Multi 50 Design Rule: no vertical lift!

Discussion in 'Multihulls' started by Doug Lord, Aug 4, 2012.

  1. Samnz
    Joined: Nov 2008
    Posts: 235
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 47
    Location: Auckland

    Samnz Senior Member

    thanks for the complements

    anyway...
    what I am saying is people are building boats to the rule (50ft class). if the rule wasnt a good one no one build em, simple facts

    so these people think its a good thing they aren't allowed foils or they wouldnt build a boat to a rule that bans them.

    Therefore its not a good advertisement for foils, its a good advertisement to ban foils from some classes to limit costs.
     
  2. Corley
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 3,777
    Likes: 194, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 826
    Location: Melbourne, Australia

    Corley epoxy coated

    It's too bad that there cannot be a simple acceptance of different design approaches and rules. I wonder about the sudden attack by Doug on this class does it have something to do with MOD70 being one design? I suppose the idea is to destroy a currently succesful budget class by implementing a "no limits" development framework which will hand victory to the biggest spending and most generously sponsored team.

    The French have lots of knowledge of development classes and the current open class Imoca 60 has looked at one design recently as well. The problem is the boats are just too expensive this year there are 15 Imoca 60's on the startline for the Vendee Globe last year there were 30 thats a class in serious decline with several teams switching to the MOD70 in an effort to control costs. Ocean racing is an expensive enough game without having your boat obsoleted every season. And even in France where ocean racing sailors have a degree of celebrity status and receive good media coverage the limits of funding are not infinite.
     
  3. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,680
    Likes: 346, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    =====================================
    Man oh man, Corley! What absolutely unfortunate use of language to describe what is a reasonable opinion even if you don't agree. These comments sure seem absurd to me!
    Nothing I've said gives you carte blanche to characterize my comments as an "attack" or to falsely state what my motive is.
    ------------
    When you look at the facts of the Multi 50 rule, they allow four foils- a rudder and daggerboard in each ama. What is the extra cost of a lifting foil that could conceivably be paid for by using a smaller ama? The only extra cost is in the tooling and, as you say, that is shared among all the Teams. It would be minimal extra cost to allow lifting foils which not only improve speed but improve seaworthiness as well.
    My opinion is that the Class would be improved by the use of these foils-both for the skippers, the sponsors and the fans. The design of the foils could be agreed upon by the class and to save money they could even become "one design" elements of the class. This would give everybody the benefits of the foils in a most cost effective way.
     
  4. oceansailor
    Joined: Aug 2012
    Posts: 7
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Vancouver B.C.

    oceansailor Junior Member

    Corley, I agree with you.

    I think its excellent too have the multi 50 and MOD 70 design classes. These two classes get more people sailing really cool large trimarans. The 50 guys with less cash, can have a blast, and the 70s with a much bigger budget can also get out there and race fast, very fast.

    I think the G class boats, BPV, Groupama 3, Sodebo, Idec, Gittana 11, AC 72s etc, is where the big money will be spent to trick out the design to get the maximum efficiency out of her. What works well for these designs will eventually trickle down, after they have experimented and broken the new concepts a few times over and over. This is great, as is saves us regular budget folks the massive expense of testing, breaking, and testing again. I think the multi 50 in the Quebec St Malo race proves that she is a very capable, safe, fast, efficient trimaran to race on. We all know its simply not fair to compare the 50s with the 70s or the 70s with the G class. But we now have all three and that means more exposure and more action on the water for more people, that's the best part.

    Keith
     
  5. warwick
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 423
    Likes: 7, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 63
    Location: papakura south auckland new zealand

    warwick Senior Member

    I agree with I think it was Corleys break down on costings. Some thing else I have noticed cost goes up when you are chasing the last part of development (last 1/10 of a knot or mile an hour).
    For the ORMA 60 once it all became a similar overall concept, then looking for the last bit of an advantage over every one else, then cost went through the roof.

    May be now Doug and Corley can agree to disagree. I respect the comments from you two, for coming from a different points view.
     
