How has technolgy changed sailing speed?

There have no doubt been huge changes in sailboat technology since America sailed into History in 1851.

Stainless Steel has been around since the early 1900's, I cant find a reference for it's first use as yacht rigging.

The 1950's saw Aluminum Spars, Polyester (Terylene in 1941, Dacron soon after), and Mylar (1952)

The first Glassfibre hulls started showing up in the mid 1950's also.

Although Uffa Fox penned ultralight boats (the Flying Series) in the 1930's, 1977's Merlin is considered by many as the first ULDB ocean racer.

Multi-hulls have been on the scene in one form or another for over 100 years also.

If there is a direct cause and effect of technology increasing sailing speed, I would expect to see an improvement in speed from 1851 to present, with jumps in the 1950-1970 years and another jump in the 1980's.

If we look at 1851-1950 as the era of wood, 1951-1979 as the early age of plastic and post 1980 as the modern era what trends can we identify?

Looking at recorded Best Days Run and World Sailing Speed Records, it is interesting to note that in terms of Speed/Length*, the performance of sailing craft did not change very much until the ULDB.

Some interesting data points:

1851 America recorded a BDR of S/L 1.25
1931 Dorade recorded a BDR at S/L 1.44
The average BDR for Monohulls from 1851 to 1952 is 1.25 (Based on the data I have)

For BDR in the early age of plastic (1950-1979) I have only Three data points; 1952 Caribe(Mono) at 1.33, 1977 But(ex-OndineIII, Mono) at 1.49, and 1979 KriterIV(Tri) at 1.74

After 1980 the average of all of my data (Multi's and Mono's) is a S/L of 2.28

The Multi's are faster at S/L 2.34 vs the Mono's at S/L 2.13

The outright BDR (Orange II, 2006) 31.95 knots, S/L 2.92
Best Mono BDR (ABN AMRO TWO, 2006) 23.45 knots, S/L 2.80

The highest S/L for a Multi BDR is 2006 "Brossard" 60 ft Tri, Yvan Bourgnon SUI, 610.45 nm. 25.76 kts for a S/L of 3.33

Of note are the W60's (Water Ballast IIRC):
1994 "Intrum Justitia" 64ft, Lawrie Smith, GBR, 428nm. 17.83kts (S/L 2.23)
1997 "Toshiba" 64ft, Dennis Connor, USA, 434.4nm, 18.1kts (S/L 2.26)
1997 "Silk Cut" 64ft, Lawrie Smith, GBR, 449.1nm. 18.71kts (S/L 2.34)
2002 "Illbruck" 64ft, John Kostecki, USA, 484nm. 20.16kts (S/L 2.52)

And the VO70's (Canting Keel):
2005 "Movistar" 70ft, Bouwe Becking, NED, 530.19nm, 22.09kts (S/L 2.64)
2005 "ABN AMRO ONE" 70ft, Mike Sanderson, GBR 546.14nm, 22.75kts (S/L 2.72)
2006 "ABN AMRO TWO" 70ft, Sebastien Josse, AUS, 562.96nm, 23.45kts (S/L 2.80)

It would seem that no amount of new technology will substantially increase the 24hour S/L averages of displacement hulls. Dorade's 1931 S/L of 1.44 was a wood boat with wood spars and canvas sails.

It also seems obvious that to improve 24 hour run performance boats must be capable of sustained operation in the S/L 1.5 - 2.5 range. This requires ULDB's (D/L < 100?) or a Multi-hull.

Is it possible to have a seaworthy and seakindly boat that is able to average S/L speeds over 1.5? Over 2.0?

Are modern production boat hull forms more seaworthy or seakindly than those of the past?

In your opinion, what are the benefits of the changes in technology since 1850? Since 1950?

No agenda here, just some observations and questions.

*S/L is defined as Vessel Speed (knots)/Sq Rt (Length Water Line [feet]). A S/L of 1.34 has been considered "Hull Speed" since that is the speed where LWL=Wavelength between bow and stern waves. Obviously, longer boats have the potential of greater speed. Comparing S/L ratios should give an idea of how well a boat does compared to the theoretical "speed limit" of S/L = 1.34.

 

Howdy Randy,

Interesting stuff here. The question I have is are these based on peak speeds or averages (ie race times) - or a day long run.

There are factors for each that need to be taken into account.

Peak speeds - have only been able to be measured with any degree of accuracy recently and it begs the question how the boat goes the rest of its career. Also was it on flat water or wave assisted?

Race times - as we know race times depend greatly on where the wind comes from - perhaps it is better to look at boats in the same race of similar length.

Best run over 24 hours - is also problematic as it represents wind from an ideal direction rather than a full range of performance.

Maybe it would be interesting to compare rating certificates for speed freak yachts within the last generation or so.

