Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!

Gary, my echoing of Sharpie's comment was not meant to be denigrating any boats; as it could be read that way, it's wrong. However, many of the fastest craft I've sailed ARE specialised. Boats like International Canoes, F16 and Tornado cats, many high-performance windsurfers, 18 Foot Skiffs and Moths are suitable for a smaller range of crew expertise, a smaller range of launching faciliies, often a smaller wind range, a smaller range of budgets etc than boats like Lasers, Hobie 16s and Paper Tigers, Sunbursts or 505s or 470s, Lasers etc.

In a sailing world in which the media and forums normally seem to be promoting fast boats as the future of the sport with little if any heed for the complications, such a comment seems reasonable.

My reference to IOR lightweights was to the '76-'77 generation, which were controversial enough to cause the DLF and other IOR changes and the CYCA self-righting rules.

Out of that design generation, the Australian built/owned boats were Deception (still capable of club racing AFAIK), Relentless (sunk); Hecate/Piccolo (in long-term major rebuild), Smir-Noff-Agen/Vanguard (condition and whereabouts unknown), Wild Turkey (gone to the USA); B195 (burned); Granny Apple (doing well); Industries (rebuilt); Newspaper Taxi (sunk); 2269 (damaged on mooring, fate unknown).

From what I know of the condition of these boats, it's probably fair to say that they have suffered more from the years than the boats of the previous generation (Farr 1104s etc), the few equivalent heavyweights like the Kaufmans, or the boats designed from about '79 onwards (Police Car, Seaquesta, Beach Inspector etc).

In no way am I saying that all such boats will fall apart - to be honest the wife and I speak of buying something like an 1104 or one of the Kauri '76 Lidgards as our next boat - but that generation seemed to be light on for structure (as Farr etc admitted) and therefore to a significant extent those who said they wouldn't last well compared to other craft seem to be pretty accurate.

It's a case, as many others are, were what is called "conservatism" could also be called a reasonably accurate neutral value-free assessment of the facts. And - to try to bring it back on subject - some remarks about the flying canting keel may not be able to dismissed by saying that those who made them are "conservative".

 

==============
True. However, remarks made by a couple of people about "Q" can be said to
have been made with no basis in fact-in fact I'd call it unfair speculation.
While I do dismiss such remarks other remarks about the concept of utilizing such technology may tend toward a dislike of unproven new technology and really can't be dismissed or embraced at this point.
----
Still haven't heard back from Guy Whitehouse or Jim Reichel.

 

Everything about "Q" is speculation at this point. Fair or unfair is a subjective assessment that each reader may make. What is unfair in your somewhat rose-tinted vision may be viewed as quite reasonable in others eyes. Remarks by everyone - yourself included - have been made with no basis in verifiable fact.

Rather than obliquely damn other opinions without the courtesy of actually naming those you hold in contempt ("a couple of people") perhaps acknowledging all is conjecture at this point is more honest. Time will determine the potential of this technology, not premature lobbying.

I for one look forward to reviewing the demonstrated performance of these boats when the technology is fully realized and hard evidence from the race course proves it's worth - one way or the other.

--
CutOnce

 

Here's a pix from the front page of SA of the Whitehouse-Richards boat under sail: (I've written to Guy Whitehouse and he said he would send pictures as well)

Check out SA's front page here: http://www.sailinganarchy.com/index_page1.php

click on image-

 

Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovation!---"Q"

Finally some info on "Q"!! From Scuttlebutt tonight:

THE NEXT STEP FOR CANTING BALLAST

When Australian-based photographer Andrea Francolini sent to Scuttlebutt a
selection of sailing photos of a radical canting ballast racing design, we
contacted Reichel Pugh Yacht Design for some insight into this creation.
Here is an excerpt of their report:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We teamed up with McConaghy to this 42' racing design, commissioned by Ian
Oatley, to realize the canting ballast concept he had envisioned.

Ian's request was simple: to design and build a yacht that is purposed for
the sheer pleasure of performance. Extending this envelope to rating
considerations and handicap results would be secondary. The design focus
was on shorthanded inshore racing such as the Sydney twilight racing but
consideration was given for eventual limited category 4, short offshore
races. The result promises to be an extraordinary sailing platform that
should garner a lot of attention on Sydney Harbor.

The design aims to further exploit the performance gains delivered by
canting ballast systems, extending the righting arm of the bulb by
increasing the 'cant' angle beyond what can be achieved by today's
conventional canting keel boats. A major benefit of the system is the
ability to lift the keel and bulb clear of the water, removing the added
drag that cannot be avoided in conventional canting ballast designs.

