Fastest Sailboat on the Planet!

[powerabout]

Re the GPS
It doesnt matter so much the sampling rate what matters is were you getting differential updates while you did that to allow for the postion to jump ...how far and how often?
sailor doing 30m/second and the gps postion might be jumping 30m? so what speed do you get?

 

[RHough]

I am sure getting more workable GPS rules is needed and will eventually happen. If nothing else, advancing technology will have to be recognized.

However this really does not help us with the real question. Where should we draw the line on allowed actions to get smooth enough water.

Do we demand either open water only (no chance) or along a shoreline.

If you allow runs along a shoreline, do you go for natural settings only. If so, give me a technical basis of why changes at one location to duplicate features at some other location are not allowed.

If you allow changes to duplicate some other setting, what is not comparable about running down a ship channel or along a jetty. If you run along a jetty, you can actually get a wind screen pretty similar to their berm.

Get close enough to a shore line with a fast drop of that gives you the required depth and you will get the same smoothness you can get in a trench with a similar upwind ground profile.

Allowing a setting similar to natural setting is also not a clean answer to what seems to be desired. When someone goes out and uses Google maps to find a near straight 700 meter natural erosion channel in some delta, marsh or other flat surface, do you just get emotional and say no to a trench because it does not feel right.

Come on, draw some lines & give me technical basis that everyone can live to.

The current rules work pretty good for the real competitors. If you want changes, it is up to you to make your case.

Another excellent post. You make some very valid points.

I see the trench like a full scale wind tunnel. The wind is high, but the running surface does not have waves consistent with wind speed. Somewhere between the absurdity of sailing in a wind tunnel and sailing in open water lies a venue that allows all comers to attempt sailing speed records on equal footing.

Where that happy place is hard to pin down (as you state so well).

I think I made the statement much earlier that sailing speed records depend more on conditions than on equipment. It would appear that smoother water favours shallow draft vessels to a very great extent.

Trying to use a distance from obstruction such that the sea state is fully developed for the wind speed would place a 500M course very far offshore indeed. I cannot lobby for that. No one would consider setting a record in the 32 foot waves that accompany 40 knot breeze.

I find your arguments convincing to the point that I question my original premise. If we allow any less than natural conditions of waves proportional to wind speed, it does not really matter much if the high wind, limited fetch smooth water is natural or man made.

I'll echo Boston's comment that this has been a very engaging discussion. Thank you. It leads me back to the opinion I held before I started to participate in the thread; 500M sailing speed is too abstract for me to take seriously. Speed average over less than 18 seconds has no meaning in any other context.

R

 

[RHough]

Re the GPS
It doesnt matter so much the sampling rate what matters is were you getting differential updates while you did that to allow for the postion to jump ...how far and how often?
sailor doing 30m/second and the gps postion might be jumping 30m? so what speed do you get?

That is not how GPS speed is calculated. GPS speed comes from Doppler shift in the signal.

 

[powerabout]

That is not how GPS speed is calculated. GPS speed comes from Doppler shift in the signal.

You would need to check if a gps unit actually used doppler or trackpoint calculation for speed.
I would guess if the manual didnt say it was doppler speed then it wont be?
anyway so if you have a bad HDOP how well can you measure the doppler changes?
with a unit that tracks how many satellites...
Is there no GPS spec for this organisation?
Let alone on shore monitoring?

 

[P Flados]

B

I actually understand where you & others are coming from entirely. I just happen to work in a setting where we have lots of limits associated with technical considerations, but we have to deal with cases where people have used emotional arguments to make bad rules instead of getting down to real technical issues. As such, you can probably see that I have become somewhat stubborn when it comes to this kind of thing.

If I sail along the natural strip of land that encloses Cape Hatteras, with a wind that is blowing out to sea, it is just plain old normal sailing with no man made advantage. If I am in a bigger boat, I will need to be a little farther off shore. If I am in a smaller boat, I loose some of the advantage of size (bigger really is better in boats) but I can get a little closer where the water is a little smoother. If you pick any arbitrary limit on how close I get, I simply cry foul and say that you are making rules that favor the big guys with the deep pockets and the big boats.