Remember too that Kriter was (I think) designed under the IOR which was a terrible speed restricting rule if it was used for input into the hull design.

I suspect it would be REALLY interesting to get some of these boats to run the standard 500metres in flat water and time them.

I well remember the early days of Weymouth Speed Week when all the class dinghies and cats rolled up ready to break the 20 knot barrier. 505s, 18 ft skiffs, tornados etc etc etc

And the looks of dismay when the hot monos averaged around 12 knots and the hot multis around 16 to 17.

And that was with them having something like the optimum wind direction.

They quickly learned it was better to make claims about speed in a bar rather than turn up to be humiliated again.

Michael Storer

 

Howdy,

Actually that is what I'm interested in - average performance over a range of conditions. If a boat is a rocketship with the wind at 120 to 165 true but is a dog upwind it is useless.

Like some of the round the world multis - we had one of the previous generation here and it raced in a short race here against the smaller local offshore multis.

The conditions ended up being upwind and the smaller boats gave it a complete drubbing - rumour was that its centreboard had been cut down to save weight.

It was barely able to beat the faster monohulls.

Or could they have been having a nice party aboard?

MIK

 

Sorry Randy, you did give good data explaining the source of each performance.

But I still think the best run for 24 hours is problematic.

"Performance" is much bigger than going in one direction only as breathtaking as the speeds may be.

I just had a fish for some polar diagrams for various craft but I'm struggling with 28.8k where I'm staying.

MIK

 

I used 24 hour runs because I had the data readily available.

I was surprised not to find a substantial increase in 24 hour S/L speeds after "Modern" materials came into use. It was the reduction in D/L that is a characteristic of both ULDB's and Multi's that made a clear change in the 24 hour speeds.

I have not yet spent the time to research Transatlantic or other ocean passages over the last 100 years, but I suspect that the speeds for displacement boats vs ULDB's and Multi's will show the same trends.

As you so correctly point out, choosing conditions plays a great part in the result.

In this years S-H, the average S/L speeds were not remarkable. If I read correctly, it was an upwind race. Love & War managed 1.07 S/L, the ULDB Maxi's managed 1.0 to 1.2 S/L.

That conditions and the course sailed have a major effect points out the difficulty in fairly rating displacement boats with ULDB's and Multi's. If the ULDB's were rated based on their S-H performance, they would have a gross advantage in conditions where they can sail at S/L 2.5+. If they are rated based on their well documented ability to sail at very high S/L speeds, they would stand no chance of saving their time when the course or conditions prevent them from sailing to their best. I don't have an answer to this, other than to separate ULDB's and Multi's from racing under the same rating system as displacement boats. I have no interest in banning entire classes of boats, only in some fair chance for all.

As far as cruising boats go, cruisers are more apt to choose weather and routing that favours their boat. Based on that assumption, 24 hour speed is pretty relevant (IMO). What I glean from the information that I have so far, is if you choose a displacement mono to go cruising in, you might as well put seaworthiness and seakindliness at the top of your selection criteria list, no amount of technology is going to make the boat much faster on an ocean passage.

Once you choose passage speed, you must choose a ULDB mono or a Multi. For an ULDB mono to have a good comfort ratio, it has to be pretty big. 55+ feet LWL or so. 55ft LWL at S/L 1.5 is 11.1 knots, S/L 2.0 is 14.8 knots. The question then becomes, What size multi can cruise at speeds between 11.1 and 14.8 knots and how well would it treat it's crew? Could moving ballast be used to design a mono that is seaworthy, seakindly, and have the cruise speed of a 55ft LWL conventional ULDB?

 

Howdy,

I haven't ventured into designing these sizes of boats so I don't have any of the "comfort" formulas available.

My experience is that narrow beam gives the best result in terms of comfort - and perhaps this is where canting keels originally came from.

Can't remember the name of the boat or find any ref on the net, but I think it was about 55ft long, about 8ft wide, and was owned by an 505 racer.

Maybe someone else has a web reference.

After all with a canting keel there is less of a necessity to have beam to have adequate righting moment - although the open 60s and other classes have been about getting righting moment from all sources available to the maximum extent possible.

Though the megamaxi(!) canters have reduced beam to an extent, it probably doesn't mean much in terms of reducing stability or increasing seakindliness because the beam is still quite big for the displacement - even though they look slimmer because of the greatly increased length and reduced proportional freeboard

The narrow beam canter cruising scenario also might make sense because narrow beam boats have a much bigger range of positive stability - (I know you know ...) which means that if they are capsized they will come upright much more easily.

A cruising boat with a canting keel might work nicely indeed in the smaller sizes where the keel can be personhandled into location as the loads are not so great.

