Notable open & development class racers....

Stephen,
Would you please bring your post to the 'Seaworthiness' thread, to discuss it there?

Paulo,
Pogo 40 Cruiser is an evolution from Pogo Class 40, not the contrary (or at leasst born at the same time, if I'm not wrong)
What I would like to know is which ones are.... “Some of these boats existed as cruising boats before the 40class was created, and where quite popular…”
But I agree not to discuss it here (Although it's not a discussion on my side. Just interested in knowing)
You are also kindly invited to discuss seaworthiness of these boats and their STIX at the specific threads.

Cheers.

 

Notable Open and Development Class Racer: Psaros 40

Psaros 40: 6 trapezes, canting keel and waterballast:
sebschmidt - portfolio and gallery
Address:http://www.sebschmidt.ch/portfolio/01194/ Changed:9:30 PM on Monday, November 27, 2006

 

This thread has great potential, but perhaps I'm missing the point.

To be notable means more to me than just new or different.

For instance, if the definition of development class is extended to boats built to the CCA Rule, I would submit that the Cal 40 was notable because it introduced Ultralight Displacement (for it's time) and the fin keel/spade rudder configuration.

In Open 60's, was movable ballast part of the original specification? If not, the first boat to use it was notable, as was the first boat to use a canting keel.

Lionheart was a notable 12 Meter for it's bendy top mast.

The first boat under IOR that had a successful fractional rig was notable. Anyone know what boat it was? (I'm thinking a Farr design?)

All notable in that other boats in other classes use the features that put these boats on the list.

To me, yet another 30, 40 , 50 ft ocean racing dinghy with a canting keel is not notable. What is different besides the length?

What racing class is the canting bilge keeler designed for?

Mini's are notable not for any feature of the boat, but because for better or worse they have made short-handed sailing accessible to more people. In that role they serve as a showcase for talent much like other open wheel classes showcase potential Formula 1 talent.

Am I completely off base here?

 

Nice boat, but that's not an ocean going one. These boats with trapezes are for lake racing.

Sebschmidt has a large and quality portfolio.

They have also a 40 class boat. It is interesting what they say about the boat and the class (and the comparison with the boat you have posted, regarding RM):

Rarely we saw such a craze for a new class : almost 28 boats already registered for the Route du Rhum 2006, and other projects' still growing up.
Endowed with a power ratio equivalent as on an open 60, the Class 40 can enjoy of about twice the righting moment of a lake racer like the Psaros 40' (8.2 t.m to 4.2 t.m) for the same hull length and mast height!
But this is without any doubts the "accessible to everybody" spirit, inherited from the Mini 6.50m, and a strict control of the costs that are building the success of the project.

http://www.sebschmidt.ch/portfolio/05312/

 

The new class 40 are just doing what you have said the minis have made, but at a much higher level, a level that make them competitive with bigger and more expansive classes (I, II and III) in real time.

By your definition, the 40 class boats are notable boats

If the new monotype "Ocean one", permits the same thing ( serve as a showcase for talent much like other open wheel classes showcase potential Formula 1 talent) at a even higher level, they would also be notable boats, by your definition.

 

I have to say that the 40 Class boats are notable to me personally because they are the first of the modern dinghy type ocean racers that I've considered owning.

For me, the 40 Class boats are a progression from the Mini's and are not so notable by themselves. They do however make a strong case that you don't need a canting keel to have a fast ocean racing mono.

The Ocean One monotype (one-design) seems to me to be just another one-design class. Granted a One-Design aimed at a small corner of the world, but in general just another One-Design.

All the open/development classes that are designed for short handed sailing, might become notable if they produce more seaworthy and seakindly boats for cruising couples. They have already advanced the state of auto-pilot technology.

The things I find elegant about the Mini's are the box rule (I like development classes) and the separation of Proto's and Series designs within the rules. The Series boats started as Protos, the successful ones become Series boats and the Series boats provide a benchmark for the next generation of Protos. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for a boat to become dominate.

I suppose boats can be notable in a negative sense also. The slow for their LWL but fast for their IOR rating boats fall into this category.

The IOR is notable as a rule that fostered less seaworthy and less seakindly boats than the rule it replaced.

Any boat that was seaworthy, seakindly, and fast under IOR would qualify as a Notable boat. I want to say that Farr and S&S probably drew a few that were, I just can't think of one.

All the boats that have to sail under modified rules are notable, because they demonstrate how far people will go not to race other types of boats.

I think "Mariner" is a good example of a notable boat. It was so bad, it revolutionized the way tank testing is done. We enjoy better towing tank results today thanks to Brit Chance's failure in the 1974 America's Cup.

 

The first boat under IOR that had a successful fractional rig was notable. Anyone know what boat it was? (I'm thinking a Farr design?)

Titus Canby.Bruce Farr.
Still around,saw her in Wellington a few years back.

 

"Any boat that was seaworthy, seakindly, and fast under IOR would qualify as a Notable boat. I want to say that Farr and S&S probably drew a few that were, I just can't think of one."

S&S 30, 34..... Tenacious, etc

In fact there were hundreds of excellent boats designed to the IOR rule. Although it is remembered for some of the dreadful designs it spawned from about '75 to '80, for the first few years, it gave us loads of the boats with skeg hung rudders and 45 percent ballast ratio that we now consider to be 'classic seaworthy designs'.

 

What about.....

Cascade, the Milgram cat-ketch, was a successful IOR boat (although often put up as an example of a boat harmed by the IOR, she was actually favoured by IOR; it's the only reason a boat that was quite slow for her length did well).

Denali, the Ron Holland cat ketch.

