Speed Dream 27 Prototype

David Keiper was THE pioneer - but Williwaw was not that fast, no better than any other cruising multihull of the time.
We sailed against him (in a 38 foot Nicol trimaran) during an Auckland Regatta years ago, when he had recently crossed from Hawaii to NZ, and Williwaw was much faster than us in the gusting winds but slower in the lulls.
He invited me on board when moored at Westhaven. The tri was impressive in its simplicity; definitely a good philosophy to follow.
The most important point I remember him saying was that in bouncing, heaving, unpleasant wave conditions, Williwaw with her foils was a far better, comfortable boat than any other type he'd been on. Also given fresh winds the boat sprinted and stayed at 20 knots for long periods. Great excitement because his multiple ladder foils gave a fast, safe ride.
His book, Hydrofoil Voyager is a must read. Check Amazon and ABebooks.
Here's my shot of Williwaw, foils folded on deck, in Auckland.

 

I had dinner with you and Albert on Tuesday evening during IBEX.

 

It was nice meeting you David, and I look forward to interesting discussions on
BoatDesign Forums.
Cheers,
Vlad

 

======================
Whats amazing is that you think that-but I'm trying.....Heres a link to tell you about Williwaw: http://www.foils.org/dak.htm
PS great info Gary!

 

Er, no. It is not a zero sum game as you imply. Most sailing magazines and websites are looking for any content they can use these days. They will give rave comments about any vaporware someone sends them. They will double down on any marketing hype they are fed.

They need to feed the beast (daily, in the case of websites), to get the eyeballs and the dollars that come with that. There is little discriminating journalism anymore.

 

I see you, not only boat design is bad, journalism is bad too.
In fact there plenty of good nautical journalists out there who are good sailors as well, and they've learned a thing or two about boat design - unlike most people commenting on this blog.
If you do have any designs of your own (?)- go ahead and try to sell them to indiscriminate journalists and see whether anybody would publish them.

 

Thank you Dave and Gary fro sharing Williwaw information!

 

Record boat must be fast firstly. Publish is next and not neccesarily IMHO

 

Hi CutOnce,

I would like to get in touch with you outside of this forum.
We are working on various SpeedDream concept applications into mainstream sailing - you could see more on our web-site: www.mxSpeedDream.com
We are currently talking to potential investors and venture capitalists, and it seems that you might help us with that. If you are interested, you can contact me via email: vlad@speeddream.org.

Cheers,
Vlad

 

How about posting some performance numbers from your sailing so far Vlad? I asked a while ago what your performance prediction methodology and package was, don't think you replied? Was it a RANS CFD code? Some deal with separation better than others (referring to your step). Also what will happen when the ballast package is porpoising through waves, will the boat become unstable in yaw with periodic large lateral shifts of drag? I applaud you for your efforts, but I'm also a bit sceptical about the claims that are being made...probably better to get out and do it before making claims that can't be substantiated. See what's happening to Fraser on SA if you want to see what happens when the marketing comes before the boat, so to speak.

 

Excuse me, what is Fraser on SA?

 

Vlad;

When you protest about the way others write about you, how can you then talk of "stupid box rules" in which design is all about "cheating"?

Is that not insulting the very large numbers of sailors, designers and rulemakers who find box rules to be interesting, challenging and fascinating?

Are all the IMOCA sailors, all the Moth sailors and Merlin sailors and TP52 sailors and Irens and Farr and Morrison and Beiker and all the others who are into box rules REALLY all chasing something "stupid" and engaged only in "cheating"???

So the British designers who found that you could make a dinghy faster by giving it U-shaped sections were cheats? Uffa Fox was "cheating" with Avenger? The R Class sailors were "cheats" when they created twin trapping off racks? The Moth sailors are "cheats" when they created foilers?

Are all those who created these "stupid" rules stupid as well?

 

Good points CT,

I have to admit that I've got carried away by the general tone of this thread and used some unnecessary expressive words.

That said, here's a few points I'd like to make in return.

1. I was attacked personally and all I've done in return was to voice my opinion about the handicap rules. Big difference, hah?