Just saying that being up close makes it possible for some advantage to occur is not good enough. Big boats can also be up close if they can find a suitable location. Everyone has the challenge of finding the best location they can. Big boats just happen to have a huge advantage where relative chop (wave size divided by boat size) means that up real close does not matter as much.

With the speeds we are talking about, trying to push the runs offshore would just end up with anything not huge operating in chop that is a real problem. This sport is risky enough as it is (videos of the crashes abound), without moving the smaller boats farther off shore.

Go after stuff where shaping the wind is a question and there is both a better basis and a better chance of coming up with a good solution. We could simply suggest that a little coaching of the on-site WSSRC rep be done so that regular competitions stay as clean as possible.

 

[RHough]

You would need to check if a gps unit actually used doppler or trackpoint calculation for speed.
I would guess if the manual didnt say it was doppler speed then it wont be?
anyway so if you have a bad HDOP how well can you measure the doppler changes?
with a unit that tracks how many satellites...
Is there no GPS spec for this organisation?
Let alone on shore monitoring?

GPS:

The following applies when using GPS survey equipment:

a. Receiver logging rates shall be set at 10 Hertz, which results in a GPS position every 1/10th of a second.

The GPS system shall provide time stamp with each position that are accurate to within .001 second.

b. Record claims that include a horizontal position error (hpe) of greater than 0.10 metre (one sigma) during the run shall not be accepted.

c. The nominated start and finish points shall be at least 500 metres apart, plus the hpe at the start and the hpe at the finish.

d. Distance and time may be interpolated between the two measured positions bracketing the 500 metres (plus 2 hpe used in para b above) finishing point. The results are added to those from starting point to the first measurement point bracketing the finish point. For the calculation of distances, GPS coordinates supplied to the WSSRC shall be in latitude and longitude using the WGS84 datum. The WSSRC will calculate the distance as the length of a geodesy on the WGS84 ellipsoid using the Vincenty method.

Shore based:

Where the timing positions are land based, videorecorded timing, which includes an independent time display of the transits shall be used. Otherwise, GPS approved survey equipment, shall be used. Requests for attempts must include full details of the timing system proposed.

5. CALCULATION OF SPEED.
Time shall be recorded to the nearest one hundredth of a second. The speed shall be calculated to the nearest hundredth of a knot with allowance made for the resolved component of any current on the course. A venue is not suitable for record breaking if the current is more than one knot. The current shall be measured by float tests, Doppler or other means as appropriate and the results supplied to the Official Commissioner (see Rule 14).

6. MARGINS
In order to establish a new record the new elapsed time must improve on the existing record by a margin as follows:

a. On a course using land based transits and videorecorded timing:

i. Between records claimed on the same course and when the timing positions have not been moved and with equipment recording to 1/100th second, the margin is 1/50th second.

ii. . Between records claimed on different courses or when the timing positions have been changed with equipment recording to 1/100th second, the margin is to be 1/25th second.

b. Where WSSRC approved GPS survey equipment is used, the margin is 1/100th second.

I would think that a relatively simple shore based DGPS system would provide the 100cm accuracy needed. The Trimble 1cm accuracy survey units are a bit of overkill.

 

[Boston]

Originally Posted by P Flados View Post
I am sure getting more workable GPS rules is needed and will eventually happen. If nothing else, advancing technology will have to be recognized.

However this really does not help us with the real question. Where should we draw the line on allowed actions to get smooth enough water.

What I'm suggesting is that venues that alter there course in any way from its natural state and that race closer than x distance from shore be excluded from all inclusive categories were other contenders are for whatever reason prevented from enjoying the same advantages these groomed runs provide.

Do we demand either open water only (no chance) or along a shoreline.

In one of my latest I proposed the two category solution
One being an unaltered course some short distance off shore say 300' which has the ability to host all comers.
The other being the groomed trenches which obviously favor certain types of craft.
This later division being excluded from holding records in any other category but its own

If you allow runs along a shoreline, do you go for natural settings only. If so, give me a technical basis of why changes at one location to duplicate features at some other location are not allowed.