The concept is executed by canting the ballast fin and bulb along a rail
system that follows the sectional shape of the hull. The fin head is
supported by four pivoting trucks with rollers to provide an efficient low
friction contact with the rails. The components are recessed into the hull
and are enclosed by a flush sliding cover that maintains a fair hull shape
at any cant angle. Keel cant angles greater than eighty degrees are
achieved by this system without disrupting the layout of the deck.

The design utilizes a fore / aft twin rudder arrangement. The two rudders
are linked together but can also be independently adjusted. This
flexibility allows the balance and lifting forces to be optimized for the
conditions.*

The design parameters yield a very powerful and exciting package. With a
displacement to length and sail area to displacement ratios similar to
modern racing designs ten feet longer, the boat promises serious
performance potential.

* similar to the rudder system on CBTF boats

Photos: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/photos/11/0716/
Boat information: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/11/0716/


Pictures by Andrea Francolini
click on image:

 

This is a pretty meaningless statement. D/L and SA/D ratios are ratios. So what if they have ratios similar to boats 10 feet longer, or 20 feet longer?

In fact, smaller boats generally have better ratios than big boats.

 

Hello Doug,

I am just reading through this thread as I wind down from work & don't have much of a background on these machines..
A question for you:

Given the statements of high forces needed to shift the keel bulbs about, has it been tried to simply steer the bulb from side to side via the struts angle of attack, trim tab or the like?
Obviously only useful while under way but it seems a simple way to develop the force needed to shift the bulb.

I also imagine a balanced pump system on the tab could be used to dynamically neutralize any unintended "lateral load" and its accompanying drag.

Just curious.

 

----------------------------
bntii, I don't know if that's been tried or not. Just off the top of my head I don't think it would work because it seems to me the force required to move the keel would be acting opposite to the required force from the keel tending to neutralize it at least until it reaches a stopping point. I'll think about it some more.
CBTFco has a second patent that uses a trim tab on the whole keel strut to generate more righting moment and further reduce the ballast required for a canting keel. I don't know whether or not it's been built and tested.
--

bntii, here is the abstract on the "keel lift" patent-trying to find images of the drawings:
Abstract

High performance sailing yacht designs are disclosed based on a keelless sailing yacht concept having dynamic gravitational ballast which is laterally movable for heeling resistance which ballast replaces a function of the standard keel. A keelless yacht of this type is disclosed with an adjustable flap mounted on an elongated strut from which the ballast is suspended below the hull to generate a variable heel hydrodynamic control force independently of the counter-heeling effect achieved by the ballast. The foregoing features enhance the effects of disclosed improvements and modifications to hull design in having a duplex form, with upper and lower hull shapes, the lower of low drag shape, and of reduced section, while the upper hull extends laterally abeam from the lower hull to define reserve buoyancy, added accomodation, and surfaces adapted for hydroplaning when the yacht is at a controlled angle of heel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a pdf of the patent including drawings. The only part that may be relevant to your question is the canting keel flap:

 

Q-Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovaton!

Great thread apparently about Q on SA: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=125193
Pictures are very interesting! A copy of a Seahorse article is in the thread and readable(!) but I can't copy it in a way that it is readable here. Take a look!
More later.....

 

Interesing thread, including photos and article explaining Q

On Sailing Anarchy.

Just as I had postulated, this article shows the surface following track mechanism behind the canting keel - and the "window blind" surface skin that follows the (not perfectly circular) hull curvature. The solution they've come up with is interesting to say the least.

It appears that Q is a test case for showcasing/refining this concept and a larger future boat may be coming if this proves successful (which it has not yet conclusively done).

In light of the starving multitudes right now in Africa I can't help but contrast this kind of spending against how the money could give life to real people with real children dying. Just a thought while the economic world crumbles and the ultra rich get ultra richer.

--
CutOnce

 

Q-Flying Canting Keel-Extraordinary Innovaton!

Some pictures just before and after keel is put in place-notice "fixture" at head of keel. Pictures by Johnny Saint on SA:

 

Not so certain about extraordinary innovation here

I'll grant Q incorporates an interesting and potentially effective evolution of the canting keel concept. I'm not however certain that it is revolutionary or a sailboat.

Once you cross the no-return Rubicon regarding mandatory engine power on a racing sailboat (a oxymoronic concept IMHO), is there not a lot more revolutionary things you could do?

This design, with the track mounted carriage forming the base of the canting strut, running in a hull conforming track seems more incremental and careful. Perhaps optics and perception have tempered Mr. Oatley's vision - not wanting to appear as if they've strayed too far from the public's perception of an acceptable race boat.

