New 27' trimaran design by Kurt Hughes

[Samnz]

Now that is a true OPEN 8.5m, not restricted ... as is the "open?" NZ 8.5.
Shame they couldn't have thought this far (meaning similar to the Kurt Hughes design) when they formulated their committee decision rule.
Okay, blaze away ... but you have to admit you were wrong ... and backward. Okay, continue to blaze. Cheers.

um actually Gary the NZMYC 8.5 rule is the most popular box rule in the world, so I think we got it right! and more people are building boats to the rule as we speak!

The open 10.6 rule (under 10.6m class) has failed dismally in comparison how do you explain that?

Also just because you keep harping on about it what would your version on the 8.5 rule be?

 

[Doug Lord]

um actually Gary the NZMYC 8.5 rule is the most popular box rule in the world, so I think we got it right! and more people are building boats to the rule as we speak!

The open 10.6 rule (under 10.6m class) has failed dismally in comparison how do you explain that?

Also just because you keep harping on about it what would your version on the 8.5 rule be?

=================
Samnz, it appears to me that the 8.5 rule allows curved foils in the ama-am I reading that right? http://www.multihull.org.nz/open-8.5m-class/8.5-rules-1008.htm
I note that square platforms are illegal(fairly narrow overall beam) and if you have a hydrofoil on the rudder then it is included in the overall length measurement.

 

[Corley]

um actually Gary the NZMYC 8.5 rule is the most popular box rule in the world, so I think we got it right! and more people are building boats to the rule as we speak!

The open 10.6 rule (under 10.6m class) has failed dismally in comparison how do you explain that?

Also just because you keep harping on about it what would your version on the 8.5 rule be?

It's no small achievement to have a rule thats doing well with that many boats racing regularly. Props to you and the guys at NZMYC as the 8.5 rule has delivered consistent boats on the water racing which is the ultimate goal. Is there another current rule that is delivering more larger than off the beach multis on the water on a regular basis?

 

[Samnz]

=================
Samnz, it appears to me that the 8.5 rule allows curved foils in the ama-am I reading that right? http://www.multihull.org.nz/open-8.5m-class/8.5-rules-1008.htm
I note that square platforms are illegal(fairly narrow overall beam) and if you have a hydrofoil on the rudder then it is included in the overall length measurement.

yes thats correct. however the limited air draft(i.e sail area) and min weight pretty much makes foils unnecessary. someone might launch a F85 with curved foils them but I doubt it will help much, just more complication and weight.

 

[Gary Baigent]

Here's a quote from Sebastian Schmidt when he was involved with designing the Decision 35 - but it is exactly applicable to the period when the NZ 8.5 was introduced:
"Actually I was afraid that we might suffer from an overly democratic process, common in Switzerland, where many people are frequently too quick to offer an opinion. As a result, our projects often end up bland and insipid - like the scent of flat potpourri."
By the way, Sam, although one design (yet far more advanced than the limits of the NZ 8.5) the 8.5 M2 Class in Switzerland had 28 boats in fleet in last Bol d'Or.
Here is my suggestions for a truly Open NZ 8.5 (although of course it is far too late for such an introduction - but it would have saved the screwing up of the GBE one design fleet into "also rans" (that's a Malcolm Tennant quote) and a mess of neither one thing nor the other - okay, here goes:

8.5m LOA x unrestricted BOA, allow racks. No restriction on draft, rig height, weight, foils or headroom measurements, 3 bunks, set a total SA, to windward 40m2, total maximum downwind 100m2, (there's two restrictions that will halt freak development) then let the Open race designs evolve.

 

[Samnz]

Here's a quote from Sebastian Schmidt when he was involved with designing the Decision 35 - but it is exactly applicable to the period when the NZ 8.5 was introduced:
"Actually I was afraid that we might suffer from an overly democratic process, common in Switzerland, where many people are frequently too quick to offer an opinion. As a result, our projects often end up bland and insipid - like the scent of flat potpourri."
By the way, Sam, although one design (yet far more advanced than the limits of the NZ 8.5) the 8.5 M2 Class in Switzerland had 28 boats in fleet in last Bol d'Or.
Here is my suggestions for a truly Open NZ 8.5 (although of course it is far too late for such an introduction - but it would have saved the screwing up of the GBE one design fleet into "also rans" (that's a Malcolm Tennant quote) and a mess of neither one thing nor the other - okay, here goes:

8.5m LOA x unrestricted BOA, allow racks. No restriction on draft, rig height, weight, foils or headroom measurements, 3 bunks, set a total SA, to windward 40m2, total maximum downwind 100m2, (there's two restrictions that will halt freak development) then let the Open race designs evolve.

