Fastest Sailboat on the Planet!

We're all crazier than loons calling to the moon here Flad - and you're no exception.

 

Hydroptere-Fastest Sailboat on the Planet!--speedsailing

I think that one of the most obvious keys to blast out speed under sail is one of the least talked about: ballast. Hydroptere, kites, windsurfers all use it in one form or another.
I've considered a boat with the crew sitting in a cockpit that uses a sealed wing for sliding ballast and a wing rig. And just two hydrofoils-possibly foils whose area can be reduced as speed increases. The sections of the foil in the part of the foil remaining after the area is reduced could be optimized for
the higher speed. Depending on projected speed the ballast "wing" could be an actual wing(not just a streamlined shape) that contributes to lift.
And being a two foil monofoiler(or monotri) the boat could utilize Veal Heel for all its benefits including 20% more RM for "free".
This kind of speed sailer gets rid of all drag associated with a person standing in the wind, kite lines etc. Bet it would be real, real fast.....

 

Eliminating drag, placing as much of the heavy parts to the windward as possible (where it serves as ballast), taking all exposed structural elements and shaping them to provide lift and/or control functions, is all part of just being smarter with the obvious.

The absolute stumbling block for most contender boats is still foil cavitation. Either you get real high tech and/or big (I do not understand Hydroptere's success, but it has to be one of these) or you have to figure out an end run (kiters rely primarily on planing). I do not see much opportunity for big or for getting some university to run studies for me. That puts all of my scheming in the planing and/or planing plus lightly loaded foils category. If I were to get close to fast in a small 3 point contact boat, I would actually be very tempted to try getting each point of contact to mimic the action provided by boards used by the kiters. All of the spray they kick up seems like a waste, but just look at how small the wetted surfaces are and how the ejected water is traveling is exactly the opposite direction where force is needed. This and the fact that it is a proven technology kind of makes you think.

 

Hydroptere-Fastest Sailboat on the Planet!--speedsailing

Cavitation has been solved on Hydroptere up to 61 knots(70.1mph)-her peak recorded speed. Whether that technology can be accessed or not is an open question. All speed sailors use foils of one kind or another for vertical lift and lateral resistance.
And the incredible fact that Hydroptere hit such peak speed with a conventional rig simply can't be ignored! There is tremendous room for a foiler to improve on what Hydroptere has already done.
I think there are solutions to foil problems but in the meantime there is a lot of room for development of neat, fairly small speedsters capable of 40 or 50+
at 1.5-2.5 times wind speed...
I sure think the V-39 has great potential.

 

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to share with us how a peak speed indicates that the foils were not cavitating? Perhaps the foils began cavitating at a lower speed and that cavitation did not totally disrupt the lift, allowing the boat to continue on for a brief period.

Other than that, you are purely speculating. Well, unless the L'Hydroptere team, against all logical explanation, has allowed you access to their very proprietary hydrodynamic testing data?

 

like it or not something tells em that the ruling body is paying very careful attention to the issue of some contenders engineering the conditions rather than the vehicles. Its pretty obvious that we have there attention and that they are giving the mater consideration. My bet is the Luderitz site will be making a few changes in the near future and speeds will come down a bit to reflect speeds at other similar trenches. That is not to say that the trench venues should fall into an overall category but it does offer a way out for the trenchers who obviously have a lot of detractors.

Its pretty clear that the rules intended that the boats be the engineered portion of the mix when they mention "natural wind" and "Comparable conditions". My bet is the original writers of those rules just never thought anyone would dig a ditch in the first place let alone dream up a chop killer or a berm engineered to develop advantageous effects

cheers
B

 

"Bet it would be real, real fast....."
Only if it were real, real...

 

B,

Have you an awareness of the gentleman on the WSSRC Council by the name of Stan Honey? I ask because it seems that you are selling-out the experience and savvy of the folks who serve on that board in pursuit of your angst regarding kiting and their record holding efforts.

I've taken the liberty of supplying you with a Goggle search of Stan's name and you can take a moment to review his accomplishments. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=f4cb147617b5f0ff

Doing so, will remove any thoughts you might have regarding the mental fitness of the folks so involved with the WSSRC when it comes to understanding what is possible, as you so gently phrased the condition when you said, "...the original writers of those rules just never thought anyone would dig a ditch in the first place let alone dream up a chop killer or a berm engineered to develop advantageous effects"

I would suggest, ever so gently, that these guys have the skills and the knowledge of the sport necessary to understand the possibilities before them. Stan Honey, alone, is quite a pulled-together guy and he is joined by some pretty heady folks who also have their own areas of expertise to bring to the table. A similar Google search on any of their names will be quite enlightening, as well.

You may wish to reconsider the intensity of your expressions after digesting what is before you. I encourage you to do so.

 

is this really the way you want to lay claim to fastest bicycle/kiteboard on earth

either the language of the rules needs to change in order to allow the kind of foolishness seen above outright or they need to be clarified to end the engineered conditions that allow certain vehicles faster times.

