant and balanced, any change causing the wind pressure dropping to negligible (major head windshift) would cause the boat to heel to extreme windward. Fact.

These are all facts, not conjecture. There is some doubt about exactly the cause of the failure of the canting mechanism, but these facts as reported are confirmed from design descriptions, multiple published pictures and discussion about this very interesting and attention-getting boat design.

Designs like this push the boundaries - and they have to ... to achieve the spectacular results that are theoretically possible. Every choice made by a designer and owner during the design phase comes at a cost - and in this case they went all-in (to use a poker term). I'm very much a fan and admire this level of commitment and guts - but the risk involved was well understood by the designers and owner before they dropped the boat in the water the first time. Reichel Pugh and the Oatley family are not strangers to this - they clearly knew the risks in this design, and clearly proceeded with full knowledge of the potential for this to happen. I sincerely doubt Reichel Pugh would have failed to run the numbers regarding stability and the potential for capsize. I give them more credit than you.

This design has very spectacular potential if conditions are perfect - and that comes at the price of pictures like the one you posted if things are not perfect. I'm willing to bet they knew full well that capsize was predictable and I'd even guess that the design was optimized to deal with capsize without drama. The evidence of the photos published indicates the capsize did not cause any trouble for the hull or crew, and it appears there was little to no water intrusion - which leads me to surmise that Reichel Pugh anticipated this and prepared the boat for this eventuality. To some degree, this is a non-event as the repair to the canting mechanism will take place, and I think this boat will back on the water with no further drama.

It seems your desire to discredit my opinions have the actual effect of dismissing the potential that Oately/Reichel Pugh actually knew what they were doing and planned ahead for this. I doubt there is going to be parliamentary inquiry into the event, as there was no apparent damage.

Do I think the Q design capable of spectacular performance in the right conditions - absolutely. Do I agree with Gybeset's opinions about the design's inherent safety as compared to similar 42' keelboats raced in the same category? Yes.

--
CutOnce

 

========================
Agreed.
Conjecture-not based on facts known about this boat but on assumptions:
1) there is no publically available info as to what the design/and or prismatic is optimized for.
-
2) pure speculation: there is no publically available information as to the existence or functionality of any so-called "fail safe" system or for that matter on any detail of the design of this system.
-
3) Uninformed speculation because the details of the response time and the manner in which the keel system is designed to respond is not publically available. For instance, the keel may not just rotate-when at max cant it may be able to retract/ extend in response to the slightest change in wind pressure. All speculation based on no FACTS.
-
4) There is no desire on my part to discredit your opinion-and your saying so is just another example of how freely you speculate on subjects you don't know enough about. My desire is to point out speculation on a new design(in the guise of "failure analysis") that is not based on the facts. Such speculation is unfair to the designers, engineers and crew of the boat. And more often than not is based on scenarios created in a framework lacking any facts whatsoever and compounded by the manipulation of certain facts without any basis in terms of the actual design of "Q".
I have seen this kind of marauding speculative dissing directed my way or towards other innovators in similar situations as are the developers of "Q" and find it intolerable, unfortunate and without any redeeming value.
Wait for the FACTS!!!

 

Bullfeathers. Just look at a Sydney 42 or any other comparative, current competitive boat. They all exhibit wider beam from midship aft. The beam aids in increasing form stability and reducing needed ballast. As the Q ballast is much more effective due to the extreme canting, is is pretty obvious Reichel Pugh opted to make this boat very responsive and fast with low drag. At your experience level you must be able to quickly visually assess a design, and this one appears quite narrow and fast. I doubt after paying millions of dollars for this boat that actual design documents will ever be released for public scrutiny.

It is called visual evidence. Whether or not the design actually incorporated a fail-safe system system for canting keel problems is moot. It fell over and there are pictures. People there have represented that although shifty, the wind did not drop to nothing and the boat slowly fell to windward after a loud bang. Others have commented that the boat has departed 5 times and been towed back three or more times. The boat falling over is perfectly clear evidence that a FUNCTIONING fail safe is not present.