"With 28 high tech one-design catamarans already built" http://www.thedailysail.com/inshore/11/60476/0/m2-catamaran-circuit-to-expand-in-2012

a one design is quite different to a box rule!

your rule idea sounds a bit lame, only 40m2 sail area? my main alone is nearly 40m2!

 

[Corley]

Kurt's postapocalyptic boat building article is actually a very good read and goes into a lot of detail on different construction methods, cores and their pros and cons.

His focus is affordable performance which is a different measure to just straight out performance if you vary from his suggested methods of construction the costs go up significantly.

http://multihullblog.com/postapocalyptic-boat-building/

 

[Gary Baigent]

Right Corley, full agreement with Kurt Hughes' philosophy; you don't need to spend a fortune to get a high performance boat, just require some innovative thinking.
Er, Sam, you might be carrying a macho area of sail ... but the "Baigent Open 8.5" (joking) would weigh 50% of your boat ... remember you just want enough sail area to drive your platform at high speed, not have excessive drag and distorted sail area to slow you down. In this day and age; more with less, efficiency is king.
However since I just took a quick stab at SA figures ... maybe will change when the keen sailing crowd begin banging on the door.

 

[yves]

About "big" cruising tris, below one 45' (for sale €88 000) is the result of many modifications over 20 years starting from an 11m mono (fugue) ! :
http://www.hisse-et-oh.com/annonces/31487-trimaran-course-croisiere-45

The result isn't too bad (the guy was a friend of Lerouge so he helped him define the modifications after a while), but there is almost nothing left from the original boat apart from the navigation table !

More on this story below (but in French) :
http://www.hisse-et-oh.com/forums/f...ages/93578-transformation-voilier-en-trimaran
for instance :
"1° version : on coupe la quille, on fabrique et rajoute deux petits flotteurs réalisé en contre plaqué ployé très incliné qui faisait « foils » réalisation d’une poutre en alu « sur mesure » pour la liaison coque flotteur, fabrication et pose d’une dérive. Dans cette première version le gréement et la coque centrale n’ont pas été bougé.
2° Après plusieurs saison un flotteur se casse et le propriétaire décide : de construire de nouveaux flotteur plus longs et de rajouter une poutre arrière, de modifier les lignes arrière de la coque central. Il décide aussi de changer le mat pour un autre plus haut et faire une gv latté.
3° Quelques saisons plus tard, il décide de changer les poutres (bricolé) pour de véritables poutres en composite. De construire un mat aile et une nouvelle bôme en composite.
4° Il décide de modifier les lignes d’eau av et de rallonger la ligne de flottaison.
5° et dernière version il décide de changer les flotteurs pour de plus long et volumineux, de rallonger le mat et de changer tout l’arrière de la coque centrale.
En définitive : il a usé 3 jeux de flotteurs, deux jeux de bras et 3 mats ! De la coque centrale d’origine je crois qu’il reste un bout de 2 à 3 mètres entre les deux poutres ! C’est vrai que c’est un chantier étalé sur 15 ans.
Contrairement à ce que peuvent en dire ou penser certain le bateau ne marche pas mal, mais il aurait été beaucoup plus simple de partir sur un véritable tri dés le départ.
Si ton idée de départ te semblait séduisante, et bien c’est un « fausse bonne idée ». Si tu es capable de construire des flotteurs et des poutres alors pourquoi pas une coque centrale ? et pour financer le tout : la vente de ton monocoque. "

or :
"
Un de mes proches amis a effectué ce genre de transformations sur un Fugue.
Aprés avoir rencontré beaucoup de problèmes, il s'est décidé à me demander
conseil. Je n'ai accepté que parce que je l'aimais bien et il fallait sauver
ce qu'il restait du bateau. En 20 ans, pour que cela ressemble à
quelquechose, on a refait petit à petit:
-Le tiers avant de la coque centrale.
-Le tiers arrière de la coque centrale.
-Le cockpit.
-Les flotteurs.
-Les bras de liaison.
-La dérive et le puits.
-Modification de la structure interne pour supporter des efforts tout à fait
différents.
-Les safrans.
-Le gréement. La stabilité beaucoup plus importante du trimaran ne permet
pas de réutiliser le gréement d'origine.
-L'ensemble de l'accastillage. Car le gréement est beaucoup plus puissant.
-Etc, bref, il ne reste plus guère que la table à cartes d'origine...
Certes, le bateau marche mieux que le Fugue d'origine mais outre une valeur
de revente inexistente, pour le travail fourni et l'argent dépensé, il
aurait pu se construire un véritable trimaran de 45' qui aurait été
considérablement supérieur!