  6. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 3,014
    Likes: 129, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    Doug's point makes sense - what's the difference in expense of making a straight or curved board and cases mounted into the floats anyway? The difference has to be small. If the 50's think that by not not having foil assistance is going to save them expense? ... just doesn't add up to me. A straight dagger or a curved one, or an L, or a large main hull dagger, or whatever, still has a similar amount of materials and similar amount of time to build. The cost difference has to be minimal.
    Always thought the beautiful and fast 50's were being a bit dumb taking this approach ... because the curved foil trimarans have proved time and time again that they are the better boat.
     
  7. Corley
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 3,777
    Likes: 194, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 826
    Location: Melbourne, Australia

    Corley epoxy coated

    Prince De Bretagne is (as far as I know) the only Multi50 that has gone down the route of float mounted daggerboards. Who is going to pay for the wholesale reengineering of existing boats to accept these new float foils? Thats right it's the sponsors taking it in the wallet again and the teams having to go to them to beg more money to make the modifications on top of the yearly requests for their wages, new sails and replacement of equipment that wears out in the normal course of ocean racing.

    Engineering foils for these boats will be a custom task and one size wont fit all, the existing floats and the structure of the entire boat will have to be reviewed and modified if not up to scratch. Thats a simple task for a one design but a complex and expensive modification for an assortment of old and new multihulls. Even assuming only new Multi50's will have the float foils how is it acceptable that boats only a few years old will have to make costly modifications to keep up?

    Apart from anything else how will these changes improve sponsor value? The class is not seen or presented as being cutting edge just a reasonably fast racing multihull class that promotes good in class racing. It's doubtful the bulk of the viewing audience will know or care.

    The G class multihulls have become the new premier record breaking, development and technical class the others have become classes focussed on racing multihulls within the limits of their rules (and their budgets).

    The whole topic points to a naivety about the commercial pressures the teams operate under. The members of the Multi50 group are well aware of technical advances outside their class and have decided to keep things as they are for now for a good reason. They may review that in the future if they feel it's necessary and sufficient teams decide it's necessary, web based diatribes against their rule will not change their decision making process.
     
  8. Silver Raven
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 437
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 67
    Location: Far North Queensland, Australia

    Silver Raven Senior Member

    Gooday Corley - Lets agree to dis-agree ! ! I can't sit on 4 sides of a 2 sided converstation & as I read what I think you are saying - You ARE - by your own words - trying to do just that. I M H O

    Two subjects here - to be taken as one - just for the sake of the conversation - by the way - which is not 'diatribe' - - 'curved-foils' & foils in amas - as against in the main hull. That is if you'll allow such a conversation to happen without - taking it out of context ???

    There are many people in these forums & in this discussion that just like me - don't like being told what to - or how to think no more than we (these very same people) like to be told what the outcome of such 'thought' process should be - as you seem to be doing - by my carefully reading & re-reading of your words above.

    Your last sentence is a very good example of a problem that you seem to be -expecting me to - have to walk down - which is just never going to happen - you just have not got the ability nor the experience.

    "may review" - "they feel" - "teams decide" - - "web based diatribes" - "will not change" - - well - well now, is that so - - Not in my life-time.

    I thought & I still think - that we are having a discussion - not trying to - change anyones 'class rules' - that doesn't mean - that anyone has to agree with the way they are going.

    I'll go - very formally - on record - as saying - "curved foils are the way of the future & furthermore the way over 80% of - state-of-the-art - leading edge multihulls will go" as are foils in the floats much superior to c/b's in the main hull & that's a quote also.

    I fully understand that you - a very experienced professional multihull builder for many years now - firmly believes that the allowing of the addition of 'curved-foils' will - break the bank at Monte Carlo - however - your beliefs - should be very clearly stated as - your beliefs - not fact - I M H O

    Next; Your 2nd paragraph - as well as being - most annoying - is just so contradictory - that it's not making any logic at all - again - I M H O .

    You clearly - have stated many many times that 'curved-foils' are not faster - better or add anything - that's fine by me - only if it's your personal opiion & not stated as fact - - then in para 2 - you end by saying "Even assuming . . . that boats only a few years old will have to make costly modifications to keep up"

    If - 'curved-foils' & foils in floats - are not superior - then why would anyone be bothered "to make costly modifications to keep up" - which way do you want to have it - cause you can't be on 3 sides of the discussion - each in opposition to each other. If the above modifications are not better - then they will not be adopted - that's just obvious.