At what point will you send a pace boat out in front of the kiter with a giant fan in order to "pull" him along.

this whole thing begs the question be put to the ruling body "at what point must contestants stop engineering conditions."

cheers
B

 

Boston, I think that as far as manipulating sites or creating ones specifically for the task should be allowed, subject to it not producing a venue that provides better conditions than the current or yet undiscovered natural sites used for speedsailing. This may be hard to quantify, but would provide fair competition.
To argue that if all wanna-be competitors can`t use the venue, it should be disallowed, is not feasible, as if a syndicate designed a speedsailing craft with a 100ft draught, would this then mean that all venues must comply with his needs to allow others to claim a record there ? This is the argument brought forward by yourself and Doug, that because Hydroptere and others can`t run in the same trench, it isn`t fair. This disregards the fact that Hydroptere came along after all other speedsailing craft, and due to their design, require deeper conditions than those which suit the boards, kiters, sailrocket, longshot etc. They seem to have accepted this limitation in the course of the design of their craft, knowing full well what others were doing.
I don`t see on the Hydroptere website any claims of foul play, and have heard no information to support the idea that others in the speedsailing game are querying the Luderitz site. It seems this is only of concern to internet sailors with no speedsailing background who can`t accept their dog has been beaten.

 

I'm arguing for a fair playing field and not for one type of vehicle over another

simply because it took an outside observer to notice that these guys engineered the conditions rather than the vehicle doesn't mean the point isn't a valid one

seems like a careful review of the wording of the rules has really thrown a wrench into the works

Natural wind means natural wind and not a wind break assisting the riders nor accelerated wind characteristics. The chop killer is also pretty fishy in that it allows faster times by externally smoothing the water. Again pretty fishy to a lot of people.

I'm not saying that the ditch itself is the problem although it does seem like a pretty cheesy way to run a race but instead that engineering the conditions is not allowed under the present wording of the rules. The race commission seems to have overlooked this issue or maybe they just weren't aware of it. Either way, now is a great time to clear up the wording so that all who wish to participate might have a fair shot.

 

"...the original writers of those rules just never thought anyone would dig a ditch in the first place let alone dream up a chop killer or a berm engineered to develop advantageous effects"

I'm not off base and you do question Stan's credentials, as well as those of the entire Council. I am wondering, though, as to why you insist on attacking a system that is not yours to correct. You apparently do not wish to work from within, even though I have given you a suggested avenue to do so. You only want to whine from outside the process, which, let's face it, isn't going to create much in the way of an impact... but you knew that. You DO know that don't you, B? You do get that screaming from the outside, rather than joining those that are working from within has the least tiny bit of cred associated?

I wonder what you'd discover in the form of humility should you ask to see the minutes of the WSSRC Council's meetings as far back as they go. Reference, in particular, the conversations in which they discuss shallow water, specific speed sailing locations, trenches, course modifications, etc. There is one thing that will most likely come very clear for you... all of these things have been known and have been talked about for a very long time. The fact that these venues exist and that records created from these locations have been ratified, should tell you everything about how the Council feels on the subjects over which you dither at present. It's the 5 ton elephant in the room that you seem to ignore... repeatedly.

Read your quote presented above one more time, B. You very clearly suggest that the Council at WSSRC doesn't have a clue. By doing so, you question all of their credentials as experienced in matters pertaining to speed sailing, Stan being but one of them. I chose Stan because he is from the US and you just may be able to relate in some way to his accomplishments. It saddens me that the suggestion didn't sink-in.

Utilizing phrases such as these, suggests, very strongly, that they (the WSSRC) do not know what they are doing. The fact that you failed to acknowledge the innuendo within your quoted passage in the matter indicates that you know this type of statement is inflammatory and you'd like to gloss right on over it. Perhaps it's embarrassing now that you read it relative to a specific individual with very serious sailing skills, as well as a deep technical understanding? I understand that, B, but it's never too late to say you are sorry regarding poorly chosen words and reorganizing your argument in a less than confrontational fashion. Flailing at the nameless, faceless institution is always far more comfy than having to deal with a single, specific guy who has impeccable credentials.

I tell you what... write a letter addressed to Stan Honey, in care of the WSSRC and include that very statement above, along with all your other "observations" and we'll see if you are met with an open mind in your complaint.

Your point does not have validity and I am as far from agreeing with that point as it can get. Again, you are assuming that these folks are stupid to the point where they just don't have a clue as to what is going on within the record keeping they govern. They know all about it. They send a ratifying technician to the Luderitz course and establish the methodology for the record submission and with what instruments it shall be recorded. Quite simply, B... they know the whole thing and have known for a very long time. If they choose to set fresh limits on the process, it won't be because you came flying in on a bender from boatdesign.net with a mouth full of hot verse.

