CBTF(Canting Ballast Twin Foil)

Ian Oatley is apparently chartering a new 40-something canter with an eye to buying. Maybe that's it.

 

I read something in Seahorse that said that in the last Admiral's cup, a fixed keel 50' won every inshore race and Wild Oats 60' CBTF won every offshore race. Wild Oats won the series because offshore races are worth more points than the inshore ones.

 

Wild Oats #1

According to Peter Cambell at the time:
" Wild Oats,a R/P 60 with a canting keel(CBTF) scored a runaway win in the IRC Division."
And:
"..Wild Oats scoring an emphatic line and handicap win in the IRC big boat class..."
There were two divisions IRC and IMS; Wild Oats won the Cup for Australia by winning the last long distance race by a large margin snatching victory from an almost certain first time Spanish win. From what I've read Wild Oats performance was simply extraordinary in almost every race she sailed.
As is the case with most, but not all, CBTF race boats.

 

Ahhh, Doug, was Peter Campbell actually THERE???? I don't think so. Maybe, since you're so critical of others, you can also accept that you could have actually looked at the race results?

If Wild Oats was "simply extraordinary in every race sailed", how come she only won two of the nine races? The 50 (Aera) won EVERY ONE of the short events and was about 10 pts ahead until she had a horrible Wolf Rock race.

http://rorc.org/admiralscup/history/2003/results/class/aciros.html

USA 2 was quite correct, you are quite wrong.

 

Commentary

I actually spent a little time looking for the results. There are several other commentaries that also say that Wild Oats won "line and handicap honors".
I don't understand how the commentary could be so apparently off base: there is Cambells commentary and others and the result posted on the R/P site showing that Wild Oats won.
And there is also my own comments where I was at least partly right in saying that Wild Oats snatched victory from the Spanish in the last race.
I can't imagine, looking at the provisional results, what got almost ALL the commentators so excited about Wild Oats except maybe that she won boat for boat most of the races-but I haven't been able to find the boat for boat finishes anywhere.
I sure as hell wasn't there but relied on a source that said what numerous sources had said about Wild Oats.The fact remains that Wild Oats won the the Admirals Cup for Australia. Nothing reduces the magnificent record of this boat and the growing record of the new Wild Oats.
=========================================
UPDATE: I found that by clicking on each race in the resuts page CT posted that you get to the details which show clearly why the commentators were so excited: WILD OATS WON EVERY RACE ON ELAPSED TIME!!!!! And she won on CORRECTED time overall! Giving meaning to Peter Cambell's quotes in my last post.
Not one or two but EVERY race....
Typical of a CBTF boat: first to finish!

 

Hey Doug, has your post 228 suddenly changed? I seem to recall that I cut and pasted into my 229, but now it seems that your post reads a little bit less emphatic than it used to before the actual results were pointed out.

Wild Oats did win every race on elapsed time. She was also the biggest boat in the fleet by a factor of (IIRC) 11 feet. Aera (Bribon for that regatta) got within 40 seconds over the line at one stage. When you turn up and race 55 and 52 footers with a 66 footer it's not surprising if you win every race over the line.

Which is not detracting from the splendid performance of the boat and crew in any way. Richo and Bob etc did a great job. I hope it's OK I used Mark's nickname, Doug, I know you get very het up when anyone dares to use slang in reference to your beloved CBTF boats.

PS Wild Oats won the cup for Australia in the last race, but the other Australian boat was dominant in the other class, it didn't have to rely on the points leader having a shocker like Oats did.

 

changes

CT, your READING of 228 must have changed since I haven't edited that post or modified it in any way since I wrote it! In addition to which in your post subsequent to 228 you misquoted me leaving out one very important word "almost". Which by it's omission in your mind was nothing less than inflammatory-and entirely of your own creation....

 

OK, if I misquoted you and didn't realise I was wrong and I apologise. If you read my first line you'll see I asked that question of you, I thought I had cut and pasted when I must have misquoted.

 

say what?!

Geez, I can't believe what I just read! That was pretty decent; thanks.

 

Wild Oats won line honours for every inshore race, beating Bribon(Aera) by about 7-8 minutes in every race. Wild Oats really dominated the offshore race.

 

CBTFco vs "TMF" (Maximus)-the showdown

See the front page of Sailing Anarchy for a letter from CBTFco directed at Maximus-this could be the showdown a lot of people have been waiting for. Apparently, CBTFco thinks Maximus has violated the CBTF patent or patents. If they have I hope CBTFco wins!
What I really hope to see is a race between Maximus and the new 100' Wild Oats CBTF super race boat- I'd like to see this settled on the water at some point as well as legally....