    Curved-foils & foils-in-floats - are either a step forward or they are not. You think they are not I think that they are. So be it. I'll agree that you are intitled to your opinion but please allow me to have mine.

    Oh - & when you've got all that sorted - then please sort out all the chaps that are using/developing/building & sailing with - foiling-multihulls - cause I don't think that they were/are listening to you - either.

    Do have a great day sailing & building - but keep your foils straight - eh - Ciao, james - Oh & keep smiling, jj
     
  9. Corley
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 3,777
    Likes: 194, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 826
    Location: Melbourne, Australia

    Corley epoxy coated

    Come on Silver Raven where do I state that curved foils are not faster as part of an integrated package? I love my multihull racing and want to see as many diverse classes as possible survive.

    If open slather was allowed on a Multi50 we would end up with a boat like a scaled down ORMA60 but not quite as fast we would also have less competitors in the class because the price of entry, maintenance and maintaining a boat that would place well would be higher. It's not like the development pathways for making trimarans faster are not known ORMA60 has been there done that and rejected an open development format in favour of one design.
     
  10. Silver Raven
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 437
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 67
    Location: Far North Queensland, Australia

    Silver Raven Senior Member

    Corley - O.K. - ORMA60's rejected an open format - for whatever reason that they deem proper - their right.

    I like you 'love my multihull development & racing' however I feel that - the powers that be - will push the boundaries - farther & way mose expensive - that I can ever keep-up with. Only chance I might have is to - out-think or out-fox them - which is what I'll try to do - when I get my hands on this 'toy' I'm trying to obtain.

    I just don't see how it is - so expensive - to go for these - modificatiuons - carbon & epoxy - a pump & some hoses & plastic - - is just not all that expensive. It well may be - technology but it is not 'rocket'science' in any way at all. I say/touched - a set of - curved carbon 'A' class c/b's a week back - guy said they cost him $2K AUD (each or the 2) & the rudders cost $1K AUD - way way out of value/cost/speed structure - I M H O that is just not possible to justify - anymore that the claimed cost - blow-out - of making the same modifications to any other class. If I can play with an 'A' class - then we'll see just how much a set of - curved c/b's & rudders - really cost. I'm looking forward to that challenge.

    Sorry - that I missunderstood ! ! I now understand that you were/are not against curver-foils - - & foils in amas & that like Doug & I might be trying to follow - to quote another scribe - in these 'forums' "the honourable Gary Baigent" & see if we can get to go faster - either in or above the water. Cuase I sure am & will continue to try & learn how to - follow Gray - Ciao, jj
     
  11. Corley
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 3,777
    Likes: 194, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 826
    Location: Melbourne, Australia

    Corley epoxy coated

    It's ok Silver Raven I guess my posts could be misconstrued. The costs come in with the scale of the boats, making mods on a light off the beach boat is straightforward on a 50' ocean racing multihull it's more complex. If you broke a beam on an A class you would say "yeah whatever" and make another one but a large cantilever beam designed to the minimum possible scantling would be a much bigger spend. As an example of the difficulties the Multi50 Prince de Bretagne has broken the beam to float joint several times now so even with the best of engineering technology keeping it strong enough and light is a real challenge.

    When I was looking at having a 40' trimaran concept designed by Tim Clissold the design fee for Tim was very fair however the engineering of the structure would have cost $27,000 NZD that was for a cruiser/racer in mostly foam sandwich. I imagine a dedicated carbon ocean racing trimaran would demand an even higher level of scrutiny on where carbon and weight could be removed and where it was needed hence cost.

    To be honest I reckon a great place for a new development class would be a round the buoys inshore class somewhere around the 20' mark open slather monofoilers, trimarans, proas, outriggers, catamarans, monohulls, dedicated foilers bring it and race it now thats something I'd really like to see! Only suggested constraints it has to be able to be sailed off the beach and no mechanical or stored energy. The other the boats should race in any conditions short of suicidal and boats that dont race lose points over a series of races. 20' is small enough to require a limited amount of material so carbon could be used without breaking the bank and clued up privateers would have a good chance of winning the requirement for beach launching would keep the platforms light and simple. The requirement for racing under a range of conditions would demand that the boat be seaworthy and not be a one trick pony or light wind/condition rocket only. I'd christen it the "International Open 20 whatever!" trophy.
     