If you've got to hear a miserable smelly diesel running to tack and gybe, why not get even wackier, with telescopic hydraulic ballast chambers, with pumped high specific gravity fluids, controlled by microprocessor? Why not incorporate multi-axis inclinometers being polled a few hundred times per second to enable computerized righting moment optimization. The technology is certainly doable. The same technology could be used to handle automated righting and capsize recovery. I have absolutely no doubt that using optimal technology and external power could create visually wind powered (but in reality diesel -augmented motorsailors) that could outrun anything on the water today. Exactly how much technology automated last year's BMW-Oracle America's Cup boat? How many sensors, load cells, GPS chips and how far did the control systems go? Just how complex was the software analyzing all this data? Just because the diesel isn't directly driving a propeller doesn't mean it isn't an integrated, mandatory, necessary part of the sailboat.

Basically, the exercise is focused on public perception and how far the sport is willing to stretch the definition of sailing. Somehow, people now accept sailboats that must burn fuel to race are acceptable. Stop the fuel usage, and these boats are no longer competitive. That is the Rubicon of which I spoke earlier.

The real issue I see is where to draw the lines. I liked the necessity of gorillas grinding in the pits to drive winches. I really hate seeing geeks on finger control joysticks replacing them. I like tactics/nav by real people using compass, telltales, paper charts, dividers and masthead pennants, instead of TacTic electronic compass decisions about lifts/headers and GPS-driven VMG optimization by Velocitek.

My working career is spent creating these very systems that automate, secure and enable technology - reducing the number of people necessary to run businesses. I know that without a doubt careful application of design skills like mine can definitely do the same for racing sailboat. But I don't think this is a good thing.

Although I acknowledge that Q is the possibly next evolutionary step forward from canting keels, I still can't accept it as a sailboat, and I would rather the power-assisted Rubicon had never been crossed. How different is Q really from a turbodiesel engined race boat that flies a vestigial sail on a tiny mast and calls itself a sailboat? Where do you draw the lines?

--
CutOnce

 

----------------------------
I remember this old refrain from years ago when canting keels first came out. The plaintive cries of : "that ain't no sailboat it is a powerboat"!
Despite the common sense enginering problem of moving a large amount of lead quickly-which couldn't be done without power assist. Despite the many ocean racers that run their engines to charge their batteries to run their computers. Seems some would just as soon there be no canting keels on big boats-if you can't move it by hand you can't do it.
Probably won't be long before the "smelly diesel" is gone in favor of all kinds of newer tech-and that would be great. I'll just bet they'll be a new refrain then: "If you can't do it by hand you can't do it"-wait-thats the same as the old refrain! The more things change the more they stay the same.
---
The "battle" regarding using engine power to move a canting keel has been waged on many other threads-this is not the thread to continue it. The extraordinary innovation represented by Ian Oately's boat is widely recognized and should be applauded as a risky gamble that was taken to further sailboat design technology. For those that want to open up the debate on power for canting keels here is one of the original threads on the subject. Have at it-there-not here: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/canting-keel-mechanisms-9608.html
---


Here are some photos of Q and other "non-sailboats":

pictures, Q, Wild Oats, VOR70's, Open 60's-all of which use engine power to facillitate the movement of their canting keels

 

Well, Doug, you seem to have missed my point completely in your rush to re-fight an old battle no one is interested in. I've conceded that people in general accept power-required racing sailboats, but the point I was making was asking the question regarding "Where does one draw the line?", not proclaiming my opinion as the one true vision.

My post actually was somewhat of a "shout-out" to your "designs" where you are happily willing to explore and promote any application of technology, power, computing etc. which may enable high wind-driven performance at a lower human cost.

Some of your more "edgy" concepts could be a far more effective path to high performance than Q. Telescopic strut sections operating above the water with weight-adjustable hollow ballast bulb, driven by computer control would be far simpler and more effective than Q's incredibly complex keel solution. You would have to own up to hydraulics and powered pumps, but all that would need is a little more flexibility on where the "line" is drawn. If you have to have power, why not go way further than Q? Why be limited by a fixed length strut? Why not multiply righting moment by just extending the strut? Why bother with manual control of easily automated systems?

I don't have to agree with you on the topic of required power for racing sailboats. That's a strictly personal definition for me, and I'm not trying to proselytize people to my viewpoint. I'll leave that to people who have skin in the game. But when it comes to exploring the space you are interested in, why care at all about the "lines"?

I don't have to like many of the ideas promoted here, but that doesn't mean they could not be effective if ever developed. Many of your wilder concepts have more potential than Q - if they ever were actually brought to fruition. Sadly, the needles of good ideas always seem to get buried in the haystacks of features, complexity and unfocused management and persistently allowing too many agendas/projects to run concurrently.

Great ideas are worthless. Execution is priceless.

--
CutOnce

 

=================
Thank you ,Once, for your most insightful comments. I guess I got thrown off by that old "can't accept it as sailboat" thing........