You would have thought a lot of things, but apparently none of them will hold any water at the one place where it counts. So, again I will tell you to take your moaning to the source. That you come here to whine shows a true lack of sincerity in your complaint. Page after page of the same old tune on an argument that is going to go absolutely nowhere based on these pages. Surely you can see that you are tilting at windmills and Sancho has left the battlefield?

Is this the way you want to make a point? It Is Irrelevant. As irrelevant as mounting a sailboat on the deck of a cigarette boat and calling it the speediest sailboat passage to anywhere. Come-on Bubba, make it real. This kind of stuff doesn't measure-up.

No, they don't. Simple as that. If it still bothers your angst, (and you do have plenty of it on this topic) then simply follow the outlined methodology I presented to the thread in a previous post. I'll lay odds that you haven't done a thing in order to move the argument in any other medium save for this one. Go to the source if it bothers you so much. Become a player and not a complainer. Flailing here is like scratching your nails on a chalkboard and comparing it to the Beatles.

So, put it to the ruling body and have your say. What's keeping you? I will wager that even if you do write to them, that you will not be heard formally and that they will send you a nicely worded letter suggesting that you bugger-off. With no substantive stake in the outcome and no horse in any of the races, you haven't a leg to stand on save for painting yourself as a quaintly flogging observer.

[/QUOTE]

 

Cavitation is going to prove to be the limiting factor. The V-39 guys think they can run in the mid 60's using cambered foils.

The powered speed record boats have not used hydrofoils for decades. Even the boats that don't use propellers don't use hydrofoils.

The challenge for speed under sail is that you must provide lateral resistance to sail faster than the wind. It will take a very efficient craft and super cavitating foils (that have been proved to work at high speeds) to go much past the mid 60's.

For a three pointer, why not mimic the boardsailers and cant the planing surfaces to provide the lateral resistance and a small lightly loaded foil for directional stability?

Not using foils to support the "boat" is the theoretical advantage that boats like V-39, Sailrocket, and the Monofoiler have over boats like Hydroptre.

IIRC one of the issues that Sailrocket was runing into was that at starting speeds, the foil and rudder need to be large and at speed those foils are too big. At one time they had a small "speed ruddder" that stalled before the boat was moving fast enough so they added a low speed rudder that they retracted once the little rudder could work.

The same sort of scheme might work for the foil too. Have a 40+ knot super cavitating foil for lateral resistance and a sub 40 knot conventional foil that you pull out of the water at speed.

I think it is pretty obvious that planing types are faster than foiling types for the same HP. That the power comes from sails not fossil fuels does not change that.

 

As you keep alluding to the fact that the kiters 'engineered' the conditions (wind) do you have anything credible to back up the fact? Engineering something is quite different to driving along with a digger, digging a trench and dumping the sand to one side of said trench, also do you have any data on how the 'engineered' berm affects the airflow or is you argument based on gut feel and video of vorticity in an airflow?

 

Finally some good discussion on speedsailing instead of the other topic. As noted elsewhere in the V-39 thread (V-39 Albatross World Speed Sailing Contender post 20) the keel design (what I would call a main foil) may not be sufficiently designed to avoid cavitation at the this point in their project.

Back in an earlier post (663), I had mentioned using planning with surfaces functioning similar to the kiters boards. My current thought on this approach is to still have a main foil & rudder (possibly a front steer rudder similar to land & ice sailing craft) but to keep them lightly loaded. I am not sure adequate steering control is available with planning surfaces only.

For support of the craft, some amount of vertical lift can be had from the planning surfaces at a very low cost in terms of induced drag. Airfoil surfaces above the water can also be used for a large portion of craft support. This provides a big stability advantage even though the drag cost may be slightly higher. I really like having a built in feedback that changes the angle of attach on the horizontal air foils to help keep the planning surfaces at optimum loadings and to be able to provide negative lift if the craft is getting too high off of the water (controlled low altitude flying = good; uncontrolled high altitude flying = very bad). Having only a portion of the lift provided by planning surfaces should minimize craft vertical movement in response to surface chop. When the center of mass on a boat is moving up & down a lot in response to a rough surface, this has to cause extra drag at the planing surfaces along with the wear & tear on the structural elements.

As far as rudder & main foil size, I am thinking that a lot of folks look at this wrong. When cavitation is not a concern, smaller means less wetted surface area and less friction drag. When you get into speeds where cavitation is a concern, larger surfaces reduce loading in pounds per square foot and this delays the onset of cavitation. The extra surface friction of larger foils may something of a “necessary evil” to avoid an even worse condition, cavitation.

Using supercavitating foils may eventually prove to be effective. For high speed sailing, not too many have tried this approach, and no one has bragged about success going this way. For any radical new craft that wants to get into the competition, I would suggest that planning surfaces and or foils surfaces installed to provide the required lateral forces be designed as “plug and play” components that can be easily changed out. Until the state of the art for getting around cavitation is much further along, this is an area where you should plan on experimentation as needed.