This is exactly why the shoreline runs must be held at some minimum distance so that topography unique to a given local is made irrelevant. There should be no alterations allowed in any open class venue. Natural conditions only.

If you allow changes to duplicate some other setting, what is not comparable about running down a ship channel or along a jetty. If you run along a jetty, you can actually get a wind screen pretty similar to their berm.

A natural conditions only rule for all venues competing in the open class eliminates this whole line of argument

Get close enough to a shore line with a fast drop of that gives you the required depth and you will get the same smoothness you can get in a trench with a similar upwind ground profile.

Allowing a setting similar to natural setting is also not a clean answer to what seems to be desired. When someone goes out and uses Google maps to find a near straight 700 meter natural erosion channel in some delta, marsh or other flat surface, do you just get emotional and say no to a trench because it does not feel right.

which is why I'm not proposing that we allow altered settings to be included in any all inclusive records categories.

Come on, draw some lines & give me technical basis that everyone can live to.

I have and its an unaltered natural course x distance off shore were conditions common to all competitors on all continents are able to be found exactly like what the rules already say but detailed to provide clarification and adherence to the existing rules

The current rules work pretty good for the real competitors. If you want changes, it is up to you to make your case.

Clearly the current rules favor a particular vehicles running in artificial conditions using external equipment which enhances those speeds. The current trend of records in certain venues proves this beyond any reasonable doubt

These are good solid rebuttals to each of your points and it seems that although the kites should be allowed to compete that competition should be held on common ground or as the rules say "comparable conditions". Competitions held on artificial sites that favor a particular type of vessel should be disallowed in any all inclusive records category

 

[Boston]

B

I actually understand where you & others are coming from entirely. I just happen to work in a setting where we have lots of limits associated with technical considerations, but we have to deal with cases where people have used emotional arguments to make bad rules instead of getting down to real technical issues. As such, you can probably see that I have become somewhat stubborn when it comes to this kind of thing.

I'm not sure its helping referring to a detailed and concise argument as an "emotional" response. Clearly I have detailed some significant advantages these venues give certain types of vehicles and obviously the mechanical devices employed at those sites external to the vehicles improves there speed and stability. Alterations to the topography resulting in wind breaks for the riders is also a very questionable tactic favoring vehicles that might be able to fit in a ditch. Once again this also represents external speed enhancing devices which is clearly breaking the rules and simply not a very honest way to go about "winning" a speed record.

If I sail along the natural strip of land that encloses Cape Hatteras, with a wind that is blowing out to sea, it is just plain old normal sailing with no man made advantage. If I am in a bigger boat, I will need to be a little farther off shore. If I am in a smaller boat, I loose some of the advantage of size (bigger really is better in boats) but I can get a little closer where the water is a little smoother. If you pick any arbitrary limit on how close I get, I simply cry foul and say that you are making rules that favor the big guys with the deep pockets and the big boats.

which is why I'm not specifying any great distance offshore, Even just a few hundred feet would move the party to a significantly more level playing field for all the players involved rather than simply favor a one or two types of vehicles as the present situation does

Just saying that being up close makes it possible for some advantage to occur is not good enough. Big boats can also be up close if they can find a suitable location. Everyone has the challenge of finding the best location they can. Big boats just happen to have a huge advantage where relative chop (wave size divided by boat size) means that up real close does not matter as much.

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the ditches unfairly advantage certain types of craft that have demonstrated an inability to compete in "comparable conditions" yet these vessels dominate the record books based on the specific advantages they enjoy at certain venues. The mechanical and topographical assistance to there speed potential is also in serious question and I think these devises are in direct violation of several rules.

With the speeds we are talking about, trying to push the runs offshore would just end up with anything not huge operating in chop that is a real problem. This sport is risky enough as it is (videos of the crashes abound), without moving the smaller boats farther off shore.

so are you suggesting that these speeds are unattainable in the "comparable conditions" that other contenders who do not fit in a ditch have to deal with. Seems like you just proved my point. These vessels are unable to compete on a level playing field and that if they were out in open water they would unlikely be able to turn in the times we are presently seeing. On the other hand if the larger boats were able to enjoy the same mechanical advantages provided by the ditch venues they would likely be already running at least the 61 knots shown by Hydropter several years ago and once again these presently favored vehicles would likely not be dominating the record books.

