Canting Keel Monos vs Multihulls

[Doug Lord]

mono future

You know the records probably say more about current and past technology than they do about the "future of canting ballast technology" (1st post). For instance, the 2nd CBTF patent is on a canting ballast system whereby the ballast is dramaticaly reduced by the use of a flap on the trailing edge of the ballast strut.
And as I pointed out in my previous post monohull technology is far from fully developed.

 

[Figgy]

Splitting hairs now Doug.

From WSSRC:

k. Monohulls
In the case of a record or performance for a 'monohull', the definition of a 'single-hulled craft' follows major rating rules i.e. the section of the hull wherever taken shall not have more than one inverse curve. WSSRC decision on this classification shall be final.

And just for fun, Wikipedia:

A Monohull is a type of boat having only one hull, unlike multihull boats which can have two or greater numbers of individual hulls connected to one another.

I don't think the "pods" in the pics from SA will cut it.

 

[Doug Lord]

Hairs

But it is a strange multi with a ballast keel and self-righting capability.
I'm not so sure that a version of the maxi skiffs couldn't be designed with wide wings for on-deck movable ballast and with backup buoyancy that didn't look or function like a hull in any way except that in a knockdown it would add to the RM; sort of like the class legal buoyancy in a Moth's wings.
I think it is posssible that a monohull keelboat could be designed, using foils ,on-deck ballast,and fixed or canting keel to be as fast or faster than a multihull- at least in a wide range of conditions.The concept of that kind of speed combined with self-righting seems pretty attractive.
At the very least it's worth investigating wouldn't you think?

 

[Figgy]

At the very least it's worth investigating wouldn't you think?

Of course, but at what point do you end up with a multi that just constantly flies one or more hulls? A rose by any other name..

 

[Doug Lord]

monos

If it only has one hull and is faster than a cat or tri and self-righting I don't think it matters too much what it's called- quite an advance under any definition...
---------------
SA's thread on this subject:
Juan K on Canting Keels - Sailing Anarchy Forums
Address:http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40435

 

[CT 249]

As a cat sailor, from a family with three generations of multi sailing, living aboard, building, designing, and racing, it seems that Juan's comments are arrogant and make it appear that he doesn't know why most people sail.

Many people love the feel of a mono and the way it heels, in the same way that beach cat sailors love to fly a hull, or windsurfers love to lean back, or bike riders love to scrape the pegs in a turn, or waterskiers love to carve through slalom turns, and surfers love a big cutback, and snow skiers love to lean throught the moguls, and skaters etc etc etc etc.

Sure, sailing flat is generally more comfortable for offshore cruising......no arguments here about the merits of cruising multis. But for day sailing, being flat is over-rated by some people (who ignore the fact that to 90% of sailors, heel is fun).

A surprising amount of cruising monos are slow a lot of the time. Others are so fast that they don't fit into confined waters very easily, so they are often not all that much fun for daysailing.

The monos are arguably generally better (in the smaller sizes) accomodation wise; and if speed was all that counted, we would all be sailing windsurfers in the French trench.

If speed was all that counted, the Tour de France would be on motorbikes, the Formula 1 rules would all change, no one watch the 100m sprint at the Olympics, and the Hobie 16, Formula 18 and ORMA 60 classes would die out and be replaced by faster boats. But pure speed is not very important to many sailors (or they wouldn't be sailing).

The fact is that most people choose to sail fairly slow monos. These are NOT stupid people ruled by style or tradition. Many of them are highly intelligent, well-rounded and very knowledgeable and they find a Laser, Folkboat, Beneteau, Dragon or Snipe is just right for them. To say (as Juan does) that they are sailing the wrong sort of boat for the wrong reasons is rather arrogant.

Having said that, I agree with him that canting keels are rather odd......no matter what you do to the keel, the lead-dragging mono is going to be slower than a multi. Better off ensuring the racing monos do what they do best (offering close tactical racing) and let the speed merchants go to the really fast boats ie multis.

 

[Dan S]

The fact is that most people choose to sail fairly slow monos. These are NOT stupid people ruled by style or tradition. Many of them are highly intelligent, well-rounded and very knowledgeable and they find a Laser, Folkboat, Beneteau, Dragon or Snipe is just right for them. To say (as Juan does) that they are sailing the wrong sort of boat for the wrong reasons is rather arrogant.