According to on-site reports, the keel does not retract or extend - it rotates around an inboard axis as I have postulated. You seem to be the one speculating here. As I postulated, on-site reports indicate a large engine is running to drive the canting mechanism, and it is required to move the keel. I've researched my assumptions, and the reports so far available lead me to believe my conclusions aren't far off the mark.

Well, your constant contrary responses are pretty damning evidence. Although historically you've gone back after the fact and changed your posts to reflect reality after proven wrong. If you are lucky, by the time the truth comes out no one will be interested enough to re-open this thread and see how things worked out. How about you stop altering history in your prior posts and see what happens? I'll live by my observations to this point.

Please find attached a text file that contains bookmarks that substantiate the references I've made to "on-site" comments and conclusions drawn. I've done my homework here. Dig the links out of the text file and you can read the same material I did.

--
CutOnce

 

================
That is 100% false! Misrepresenting the facts should be beneath you as should this kind of pathetic, outrageous personal attack.

 

Q- from Nicole Scott

from her blog:

Ian Oatley’s canting keeled Reichel/Pugh 42 capsized after a keel malfunction off the Point at Watsons Bay, shortly before 2.00pm on Sunday 29.5.11 in the Audi CYCA Winter Series. This unfortunate incident has been at the scrutiny of the press worldwide this week. Many have been quick to voice an opinion, criticise, and some have even condemned the photographers for taking the shot, which is okay as that’s why we have forums and freedom of speech.

Sunday saw me on tour sailing around the Harbour on “Wot Eva”, however I was right on “Q”. As one of the photographers who captured the yacht capsized; seeing crew members clutching on while trying to get the boat upright, could easily and has been described as every photographers dream to not only seize the moment but to have my photos published worldwide.

I was lucky enough to get these shots and yes my photos were published worldwide, however I have also been lucky enough to capture this beautiful yacht on the waters of Sydney Harbour many times through the week and at weeks on end.

I use the word beautiful to describe “Q” because to me it is and my view on whether it’s beautiful or ugly really only matters to me. I see beauty through my camera and as they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As one who photographs yachts day in day out, a boat of any size and colour to me is an object a subject that has style and beauty.

“Q” is a masterpiece within it’s own right, it is the conception of great minds with vision. It is a creation where we see technology being tested, technology that will take yachting into the future and beyond. As a female when it comes to “technical stuff”, let’s face it I’m not a genius in this department. I mean seriously ask me how the mechanics of cars and motorbikes work or how to change a tyre and I’ll be the first to admit I call one of my many guy pals to come to my rescue.

When it comes to the technical side of cameras I’m in my comfort zone yet with yachts I know the basics. I know how and why they work and know enough to get me by in a conversation with the boys back at the club but anything beyond the basics……well that’s when I sip on my drink and just take notes and listen, and I do take it all on board.

For Ian Oatley, his crew, and those who designed and physically built “Q” I take my hat off to them for having the guts to be different. “Q” may have a few technical issues to sort through right now, nevertheless I’m sure Ian Oatley’s team will come up trumps. It is important to remember; quality and innovative technology are the foundations of a production that challenges and creates high performance with design, form with function. Problems arise from technology which in turn creates solutions and a way forward for the future.

http://nicolescottimages.com/2011/06/01/on-tour-on-q/

gorgeus picture by Nicole Scott:

 

Now that I think of it, this thing could work. And it could work all the way to the extent of becoming a successful inshore foiler. The technology to precisely control the ballast arm has been around for years. It is electro-mechanical, so must be well protected from salt water and salt mist.

Given these rules it could probably work.