 

CBTFco is only suing them because they have nothing better do do, even though Maximus hasnt violated the patent.

 

Infringement

CBTFco is suing because Maximus has infringed their patent! And they are not playing around; they intend to take this as far as necessary.
CBTFco made fullsize tests with the exact configuration that is on Maximus; it resulted in a 20% improvement in windward ability but all things considered was not as good as the present configuration. But it is no longer a question for me: Maximus has infringed the CBTF patent and they are in deep trouble(I hope)!

 

courtesy of...
SCUTTLEBUTT 1846 - May 25, 2005 (www.sailingscuttlebutt.com)

PATENT LAW
Avid Scuttlebutt readers will note the utilization of canting ballast technology in many of the newly designed grand prix yachts getting splashed these days. The sight of the bulb package cranked to windward below the ankles of hiking crew is a dead giveaway of the latest thinking that is being incorporated in these boats. However, to join the latest trend, each boat has had to acquire a license to use the Canting Ballast Twin Foil (CBTF) technology from the patent holders, US-based CBTF Co., formerly known as DynaYacht. Two separate patents govern CBTF, which cover the use of a laterally, swingable ballast carried on a strut. Since the strut provides no lift or leeway control, fore and aft rotating underwater foils provide the needed directional and leeway control.

Development of the technology purportedly cost millions of dollars, which is where the license fee comes in. So if you want a boat that has a swinging ballast strut with fore and aft rotating blades, you are going to need a license. Who says? The latest skirmish involves Maximus, the 100-foot yacht designed by Greg Elliot and Clay Oliver, built by Cookson's boat yard in New Zealand, and owned by Bill Buckley and Charles Brown. No license was retained for Maximus, and while initial photos of the boat do not reveal the patent infringement, CBTF Co. claims that what now exists under the water is in violation of their patent. Not surprisingly, the owners of Maximus disagree.

The long arm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office does a good job of governing what occurs within the US, but has a tougher task of dealing with violations abroad. Depending upon the reciprocity agreements between countries, a US patent holder may either successfully defend its patent, or helplessly watch it copied without repercussion. The uprising between Maximus and CBTF Co. reached new highs prior to the start of the Rolex Transatlantic Race, wherein Maximus was in the US conducting what CBTF Co. asserts were business-related events, a violation of the patent law which has more teeth to it than other protections.

So what will it take for CBTF Co. to extend its blessing on Maximus? The receipt of the license fee, which has now risen from the scheduled amount of $87,500 to $100,000.00. Plus, don't count on CBTF Co. quietly walking away from this conflict. Their ability to defend CBTF™ in this instance may very well dictate how they continue doing business in the future.

Full story with photos of Maximus and CBTF boat Morning Glory, along with the patent links, are at: www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/05/cbtf/


MAXIMUS
(By an interesting coincidence, the Daily Sail subscription website has just posted a feature story on Maximus. Here are just a few excerpts.)

Among the 100ft race boat community Maximus is unique in having a keel that not only cants but lifts too and for having an Open 60/ORMA multihull-style rotating wingmast rig. The canting/ lifting system for the keel involves the foil extending down a sleeve which is canted by two hydraulic rams. The rams are speced with a safety factor of four times maximum load and are capable of individually canting the keel in the case of one failing.

With the keel canted an appendage of some form is obviously required to keep the boat from making excessive leeway and just forward of the mast Maximus is fitted with a single daggerboard with a trim tab. This arrangement, now de rigeur on the 60ft trimarans, many people we speak to reckon is the optimum configuration for canting keel set-ups, the single-board set-up saving considerable weight over the twin asymmetric board arrangement found on most Open 60s and Volvo Open 70 (the single-board and trim tab is currently prohibited under VO70 rules).

Designer Greg Elliott says he doesn't buy into the forward-rudder CBTF arrangement as advocated by Reichel-Pugh. "I am definitely not interested in that. We did a lot of study in a lot of areas. We've done a lot of boats over many years and done a lot of testing and got a lot of good results and I don't think that having a rudder or a fixed blade on the front of the boat is really the way I want to go. - The Daily Sail, www.thedailysail.com

 

Making an accusation like this in a public forum if you have no specific knowledge is something that can be prosecuted in some jurisdictions.

A 20% improvement? That is funny.