2. Back in 2010 Dave Hollom published in Seahorse Magazine a series of interesting articles on rating and design rules, called "Rules of engagement".
Here's just one quote:

"The rules are there to slow boats down. They tax, or limit, or prohibit features or measurements that enhance speed.
The designer is there to speed up the boat up so his first job is to see if there are any loopholes, things that are not covered, woolly wording and so on.
In a sense the rulemaker is the gamekeeper, the designer is the poacher."

I bet most of my fellow designers, including those you've mentioned in your comment would agree with that.

3. Box Rules are especially terrible in my opinion. Who should claim that boat of a certain length should have certain beam, displacement, ballast weight, mast height, sail area, freeboard, etc, etc, etc?
Who could claim that they know the optimal equation for an ideal 70-footer, or 52-footer, or 40-footer?
This really reminds me Soviet Union where Politburo new everything that's good for you...
If we agree not to call this stupid, let's call it ridiculous.

4. Now, Open Rules are entirely different matter, and most of the examples you've mentioned fall into this category. IMOCA, Moth, 18ft skiffs...
IMOCA remains so successful for so long to a large extend because it's an Open Rule, or at least it used to be the one...
And I've always been a strong proponent of the Open Rules.
Freedom is always better than restrictions!

5. And here's another quote for a parting thought, this one from Thomas Alva Edison:
"Hell, there are no rules here, we are trying to accomplish something."

This could be our motto at SpeedDream.

 

Innovation challenges many people. If you think outside the box, they want to know why you are unhappy with the box and isn't this, by extension, a criticism of them? AND if you are unhappy in the box, it must be because you don't fully understand the virtues of the box and why it is so unsafe outside the box. AND look at all the people who went outside and failed.
All that being said, it is a mistake to discount the long tradition of trial and error. Many of the things we use today look the way they look because they work pretty well that way and work less well other ways. Lots of ideas have been tried and discarded, so it is a good idea to respect just how hard it is to beat the house.
I expect the speed dream prototype to be pretty quick because it is pretty light, plenty long and has a canting keel and a big rig. I mean lets face it, a 27' long boat that displaces 420kg with a 180 KG bulb on the end of a 3 meter long blade and a nice big rig is going to go pretty well no matter what shape the hull is. On the basis of length weight, keel depth & cant angle , this thing ought to be faster than almost every sub 30" keel boat on the planet. On the other hand it's a pretty damn deep keel boat and the upright draft is a hell of a compromise for performance!
SHC

 

There's always a box. Its just a question of whether its your own or one you agree with other people. We all know how to make the fastest racing craft about. You build the biggest, longest, largest sail area multihull that the most expensive materials available will keep together for the duration of the competition. But unless you're Larry Ellison that's not very practical. Personally I don't even find it very interesting.

Here you've defined a box of your own that is, what, 27 feet long, monohull, movable ballast, probably some other stuff. That's your privilege.

Some of us find it interesting to play in a box agreed with other people. In music we have a phrase - creative limitations - which is about how limitations in one direction - a monophonic instrument perhaps - can inspire you to play stuff that is more creative in certain directions because there are only certain directions one can explore. The modern Moth is probably the definitive poster child for creative limitations. The Moth box, moderate sail area, no multihulls etc is what stopped the Moth class trophies being competed for by effectively A Class catamarans, which were for many years the fastest inshore racing boats on the planet. Those limitations also meant that wing mounted foils were banned. So the modern Moth was entirely formed *because* the limits of the box rule forced creativity down a path that had not been travelled before.

I think you're also making a very common conflation of rating rules and box rules. In rating rules, and especially in handicap rating rules one line of approach is certainly "the boat can be dog slow so long as the formula thinks its even slower". That doesn't appeal to me, and it probably doesn't appeal to you either.

But in the true box rules that's not the case. In the box rule classes I've sailed in recent years I've had a shopping list of numbers that mustn't be exceeded or whatever the opposite of exceeded is, and that's it. No formulas, no tricking the rules, and if you find a loophole its speedily closed. And what on earth makes you think the Moths and 18 footers aren't box rules? Rotten 'ell, the Eighteens even have one design hulls these days.

I've designed and built a boat in my own box, and I've designed and built boats in boxes agreed with other people. Both are reasonable approaches, but on the whole I find the shared box to be a more absorbing challenge.