I'm not going to mention names; but you couldn’t get this simple little fact into the heads of some members of this forum with a sledge hammer.

CT you should add this to your signature that way you don’t have to repeat it or a derivation of it over and over.

 

[CT 249]

Good point!

 

[frosh]

I fully agree also. You don't see plans for Macquarie Innovations selling like hotcakes, as far as I am aware. According the the rantings of one regular poster they bloody well should be!

 

[cleblanc]

If it only has one hull and is faster than a cat or tri and self-righting I don't think it matters too much what it's called- quite an advance under any definition...
---------------

Multi-hulls became common about 40 years ago and right about the same time, some peoples have appear claiming that the boats were not really fast, that they were unsafe and are soon going to be put back in their place by the next generation of racing monohull.

In case of the "super canting keel monohull race boat", in order to succeed, it would have to be much faster than a good racing monohull.

The Reichel-Pugh 80 is one of the fastest racing monohull and here is a link that will show this monohull against a Gunboat 62 cruising catamaran

http://www.gunboat.info/

I have seen some ORMA trimarans and believe me they are way much faster than as Gunboat 62

The second thing is that just prior to "The Race", I remember an interview with Loic Peyron on board of the Innovation explorer 105' racing catamaran. The catamaran was doing some testing of the equipment in what seems like medium conditions and the boat was traveling at 38-40 knots. This was not a record attempt but simply regular sailing conditions.

Dragging a lump of lead in the water is not a solution for going fast. Multihull are using their own weight in order to develop righting moment and to carry large sails. Overall weight is the most important factor in the speed of any sailboat.

Maybe in many years, when the construction techniques will have evolved considerably, we will see boat light enough to become foilers and have enough range to remain airborne in most conditions. These boat will probably become the fastest sailboats around but they are probably going to be built around a multihull platform.

I have seen the Hobie Trifoiler and they are allowed to race against beach catamaran in the US. Their US Sailing rating based on actual result are much slower than a F18 catamaran and barely faster than the Hobie 16 catamaran.

http://www.ussailing.org/portsmouth/pyindex.htm
(lower is better)
Formula 18 Slp spi F18 62.4
Hobie Trifoiler HTRIF [75.0]
WindRider Rave OD Tri WRAV [77.0] (another foiler)
Moth MO 107.1

Foilers can be fast given optimum circumstances but outside from the 500M drag race, it is the average speed that is important.

So this new "super canting keel monohull race boat" stands no chance of being faster than a racing multihull

 

[CT 249]

In some instances - the Moth foiler - the mono foiler is much faster most of the time than a cat of similar dimensions. The Moth yardstick in the USA is decades out of date even for a non-foiler Moth (which can, and does, beat the 3 time world Flying Dutchman champ) and there are no foiler Moths in the USA.

I'm not meaning to say that multis are inherently slower, but the average speed of a Moth foiler is often as fast around the course as one of the world's best 49ers.

Oh, and as a sometime fast cat sailor, pure speed is irrelevant almost all of the time. If pure speed mattered, who would bother building Orange when a bicycle or "tinny" (aluminium outboard tiller-steered runabout) can go faster. The Nacra 5.2 is (compared to some cats) overweight and slow. You probably still have a wonderful time on it and that's great. But in the same way as you probably love your Nacra and the joy it gives you, other people love their H16s,Snipes, Sharks, Beneteaus, Mumm 30s and Sunfish.

 

[Doug Lord]