The thing not to skimp on is the arm canting mechanism. It must be:
1.) so strong it cannot think of breaking,
2.) reasonably quick,
3.) have a manual backup, and
4.) it has to be lockable in the under hull center line position

This will require electric or pneumatic motors, which, in turn, are going to require a robust primary power source of some kind, batteries and diesels come first to mind. A manual back up, no matter how slow will be needed on top of that, if this is to be at all called self rescuing.

As with a multihull, everything is fine and workable until the thing capsizes.

Then the excitement starts. Depending on the sea state at the time, this could be anything from bruised egos and bodies, to a major accident, including fatalities. In a rough sea, the mast and rig will not likely last long. With the boat on its side and the sails up, it will be exposed to the full fury of breaking seas. Then, it is very likely that spars or pieces of spars will pierce the hull and deck, causing severe flooding or sinking.

It is mainly for this reason, I condemn this concept.

My biggest fear is that one or two of these might successfully cross an ocean in rough conditions, leading to claims of the ultimate safety of the design. Then there will be fleets of these, built to various standards materials and workmanship. Then the disasters would start.

Conceivably, a skipper with bigger brains than ego, would switch to fixed keel mode, by canting the ballast arm beneath the boat, then locking it there. The sails could then be reefed making a quite seaworthy boat, providing either the canting mechanism or the lock didn't fail. The problem is, how many racing skippers are like that? Certainly not the ones that win.

The overwhelming temptation will be to sail to maximum potential in all conditions. And the first skipper to do so and get away with it will not only be called a hero, but a great sea man as well.

I supposed, multihulls were banned for similar reasons at the turn of the 20th century (as well as the fearful prospect of the entire fleet of existing boats becoming instant white elephants). This ban was short circuited by the cruising community by the first half of the 20th century. And for good reason. Sensibly sailed and sensibly designed, there is nothing wrong with a multihull

Multihulls have virtues other than simply being fast. They can have loads of deck space, can sail in shallow water, and don't heel much. All of these virtues are coveted by the cruising community.

In cruising, the skipper can be safer than the boat. In racing, the boat had better be safer than the skipper.

Much the opposite of what one would expect.

 

====================================

Sharpii2, question to the "it could probably work" department:

When I first came up with the idea of 110 degree(220 total) canting keel 5+ years ago for the 60' Moth it was to work in conjunction with sliding on-deck water ballast(faster than pumped,incrementally controllable) so this was not a problem: a canting keel like "this"(and "this" is speculation), when at max cant, has no way to effectively respond quickly to changes in pressure like gusts unless it can be quickly retracted(not canted). Quickly canting back 25 degrees would hardly change RM. At least I don't see how it could work otherwise, do you?

 

------------------------
To the "everybody is going to die department":
---
I think it is premature to condemn "this" concept since neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how it is designed to work!
I think there are all kinds of ways something like this could work with fail safe systems etc. In addition, this kind of ballast solution allows the total amount of ballast to be significantly less than either a fixed keel or 40 degree VO70 canting keel . That could allow enough flotation to prevent sinking w/o taking up too much interior space. If the design allows for manual movement of the keel then so much the better but until we know exactly what the design of this system is and how it is actually supposed to work condemning the concept seems like premature overkill.
PS- and if the designers ,engineers and sailors get it right the boats could be almost as fast as multihulls and self-righting and/or rightable by the crew which would allow speed freaks to have their cake and eat it too. I'll bet on this outcome and even one step further with various combinations of movable and fixed ballast allowing foiling keel boats that take the speed thing one step further with, if they get it right, a high degree of safety and reliability. Another point: use of these kinds of movable ballast systems or combinations of movable ballast and fixed ballast with lifting hydrofoils allows the hull design to be drastically changed-no longer would very wide "Open 60" type hulls be required. That could lead to much more seakindly keelboats on and off the foils with narrower shapes not so inclined to pound. Further, the damping of excessive motion with foils is well known and would help the new breed of ocean racer even when in conditions not suitable for foiling. Think about it-there is potential with this stuff......