Go after stuff where shaping the wind is a question and there is both a better basis and a better chance of coming up with a good solution. We could simply suggest that a little coaching of the on-site WSSRC rep be done so that regular competitions stay as clean as possible.

both shaping the wind and the water is highly questionable according to rules 7 and 9 and a ruling must be made which addresses this issue

Once again there is ample rebuttal to every question regarding the need for an additional review of these ditch venues and particularly there use of speed enhancing equipment and topography extraneous to the competing vehicles

I'd just like to see some of these guys who have worked so hard to build a real boat and see how fast it will go get some recognition rather than see them discouraged and eclipsed by demonstrably less capable craft that only achieve the speeds they do because of numerous and questionable interpretations of the rules well outside the mainstream usage of the terminology

The ruling body is going to have to address these interpretations eventually and so far it looks like they have just been trying to avoid the battle.

They originally disallowed kites for a reason and unless these venues quite pulling tricks like mechanically adjusting the water thus enhancing potential speeds and building wind berms offering additional enhancements in speed then there will be forever complaints from honest contenders wishing that the comparable conditions stipulation in rule 1 finally be enforced.

I'm kinda baffled at why the ruling body ignored the comparable conditions stipulation in the first place. Maybe I can develop some corespondence with them and find out what there thinking is.

cheers
B

 

[powerabout]

Hi RHough
Looks like I need to ask the question of how are they recording their speed?
Clearly not with a Garmin Foretrex on their arm?
Cheers

 

[RHough]

Hi RHough
Looks like I need to ask the question of how are they recording their speed?
Clearly not with a Garmin Foretrex on their arm?
Cheers

This is one of the sticking points. The "approved" survey GPS units are too big to use on a board. The boards have to use shore based video timing.

When they get smaller GPS units approved the boards will be on even footing with bigger sailing craft with freedom of course during the run and the ability to pick the best 500M out of each run. As it stands now they either sail the course that is exactly parallel to the shore base transit (even if it is not the best angle) or they sail extra distance to get their time.

The Landsailing Speed Record of 126.2 MPH was documented and ratified using a sub $200 GPS Data Logger: Locosys GT-31

Here is a setup guide for boardsailing: GT-31 setup

These things are tiny:

Size 90H x 58W x 24.5D mm
Weight 97g

If these units were used by the boarders and the GPS data compared to the shore based video timing, it would be easy to see if the data was accurate enough to use for record attempts.

There is a small but significant difference in the rules and method for recods set for landsailing. Landsailing uses GPS recorded speed over 3 seconds. They measure the speed directly, they do not measure speed over a fixed distance. Thus Horizontal Position Error (hpe) is not as big of a concern.

The GT-31 data shows a .9 hdop (hpe) rather than the .1 required by current WSSRC rules. Hpe at the start and finish are added to the 500M positions. Worst case for a boarder using a GT-31 is a 500 + .9 + .9 = 501.8M run for a 500M record. At 30M/Sec (~58 knots) this is about .06 second potential error in timing over 500M. As I understand the system this could result in a 30 M/sec run being adjusted to 29.89 M/sec which is a .36 % error. This is about .2 knots at 58 knots.

GPS speed on these units is accurate to .1 MPH or .087 knot. Thus the direct GPS speed is more accurate than the calculated speed based on time/distance with hpe added.

 

[P Flados]

RHough,

Good discussion of GPS details.

In addition to the gadget considerations is a more fundamental difference in objectives.

On water, the desire was to have the speed record based on using the wind only to achieve a speed. Given the potential for a sling shot effect from manipulation of a rig, manipulation of a kite, or even an intentionally curved course, peak speed was not seen as a good measure for the outright record. Requiring an average speed between 2 points 500 meters apart has probably done a good job of keeping the record as a clean demonstration of wind power only (at least for now).

On land, the contenders have all been rigid wheeled craft with a fixed wing (or possibly soft rig or wingmast rig) attached. I do not think there are much concerns about using any sling shot approaches on land. On land there are also real limitations for acceleration and coast down distance available. Given the above, they are OK with a more peak speed based record.

