Golden Globe Race design rules?

[CarlosK2]

Profile is simply Perfect ...

but the bow is too sharp

 

[CarlosK2]

Eric Hiscock, Wandering under Sail

For Surfing we don't want lateral force on the bow

 

[CarlosK2]

September 1992

Bay of Biscay

Force 11 ... OMFG

Vertue 1939 (!)

spectacular SurfBoard

that could be improved

but the starting point is good: capable of Surfing without anyone at the helm

The problem they had was that a lot, a lot, of water came in

something that obviously has a lot of room for improvement

 

[CarlosK2]

In a parallel world, on some distant planet in this galaxy ...

There would be small, 1 Ton lightweight (150 D/L) surfboards with the center of Flotation at 58% LWL like a 1979 yacht

And there would be heavy (300 D/L) surfboards, 5-10 tons, with the center of Flotation at 50% LWL like a 1914 yacht

 

[CarlosK2]

Imagine

Imagine if, in 1979, two rules had been set for the MiniTransat:

Hull Beam / Hull Depth =< 2

and

No autopilot

On the one hand, passive safety would be good (instead of a turtle-shaped hull that's a camouflaged catamaran), and on the other hand, there would be evolutionary pressure toward good behavior.

 

[CarlosK2]

150 D/L, 1 Ton, Oceanic SurfBoard, Force 7

Bow: High pressure: hydroDynamic Lift: a Lot

300 D/L, 10 Ton, Oceanic SurfBoard, Force 10

Stern: Low pressure: hydroDynamic Suction: a Lot

---

These are the two extremes to express my point of view:

a small light surfboard for example to cross the Atlantic Ocean

and

a large heavy surfboard for the South Indian Ocean

 

[CarlosK2]

1 Ton Oceanic SurfBoard
10 Tons Oceanic SurfBoard

Of Course L_CG > L_CF

 

[CarlosK2]

hydroDynamic Suction ...

... is (can be) the secret weapon of the heavy Oceanic SurfBoard for a good hull attitude for Surfing ... bow Up, stern Down

 

[CarlosK2]

La Niña

William Starling Burgess (1928)

William Starling Burgess - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Starling_Burgess

 

[sharpii2]

As far as I know, IOR design rules discouraged surfing and planing by mandating a certain shape for the stern, underwater. About 1/7 of its width had to angle up astern to an angle of 35°.

This design feature, not its D/L ratio, made it hard to surf.

Otherwise a boat of the same weight, but with a lower D/L ratio will probably surf better than one with a higher D/L.

The one with the higher D/L ratio simply has a shorter Load Waterline.

This was convincingly proven when so-called "sport boats", like the J24, were introduced.

 

[rangebowdrie]

If they allowed 2 more feet of length I'd be tempted to enter an Alajuela 38 Mk II, (tall rig).
Some might laugh, but they're a surprisingly slippery design by William Atkin.
The winning boat last time, (Cape George 36,) was by the same designer.
Oh well, only in my dreams. Lol.

 

[sharpii2]

Imagine

Imagine if, in 1979, two rules had been set for the MiniTransat:

Hull Beam / Hull Depth =< 2

and

No autopilot

On the one hand, passive safety would be good (instead of a turtle-shaped hull that's a camouflaged catamaran), and on the other hand, there would be evolutionary pressure toward good behavior.

I'm not sure I understand your math symbols. Do you mean Beam / Hull Depth must be equal or less than 2.0?

And if so, what do you mean by Hull Depth?

Do you mean the largest under water section only? Or do you mean the entire largest Hull Section, up to the Sheer?

As for myself, I can find little to criticize for the Mini Class.

The goal was to come up with the fastest possible boat per given length, a long with some other reasonable limitations, while taking advantage of what the latest technology has to offer.

A more affordable class would certainly have greater restrictions. But these restrictions sole purpose would be to make the class more affordable.

Banning expensive technologies, such as canting ballast keels and limiting the percentage of moveable ballast would be a great place to start.

After that, limiting the fixed keel design would come next. Some version of my proposed GGR design rules would do quite well. For instance, the length of the top of the keel must be at least the length of the bottom of it, and its depth must be no greater than 1.5 times its length, would work reasonable well in preventing super deep, high AR keels that greatly enhance performance but also greatly enhance brittleness.

Boats designed to restrictions such as these would almost certainly less expensive to build, and perform similarly to non-racing counterparts.

 

[sharpii2]

Imagine

Imagine if, in 1979, two rules had been set for the MiniTransat:

Hull Beam / Hull Depth =< 2

and

No autopilot

On the one hand, passive safety would be good (instead of a turtle-shaped hull that's a camouflaged catamaran), and on the other hand, there would be evolutionary pressure toward good behavior.

In your little formula, do you mean the Hull Depth must be more than half the Beam? Or do you mean it must be half or more than half the Hull Beam?
And where would this be measured from? The highest point on the Sheer? The lowest point on the Sheer?

And why ban autopilots? They are a relatively inexpensive technology. And solar panels combined with decent batteries can easily power them.

What should have been banned is canting keels, because they are an expensive technology.

There are at least two ways this could be accomplished:
1.) is a flatly stated ban, which would have to define what is meant by a "canting keel".
2.) is to limit the amount of moveable ballast to a percentage of fixed ballast. Say such were limited to half the fixed ballast. Then, there would be less incentive to go with deep, bulb keels (which have been quite a problem on racing and non-racing boats. Such keels have been known to break off or break the boat).

If the moveable portion of the ballast were limited to half the fixed ballast, for example, canting keels would still be possible, but they would be far less effective.

 

[sharpii2]

I agree with the ULDB as being a more cost effective option, as long as it will perform when loaded down. A multi-stop-over event just becomes another ARC style rally. People with money seem to be attracted to such events. I do not understand why people will pay others to organise them to sail around the world, for me, completely counter intuitive.

A ULDB could work, but it would have to be larger to carry the same load.

The displacement may be the same, but the beam and length would likely be more. And, with no restrictions on length, the boats would become quite long.

The lighter, bigger boats would almost certainly be more expensive, as they would be larger and would likely need to be built out of more expensive materials and techniques.

There is a sound argument that lighter boats are better for this purpose, as they would complete the voyage sooner and would be better able to dodge bad weather.

But I think such boats would be close to the IMOCA boats in proportion and type.

And the limited speed of these heavier boats makes the race more interesting to me for reasons I stated in an earlier post.

 

[skaraborgcraft]

And the limited speed of these heavier boats makes the race more interesting to me for reasons I stated in an earlier post.

I can not recall the competitor, but it was interesting to see the winner sailed a whole lot more sea miles, than the guy who stuck rigidly to the shortest route. Its much more using weather forcasting with favourable routing when all boats are running displacement speeds.

ULDB do not have to be expensive. Ply on frame 50ft is not in any way "exotic", and the lighter boat needs a smaller rig and sail area, much savings to be had there even if some semi-exotic fabric was put on the hull.