Ma question: 2 solutions: impossible, je fais rien.
C'est mon conseil! Le Challenger est un excellent bateau qu'il serait
dommage de massacrer.

possible merci de me donner le côut de vos
services pour étudier une transformation cohérente
Prohibitifs pour ce genre de transformation. Les tarifs de consultation d'un
Architecte Naval sont de l'ordre de 65€/h.

Les travaux seront entièrement réalisés par moi même car j'ai déjà
travaillé dans le milieu.
Dans ce cas, construisez en un! Les multicoques sont des bateaux formidables
qui vous feraient redécouvrir la voile. Nous ne manquons pas de plans
existants qui pourraient correspondre à votre programme.

Sincères salutations,

Erik LEROUGE
"

On the other hand in the same thread quite goog example of small tris being made with a mono and some beach cat hulls.

 

[Samnz]

Right Corley, full agreement with Kurt Hughes' philosophy; you don't need to spend a fortune to get a high performance boat, just require some innovative thinking.
Er, Sam, you might be carrying a macho area of sail ... but the "Baigent Open 8.5" (joking) would weigh 50% of your boat ... remember you just want enough sail area to drive your platform at high speed, not have excessive drag and distorted sail area to slow you down. In this day and age; more with less, efficiency is king.
However since I just took a quick stab at SA figures ... maybe will change when the keen sailing crowd begin banging on the door.

Sorry for the Hijack Corley

your rule ides sounds similar to C class rule. the winning boat would be all carbon and with a wing and would cost 500k. it would be a failure in NZ you'd be lucky to get 2 or 3 boats built to it and only one would win (the most expensive)

as much as I admire your boats they wouldn't be competitive as they cant go upwind in over 10 knots of breeze...

and to cap it off the Hughs 27 wouldnt be competitve anyway as it will be a similar weight to my boat.

 

[Silver Raven]

Sorry for the Hijack Corley

your rule ides sounds similar to C class rule. the winning boat would be all carbon and with a wing and would cost 500k. it would be a failure in NZ you'd be lucky to get 2 or 3 boats built to it and only one would win (the most expensive)

as much as I admire your boats they wouldn't be competitive as they cant go upwind in over 10 knots of breeze...

and to cap it off the Hughs 27 wouldnt be competitve anyway as it will be a similar weight to my boat.

Gooday Sam. Don't worry about 'hi-jacking' - I honestly would hope none of us in here are that - small-minded. Yes/No ??? y'all.

1st/ Compliment was - just a 'statement' of fact - if 'Stealth Mission' isn't one of the nicest looking - total packages - then 90% of crew.org - me & many 100's of others have got it all wrong. Not a chance in hell of that. BEAUT BOAT - that it sails well is just more cream on the 'apple-pie'.

Can you 'tweek-it' any faster - or does the cost start to - spoil the fun ???

Corley - mentions - somewhere - that - a good place to design/sail would be something around 20' - because it would be affordable - I've not got back to him to remind him - that a 18' skiff - is up over $100K AUD plus just for the basic & not all the goodies - so 20' off-shore ocean racer is not & never will be anything but - over-the-top expensive.

Sam I notice that there are a few 8.5's for sale & some are good buys I see but I'm not sure that some of those are all that competitive - at the front end of the fleet but for the money - someone would sure have great racing & with a fab bunch of K'1's if that's a bonus or what ??? he he he. Great value for dollars spent - which is where you are comming from - Yes/No ??? I know that I'd be buying an 8.5 within a week of landing in NZ - for sure. Better boats - maybe - bigger boats - maybe - faster boats - yea right - better value for dollar - not at all. I M H O & I've spent a long time building/sailing/racing & playing with wet-feet-toys.

Thanks for your in-put & comments - great addition to this discussion. ciao, james

 

[Corley]

I've qualified my post over there in the Multi50 thread for a more accurate idea of what I had in mind. I was thinking more of an off the beach round the buoys boat than an ocean racer.