I think most modern designers would make a botch of such a boat as they wouldn't be able to resist making everything complicated rather than using the technology to make a relatively simple and cheap boat (width has a significant cost) a lot faster - if someone had a few lazy tens of thousands to build it - it might be fun to draw up something like that - a fast wooden cruiser with relatively narrow beam.

MIK

 

Most of the posts in this thread seem to relate to quite large boats.If we take a look at smaller boats,there are a number of steps along the way that are worthy of consideration.The planing hull took the boats quite a long way ahead of where they had been previously.The trapeze gave another boost to performance and the development of synthetic sailcloth was another major step.Nylon spinnakers also brought the possibility of developing the spinnaker for something other than just running or broad reaching.Plywood was lighter than some other forms of construction and GRP enabled mass production of shapes that would have been expensive or very difficult to build otherwise.Sandwich construction and the introduction of more advanced fibres for reinforcement have allowed even lighter hulls and spars.
The common strands of development seem to be lighter hulls,more powerful and lighter rigs and more righting moment.What would be interesting is a parallel discussion about what has been lost along the way.

 

The first international small-boat class, the Canoes, were pretty damn quick in the 1800s, it seems, but became so hard to sail that it almost killed the class. My gut feeling/understanding is that something like a RS700 or any other non-spinnaker singlehander could be in trouble with an 1800s Canoe in some conditions. In others, the Canoe would of course be out of site astern.

I have the yardstick figures for UK dinghies for the early '60s. Boats with Dacron sails often had a different handicap, 2-5% faster, partly because it allowed much bigger roaches in some classes. The UK's Classic and Veteran Racing Dinghy association allows boats with cotton sails at least 6points (about 6%) slower handicaps, and old gear is generally a few % different.

There's an interesting comparison between the British Firefly (a one design that basically fitted National 12 rules) and the development-class National 12 itself. When the Firefly came out it was rated at the same speed as the National 12. The National 12 has had its sailing weight reduced (by rule changes and lighter gear ie no floorboards needed to protect modern hulls) from about 220lb to about 185 or so, has had big roaches fitted, gone through a lot of hull shape changes, had a false floor fitted etc.

The Firefly has also had changes (it's now lighter by a few kg I think) but the National is now about 6% quicker according to the Portsmouth yardsticks (which are pretty damn accurate in the UK).

In the early '60s Ragtime (the C 1963 Spencer 62 (later 65) that won two Transpacs and helped inspire Merlin and the Sleds) would have been the quickest ULDB, I think. She's been re-keeled and modified and I think she's now something like 17-22% slower than a current R/P 65 canter, judging from my memory of their IRC and PHRF ratings.

A top-class 1965 conventional ocean racing rating cruiser-racer like the Finnisterre-style Sunstone is something like 13% slower than a Beneteau-40.7 style cruiser/racer of the same length.

The Moth may have improved, at a rough estimate, about 30% between the 1930s and the foiler. I'm basing this on yardsticks for the 1930s British Moth and throwing in a bit as it wasn't a competitive Moth even then. The yardstick for the foiler is still based on foiling conditions so I was assuming it would be non foiling and therefore seahugger speed 20% of the time.

A few of the old boats can still perform very well in some conditions; apparently the 1930s Uffa Fox deep Vee International 14s like Daybreak and Tiercel will out-perform a modern carbon winged 14 a lot of the time on the River Thames.

From one perspective these are only small advances; but what is the right perspective? The classes that have improved the most in speed often haven't done very well in numbers. There's something like 25%+ between the speed of different crews even in the strictest of one designs. And as we all know, if you put two crews of equal ability in a race, .05% speed advantage can turn into getting a lee bow, which turns into getting the right shift, which turns into sailing in clear air with tactical options, so you end up 10% ahead.

The funniest thing about looking at speeds and ratings is that all the ratings allow for the fact that big boats are comparatively slow, if seen in direct LOA/speed ratios. Of course, there are lots of good reasons why this is so, but it does seem funny that some people demand that the rules allow for the laws of physics that make big boats comparatively slow, then turn around and demand that rules don't allow for other physical factors (weight, beam, stability, small sail area, all often reflected in age) that make other boats comparatively slow.

Some development or loose OD classes have developed but show little improvement compared to stricter classes. Finns used to be rated about 1% faster than Lasers years ago; now after the Laser has gone through very few changes and the Finn has got a wing mast and high tech construction, apparently they are still 1% faster than Lasers - because the Lasers have spent a lot of time on techniques and fitness.

A world-class catamaran designer/sailor I know builds a one design cat and A Class cats. He says that the As used to be about 2% quicker than the one design. Now the As have ram bows, carbon construction etc, and they are still about 2% faster than the one design, which has concentrated on techniques and sail cuts.