  12. groper
    Joined: Jun 2011
    Posts: 2,467
    Likes: 123, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 693
    Location: australia

    groper Senior Member

    When someone can explain this dilemma, we may well arrive at something we can all agree upon...? So does anyone care to take a punt on why the foil is so much more exotic, expensive, or whatever other reason, when compared to a centerboard?

    I dont see bugger all difference in cost, slightly more material in the foil as it has to be stronger, and slightly more complex to build because its not straight... but neither of these amount to bugger all in the grand scheme of what makes up a 50ft racing tri... so long as the foils are all one design and can be shared between boats/teams, it shouldnt matter a damn...

    If they really wanted to limit costs, why not limit the use of carbon (like only allowed in the beams, spars, foils etc), prepreg resin and autoclave processing, nomex cores etc. This would make a MUCH bigger difference in terms of operating costs and probably would not slow the boats down by much esp if foils were allowed...
     
  13. Corley
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 3,777
    Likes: 194, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 826
    Location: Melbourne, Australia

    Corley epoxy coated

    The essence of the issue is it's a solution waiting for a problem. It's not the Multi50 teams pushing to have curved lifting foils it's some guys on a forum insisting they should. The teams in the Multi50 competition are smart enough to make their own decisions about what equipment and construction methods their boats require and would update the rules if necessary.

    Theres been a fine tradition in the class (particularly by Escoffier's with their series of Crepes Whaou Multi50's) of onselling the boats which are constructed to the highest standard to lower funded teams at very reasonable prices. Carbon/cored construction does not demand more upkeep but extra equipment on the boat does therefore the construction method does not seriously effect the operating cost as the boats are insured against structural damage. More equipment that can potentially break equals more claims and higher premiums.
     
  14. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 3,014
    Likes: 129, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    Now if the 50's were to introduce these types of foils, I'd agree, absolutely, these would be expensive and complex to build ... but we're saying that basic (old school now) curve, or L's or straight foils are only fractionally more difficult and expensive to build than the usual symmetrical daggers, whether in floats or in main hull. The expense differences would only be of use to those who enjoy being pedants, or nit picking accountants.
    How expensive is a 50 anyway? Fargo trucking expensive is the answer. The no-foil thing to allow the "common sailor" a boat to sail ... just doesn't add up, lacks logic.
     

    Attached Files:


  15. Corley
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 3,777
    Likes: 194, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 826
    Location: Melbourne, Australia

    Corley epoxy coated

    If they thought that it was worthwhile they would create another 50' class that allows more tech or change the rules but they know the market in France is allready saturated with multihull options so whats the point?

    Multi50 will always be inferior in overall speed to the MOD70 and G class multihulls so why increase the cost proportionately of ownership? Making Multi50's 3-4 knots faster on average will not change their positioning in the multihull racing sponsorship heirarchy or provide them with better racing just slightly faster boats. Also the owners/skippers and crews are not complaining about the speed, handling or seaworthiness of the boats as they stand and it's an active class that competes in many events.

    Kevin Escoffier was part of the Banque Populaire V crew in the round the world race. The whole French ocean racing multihull establishment is a relatively small group and they all know each other. It's not like they are not aware of advances outside of the Multi50's but they have for now chosen to keep things as they are.

    The Multi50's are intended of course to be a sponsored boat and not a conveyance for the common sailor to bum around in. The French have actually invested in programs that train young sailors to have the skills to step up through smaller boats to larger and have an industry that can provide a career path for them.

    Thats why I broached the point early on about the lack of Ocean Racing Multihulls in other countries. I always get the feeling that the French are criticised for their choices of boats and how they run their rules but they are the only country that has had an ongoing ocean racing multihull programme. If the sailing establishment in other countries embraced multihulls there would be worldwide circuits and that is part of the idea of MOD70 to get countries and teams involved on a more parochial basis. I can only wish them luck with this as the rest of the world has shown a staggering and inexplicable lack of initiative in developing their own ocean racing multihulls.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.