Boston,

You keep saying you want a couple hundred feet offshore to level the playing field. This would do nothing of the sort. It would be a clear advantage to bigger boats where the relative chop (wave height / boat length) is smaller.

You still have failed to explain why a big boat can not run close to a shore.

In order to pick any given distance off of land, you need a real basis for the value. Big boats can run a lot closer than 200’. They probably just do not need to. Hydroptere was well within the sight of land on their record run. They could have been closer to shore if they had wanted to. For them, either it just was not needed, or the trade off of less clean wind would have offset the advantage of smoother water.

I think most people that follow sailing records know what is what. If you want a “real boats in real settings” fastest boat, the following record is what I would point to:

Transatlantic W to E, Ambrose Light – Lizard Point, Aug 2009, Banque Populaire 5, Trimaran, 131 ft LOA, Pascal Bidegorry, FRA, 3d 15h 25m 48s,
32.94 kts.

As soon as you put together your challenge to the 100+ ft French Maxis that dominate the open water records, I will cheer you all of the way. I would even offer help you in my spare time if you wanted it. Just let me know when we start.

I do not think anyone is going to confuse the rocket powered Thrust SST with an F1, Nascar, Baha 500 car or Top fuel dragster.

 

[P Flados]

After re-reading the above, I do not like my “real boats in real settings” statement. Hyroptere is still tops with those words. The BP5 record fits more of a "fastest boat in any real passage setting" description. I was hopeing that the big foiler would have made a run for the transatlantic by now, but they seemed more focused on the around the world record.

 

[Doug Lord]

You still have failed to explain why a big boat can not run close to a shore.

=====================
Hydroptere would need at least 8-10' of water in case it came off the foils so they would not hit bottom.

 

[P Flados]

=====================
Hydroptere would need at least 8-10' of water in case it came off the foils so they would not hit bottom.

I agree totally that depth would be needed. That just means it has to be a location where the bottom drops off fast. Water 10' deep at less than 200' ft offshore does not sound hard to find. Most non-foiling big speedsailing boats would also need a similar depth to allow good aspect ratios on the dagger board.

Actually there is much much less need to run close for Hydroptere. Their choice of foils seems to handle chop fine. I think it was really the gusty conditions that led to their one crash, but it is kind of hard to say given the limited info they shared after it happened.

 

[RHough]

RHough,

Good discussion of GPS details.

In addition to the gadget considerations is a more fundamental difference in objectives.

On water, the desire was to have the speed record based on using the wind only to achieve a speed. Given the potential for a sling shot effect from manipulation of a rig, manipulation of a kite, or even an intentionally curved course, peak speed was not seen as a good measure for the outright record. Requiring an average speed between 2 points 500 meters apart has probably done a good job of keeping the record as a clean demonstration of wind power only (at least for now).

On land, the contenders have all been rigid wheeled craft with a fixed wing (or possibly soft rig or wingmast rig) attached. I do not think there are much concerns about using any sling shot approaches on land. On land there are also real limitations for acceleration and coast down distance available. Given the above, they are OK with a more peak speed based record.

I agree. A 3 second average is too small until we see 300+ knot speeds over 500M

What we have now is technically not a speed contest, but a race over a 500M course. The results are expressed as speed but for most distance events the results are expressed in time. The headlines should read. "Sailor breaks 19.43 second (50 knot) barrier." or "US Sailor sets new record for 500M dash at 17.45 seconds." World records over distance in other sports are expressed in time, not speed. 100M dash - 9.58 sec, Mile - 3:43.13 etc.

Who cares if the course is curved or straight? It is speed that matters.

The accuracy of WSSRC records are based on .01 second resolution. Valid increments vary by the type of measurement system. GPS data has to be interpolated as it stands now.

My point is that current $200 GPS systems are probably accurate enough to ratify new records using the current method. They would certainly be accurate enough if a local DGPS beacon was set up. I have to think that setting up a local DGPS beacon would be no more expensive than setting up the video timing system currently in use.

It would put the boards on par with the bigger boats and give them the freedom to sail their best course.

R