It's a funny old world.

 

Ultimately though, especially with displacement boats as mentioned at the top, you're just into laws of physics. You can design a new boat that's fast enough to beat an old one relatively easily, but changing more than the odd percent is a very big ask indeed.

 

Howdy GGGuest,

I basically agree, but probably only if you are talking about a particular wind angle.

To design a boat faster than another with a similar capacity and ability that will be superior at almost all angles can be a very big ask indeed.

Performance is about more than one wind angle - which is the problematic aspect of using the best 24 hour runs.

Still it is a better comparison than nothing at all.

Michael

 

How has Technology Changed Sailing Speed?

Seems to me that the most important technologies relative to sailing speed are(in no particular order):
1) movable ballast( including trapezes, racks,canting keels and waterballast etc)
2) planing hulls(sohisticated design)
3) foils(including hydrofoils)
4) rig and sail technology

Backed up by:
1) sophisticated sail and rig design,construction and materials
2) sophisticated hull construction techniques and materials
3) sophisticated engineering and daring innovation
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In 1975 Crossbow did: 31.1 knots
In 1980 Crossbow did 36 knots
In 2005 Finian Maynard did 48.7 knots in a monohull(!)
According to Sail magazine L'HYDROPTERE has a max speed of 45knots; G Class Cats 45 knots,and Yves Parlier's Mediatis Region Aquitaine 45+ knots.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Monohull Speed and Speed/Length Ratio's:
=========================

---windsurfer-max speed(so far)48.7knots-nom S/L-24.31(!)-uses movable ballast-planes.
---12.75' Moth foiler-max speed (so far): 27.9 knots-uses movable ballast-flies. Nom-S/L=8.41
---Aussie 18-max speed-(so far): 30 knots-uses movable ballast-planes. S/L=7.07
---VOR70-max speed-(so far):40.6knots; 23.45 knots for 24 hours-uses movable ballast-planes.S/L=4.85
---Alfa RomeoII(sistership to Wild Oats)-max speed-(so far):35 knots-uses movable ballast-planes.S/L=3.62
---Open 60-max speed-so far-30 knots-uses movable ballast-planes. S/L=3.87
------------------
And we have just barely scratched the surface of speed under sail.....

 

Technology/ sailing speed:

Many have mentioned modern materials and engineering on the boat itself contributing to better speed- I agree with this.
I'll add information technology independent of boat construction as adding something too. Access to real-time weather, GPS positions, forecasting, computer routing all filtering to somewhat higher priced weekend warriors, and will be run of the mill on most boats in the near future with dropping costs of information and electronics.

 

Randy:

Your use of Best Day's Run & S/L in post #1 is solid. The rest of the guys just seem to want to fog over some of the obvious stuff. Here is what I saw when I first read your post:

The S/L for the mono record is not light years behind the S/L for the multi-hull (2.80 vs 2.92). Now some will argue that is a significant difference. But on a logerithmic scale basis the 1.25 and the 1.44 from previous centuries, I can say to the multi guys: "Is that the best you can do?"

I don't mind you using displacement monos as the basis for the comparison. Yeah, boards and small cats may be faster, but I want to keep my bunk and my box of beer dry. So, I am interested to know how the displacement boats are improving.

This is a good thread. I hope it doesn't degrade into a Moth vs Mac25 debate.

 

In my experience a 9.2m (30ft) Dragonfly trimaran will cruise easily at these speeds, and remain extremely comfortable. But they're not suitable for blue water cruising. Hopping along the coast from one harbour to the next is what they are best at.

Personally, I think increasing the S/L from 1.44 to 2.88 is quite an achievement. After all, it is a 100% improvrment...

 

True, improvement over the last 150 years is there. But it has not always been incremental.

Mono's were stuck some where around S/L 1.3 or so for best 24 hours run (BDR) until the mid 1990's or so. Then all of a sudden they jumped to BDR averages over S/L 2.0. Since the jump there has been a more or less steady increase.

Multi's on the other hand, started around S/L 2.0 and have more or less improved since. Whatever it was that allowed the mid 90's increase for Mono's, closed the performance gap between the to types substantially. I don't have enough data to know if the slope of the curve for Mono's is steeper than the curve for Multi's.

Here are a couple of graphs that show the trends I see.

I'd welcome suggestions of sources of more ocean crossing (passages or races) speeds from 1950 to the present day. The more data the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

What is relatively clear is that Multi's were not making remarkable passages until after the dawn of the plastic age. The supports a position put forward in another thread by jedarman? that the advent of composites allowed mutli's to become viable ocean boats ... that's not exactly what was said, but it's close.

Could it be that the Mono guys were making poor use of composites and they suddenly woke up in the 1990's?

Very curious indeed.

Randy