Movable Ballast Future

cleblanc, CT249 is right but there is more: The Australian rating shows the foiler Moth FASTER than a 49'er; the 11' Foiler Moth has beaten the A-class cat ,F18 and others. All those boats have enormous power to carry sail yet they are still slower than the Moth in conditions that suit them both. You mention the trifoiler and Rave-great boats for top end speed in a strong breeze but not worth a damn in lighter air. The current Moth takes off in about 7 knots and does close to twice+ windspeed in those conditions.The new Bladerider monofoiler claims it will takeoff in 5 knots with a larger main. In 7-20 knots I wouldn't be surprised to see the Moth beat those older multifoilers especially around a course where the Moth Foiler excels-it even outpoints the "conventional" Moth which is saying something about a monofoiler. Two of the BIG differences between a Moth and multifoiler are: 1) the Moth does not use the foils to develop RM; the multifoilers do. 2) The Moth Foiler uses only TWO foils vs the three used by the multifoilers.
In the original post of this thread the quote was of a question and answer asked of Juan K about the future of canting ballast technology.
Some have focused on his answer; I have tried to answer the question by focusing not only on canting ballast technology but on sliding deck ballast in combination as well. As I pointed out, there are several full size projects already underway whose intent is to explore the potential of the Moth monofoiler configuration(just two foils) in larger boats. The Out 95 guys have already built a prototype and are testing it without foils now; their program calls for testing with foils. They're not alone : Langman has said he's interested in doing the same thing.
My point is simply that if the "future of canting ballast technology"(see below) is the question then the answer has not been written yet and the field is wide open especially when you consider other forms of movable ballast and hydrofoils along with "canting ballast" as part of the answer.Remember that the Moth foiler was the FIRST sailboat in history to use the bi-foil concept and that was just a short while ago.The potential of that technology is huge from new dinghy's to supermaxi's-and just like the Moth may be faster than conventional multihulls when applied to larger boats.
Like I just said : if the question is "the future of canting ballast technology" then the answer hasn't been written yet.
--------------------
from the first post of this thread:

...... last paragraph of an interesting interview
with Juan Kouyoumdjian (aka Juan K.) in September Sail magazine.

He's a naval architect who designed the runaway winner (ABN One) in
Volvo Ocean Race.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At end of article they asked: "What is future of canting-ballast
technology?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He replied:
"It depends on acceptance. I could argue that a canting-keel monohull
is a very inefficient multihull. Imagine canting a keel to leeward
and instead of ballast you have air. You would achieve the same
increase in righting moment in a lighter solution, and in fact you get a
multihull. Our sailing community is divided, and choices are made on
style or fashion; otherwise we'd all be sailing multihulls"

 

[CT 249]

The official Australian rating (actually VYC rating) shows the Moth as SLOWER than a 49er by a long way (83 for the 49er, 104 for the official Moth yardstick ie Moth is 20% slower).

The unnofficial Moth rating was (as I understand it and I may be wrong) derived from R Veal sailing at Black Rock. In foiling conditions there appears to be no reasonable doubt that the foiler Moth can beat/hang in with world-class 49ers and Int 14s (which is a great achievement). Rohan deserves respect for creating a yardstick for the foiler that is much "harsher" than the official one.

However, as I understand it, it was created in foiling conditions and does NOT allow for the foiler's performance in approx 6-8 knots or less. Factor that in, and a real yardstick for overall performance may be (throwing guesses around, people who have sailed on/against them please provide info) 90???????????????

For a boat this size, such a speed is brilliant but it is NOT faster than a 49er overall. SOmeone like Rohan gets utterly creamed by average 49ers in light winds and beaten by a Laser and this must be taken into consideration.

The public has yet to be provided with details of the Moths beating top-class As or F18s and some instances (ie Sauna Sail) seem to indicate they don't.

This is NOT (repeat 10,000 times NOT) saying the Moths are not amazing performers. However, there is as yet little evidence provided to the general public that they will beat an A Class etc and the top foiler Mothies say that they are beaten by craft that are slower than As.

We are not sayiong this is not possible, merely that we have seen no evidence that a hot-shot A can be beaten by a Moth.

It will be great when the top foilers start sailing in all winds (not just the ones that suit them) against top class fleets and then we can get a thorough grip on their performance,

Just to repeat.....these things go like the demons of hell were pursuing them. However, some claims are without factual back-up.