 

[Gary Baigent]

Sorry for the Hijack Corley

your rule ides sounds similar to C class rule. the winning boat would be all carbon and with a wing and would cost 500k. it would be a failure in NZ you'd be lucky to get 2 or 3 boats built to it and only one would win (the most expensive)

as much as I admire your boats they wouldn't be competitive as they cant go upwind in over 10 knots of breeze...

and to cap it off the Hughs 27 wouldnt be competitve anyway as it will be a similar weight to my boat.

The difference with C Class is that they have a sensible box for catamarans: 25x14 feet, 300 square feet sail area - and that was a rule introduced way back before 1960. How advanced those boys were 50 odd years ago? Would that the local 8.5 committee had been as far sighted.
And initially all the early C's were built very carefully in thin plies with glass, later carbon reinforcing, not expensive exercises and they were light boats; look at the Quests up to no. 3 and Patient Ladies up to no. 4.
Leaving C Class and looking at the Gougeon tris, (how old is the superb Adagio - close to 50 years?) and still very competitive today, built in wood, epoxy and good reinforcements, as are all their boats.
So what I'm saying is that you don't have to go to outasight expense with full carbon/Nomex/foam/high strength heated epoxy, whatever to have a fast boat. And wing masts are a lot cheaper (a fraction actually) to build than buying a carbon rig - can't get carbon wing mast off the shelf anyway.
The answer to over the top expense is ... use your brain and be innovative.
Forgetting your silly comments about half a million dollars and the throwaway 10 knots wind, would like to hear what Kurt Hughes has to say about your derogatory remarks regarding his 27. With a wing mast rig that powerful platform design, built not expensively in light woods and some composites (as he writes referring to apocalyptic times boat building) would eat all the local 8.5's.

 

[Samnz]

The difference with C Class is that they have a sensible box for catamarans: 25x14 feet, 300 square feet sail area - and that was a rule introduced way back before 1960. How advanced those boys were 50 odd years ago? Would that the local 8.5 committee had been as far sighted.
And initially all the early C's were built very carefully in thin plies with glass, later carbon reinforcing, not expensive exercises and they were light boats; look at the Quests up to no. 3 and Patient Ladies up to no. 4.
Leaving C Class and looking at the Gougeon tris, (how old is the superb Adagio - close to 50 years?) and still very competitive today, built in wood, epoxy and good reinforcements, as are all their boats.
So what I'm saying is that you don't have to go to outasight expense with full carbon/Nomex/foam/high strength heated epoxy, whatever to have a fast boat. And wing masts are a lot cheaper (a fraction actually) to build than buying a carbon rig - can't get carbon wing mast off the shelf anyway.
The answer to over the top expense is ... use your brain and be innovative.
Forgetting your silly comments about half a million dollars and the throwaway 10 knots wind,

I hope every reading this realises we are friends having a bit of banter and as opposed to arch rivals! In fact Gary helped me on my boat just before launching without which we wouldnt have been able to do the 8.5 Nationals in March, so thanks again Gary

however in saying that you havent actually raced as long as iv known you and my boat is much faster than any of yours!!! I bet $100 you can not beat me in over 10 knots of breeze upwind.
(yes your boats are very quick in light breeze but would like to see them in over 10 knots)

A few facts in terms of the NZMYC and the 8.5 Class.

*the GBE owners are the ones that promoted the class, not the NZMYC
*there is a fully open under 10.6 class (that the club supports) to which a few boats have been optimized for (Timberwolf & Frantic Drift) and two new Cats are about to be launched to.
*8.5s are about 5x as popular due to the cheaper more multipurpose design parameters.
*Gary is dreaming if he thinks a class with no min weight would ever not be a big $ project.

would like to hear what Kurt Hughes has to say about your derogatory remarks regarding his 27. With a wing mast rig that powerful platform design, built not expensively in light woods and some composites (as he writes referring to apocalyptic times boat building) would eat all the local 8.5's.

I never said anything derogatory about the 27.
*I asked has any Hughes boat got a result in a race in the last 10 years (proper race against proper multihulls)
*and the boat will weigh approx the same as my 28ft tri (just a fact even his 24ft tri built in the same materials as the 27 is over 800kg as I have weighed it myself)

 

[farjoe]

and my boat is much faster than any of yours!!! I bet $100 you can not beat me in over 10 knots of breeze upwind.
(yes your boats are very quick in light breeze but would like to see them in over 10 knots)

Samnz,

This is a very interesting thread. Would you care to qualify the above statements?

And in general, I do hope the thread remains civil. It would be a pity if it ended up as war of word attacks and counter attacks!!!

regards