 

[Doug Lord]

Moth vs A class cats

Ct 249 , in this case you're wrong: Rohan Veal talks about beating a fleet of A class cats on his website in several races of a regatta in conditions suitable to both boats which is the only way a fair comparison can be made. In addition, there is at least one comment by an A class sailor on the Aussie A class forum about being passed by a Moth. There were a lot more before most of the comments on that forum including a post by Rohan describing the above encounter were destroyed.On the website Foiler 1 GP Rohan simply states that a Moth on foils is faster than an A Class cat in conditions over 10 knots. He also says:"Moths "Have a lower handicap than a 49er in Australia(currently 83 compared to that of 84 for a 49er.)"
Foiler1 GP
Address:http://www.foiler1.com/foiler_moth.html Changed:1:57 AM on Monday, March 6, 2006
Just recently, again on Rohans website, he described beating a whole fleet of F18's.
On Dinghy Anarchy Phil Stevenson talks about doing the same speed as a Tornado off the wind in one of the most eloquent descriptions of Moth foiling ever written.
--------------------
The whole point is that a well designed larger mono utilizing the bi-foil concept pioneered by the Moth along with movable ballast such as a canting keel and/or on-deck sliding ballast stands a real good chance of being faster than a conventional multihull of EQUAL length.
Too bad Juan K answered the question about "the future of canting ballast" in such a non-technical way because combined with on-deck ballast and bi-foil technology the future is potentially extraordinary.

 

[CT 249]

Dear Douglas;

I wrote that we have yet to see details of the Moths beating top-class As or F18s.

For you to write of allegations without time, place or details is not proof of performance. Instances where foilers have beaten bad or mediocre As or F18s is not proof that foiler Moths are faster than As or F18s. Some 18' cats can and are beaten by Lasers, that is proof only that the cats are very badly sailed.

Merely repeating what you say Rohan said is not showing us details.

Where did the Moth beat the As? When did this happen? Who were the As? Were they "top-class"? It's not rude to ask such questions, merely reasonable. It's quite possible that a foiler Moth beat some As, but until some details are made known it is utterly true to say that we have no details.

Re F18s; Rohan's site says "Each race of our division started 5 minutes behind the F18's, but by the end of my three laps, I had nearly caught and passed most of them. The highlight was passing them one at a time (to windward and leeward) on a reach with their kites up! Only a few of the top guys on a Tornado and Hobie Tigers stayed ahead, but they wern't anymore than 2-3 minutes in front."

I can't work out the speed of the Moth v the cats, as I don't know the course layout and the number of laps the cats did. However, the races that Rohan did (in which he did extremely well) the Tigers were well beaten by other F18s (Capricorns). The fact that they were not mentioned has various explanations, but still leave the comparison of the foiler Moth against F18s open - maybe the Capricorns were well ahead of the Tigers Rohan mentions? Without timing or course details, we do not know whether Rohan's impression that the gap closed is 100% correct. Again, no one is impugning honesty, merely pointing out that estimates are not solid proof.

You yourself write about the Moth's suggested VYC yardstick (83) as proving that it is competitive with 49ers (which it doubtless is in the right conditions). However, the A Class is rated 71, and the F18 is rated 70. The cats do more yardstick racing than monos so these are solid figures. They indicate that the Moth is much slower than the A Class and F 18.

If you are going to cite the yardsticks as evidence that the Moth is competitive with the 49er, you must also admit that the yardsticks indicate that the Moth is considerably slower than the A and F 18.

49ers are as fast as the Moth in foiling conditions, yet evidence is that 49ers are slower than F18s in such conditions. Ergo, there are indications that Moths are slower than F18s.

The Tornado example is amusing but it's complete bulldust to say that it proves foiler Moths are equal to Tornadoes downwind, as Foilr and I have pointed out to you. The back-of-the-fleet Tornadoes at the regatta Phil cited were dog slow and in the gusty conditions of that day, were throttling right back and trying merely to survive (and often failing). Many slower boats could have passed them in the gusty conditions. A Hobie 16 or skiff would have been faster....a 470 may have been faster. At times, a Laser could have worked the gusts better and annoyed the Tornado for a time.

I know this as I was fill-in crew on one of the back-of-the-fleet Tornadoes. The day was NOT reasonable to use as a guide for speed.

It's interesting that the man who wrote that eloquent description is not sailing foilers at the moment.......

Some of us are very easy to convince. I'm convinced by the Sail Melbourne results that the foiler can beat world-class 14s or 49ers in foiling conditions. These are remarkable boats - but proof that they can beat As or F18s has not been shown to us.





and some instances (ie Sauna Sail) seem to indicate they don't.
said we have had