Carina, the late '60s Rhodes (?) CCA design that won the Bermuda about '79 under IOR.

Ceramco New Zealand, beautiful and fast, was a successful IOR boat in 1980. Seaworthy? Round the world no problems apart from a stay failure.

Sunstone, S&S modified Finnisterre type, was a successful IOR boat. Fast? Not compared to a later IOR boat. Seaworthy? Yes. Seakindly? Depends on your taste.

Pen Duick III, under a different name and rig, was a fairly successful IOR boat in the second Whitbread.

Ragamuffin #1/Margaret Rintoul II, a beautiful and classic '68 RORC racer, was a successful IOR boat, as were Tenacious, Running Tide, Love and War, Flyer I and II, etc through '75-'80. These boats took Fastnet, SORC, Sydney-Hobart, and Round the World races (among others) in the IOR era, '70-'80.

The Farr 1104, 727, 920 etc were successful IOR boats '75-'77. Damn fast in their day. Fairly high ballast ratio. Small skeg. 1104s have done an enormous amount of miles with an incredible safety record.

Ragtime and Merlin were successful IOR boats in their conditions, '75-'80. Ragtime was seakindly and fast, and seaworthy enough to sail the oceans for years.

The Townson 32 Moonlight from NZ was a fairly successful IOR boat; roomy, seaworthy, safe and fast for her length.

Accanito, one of the lightest boats from the notorious '79 AC/Fastnet, has been a Pacific and world-girdling cruising home for a couple for many years now. She's still almost original; runners, flush deck etc.

For all the talk about how slow IOR boats were, outside of light-wind areas and downhill races they seemed to do pretty well against non-IOR boats. Partly that was because the IOR boats normally attracted the best crews, but the fact that the advantage of non IOR boats was about the same as the advantage of sailing better may indicate that really, the boats may not have been the problem.

The IOR boats may not have been all that fast for their LOA, but they often weren't too slow for their sail area. I can recall a classic moment from the '80s. I got off a Farr 40 Design 136 IOR 1 ton one day and sailed on a 35' Elliott 10.5; a radical non-IOR boat.

"That main is as big as the Farr 40 main" said the skipper proudly. "That masthead spinnaker is 10% bigger than the Farr 40 kite" said the sailmaker. I looked around at the crew and counted the same number as a Farr 40. Looked at the beam; same as a Farr 40. Looked at the LWL; same as a Farr 40.

"So how does she normally go" I asked. "Well, we can often beat the Farr 40s" was the proud reply.

Of course she should have; it was the same size as a Farr 40 with the overhanging counter chopped off and the bow snubbed. Yeah, the IOR boats had their problems, but the good ones weren't too bad - and the racing was great. There's a reason fleets in those days were a lot bigger than the fleets today.

 

I am interested in it, Vega. Thanks for the info you've posted on Class 40. Beyond the merits of one class vis-a-vis another class, though, what makes open & development classes in general interesting is that the boats racing each other vary, facilitating design progress. Open & development class racing is the best test tank around, but in order to learn from what we see we must understand the differences among the individual boats participating.

I appreciate that recent posts have named individual boats. That's my intent. But the boats mentioned are historical, and slow by today's standard. And most are were not designed to compete in what I would consider an open or development class.

IOR, IMS, and IRC were were initially conceived more as handicapping systems than as development rules. Repeating a comparison of a modern handicap and a development class racer:

DK40 (IRC): 6500 kg on a 10.4m waterline
GP42 Class: 4200 kg on a 12.2m waterline​

I'm inclined to think of Merlin, Ragtime, and the ULDB 70s, as well as MaxZ86s, as development class racers. The ULDB 70s followed a pattern of evolution like a development class, though they utilized the IOR rule in things like measuring sail area. At the end of the day they were designed to be first to finish in primarily downwind races, and thus eschewed bumping, internal ballast to improve rating, and other gimmicks.

There's nothing wrong with history. If you have a favorite blast from the past, I'd love to hear about it. Along this line, I googled Alan Gurney the other day, designer of Windward Passage. Turns out he's living in Scotland and recently wrote a book about polar explorers.

 

development

Stephen, did you see the Radical 40 I mentioned earlier with the wings on the canting keel? Notable for that since Dovell is the pioneer of that soluton to the reduction of lateral resistance inherent in canting keels-and about as modern as modern gets. And the Psaros? Notable because it uses three forms of movable ballast and one of those includes 6 people on trapezes.....

 

I was looking at the thumb nail of Brit Air and was amazed at the size of the foretriangle. It looks like it has almost as much area as the main.

Is this to keep the bow from diging in?

Judging by its proportions, (long base, short height), that seems to be its major advantage.

Bob

 

Perhaps you could take a look at:
www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14842

Afterwards you may not be any the wiser but at least you will see what passions can be triggered by such an innocent sounding question.

 

Forgive me if this has been covered--or if this isn't the place for it--but I was just watching some of the big weather ofshore sailing videos at: http://sailingstuff.wordpress.com/video-collection/ and am reminded anew of a question some have been asking for ages: Why do these men work on deck? Blondie Hasler may have been the first, but Jester crossed the Atlantic in the first OSTAR without the need for a man on deck--ever. Modern ORMA 60 trimarans have fully protected helm stations. Sure, the crew must go on deck at times (though again the ORMA 60 guys are out there, demonstrating how seldom this really needs to be, with multiple roller furling headsails, etc), but surely they don't need to stand watches there, taking every passing wave full in the face?

Watching entire crews standing in the deluge, grinding winches and sitting on the rail--and, literally, being washed overboard to their deaths, I never cease to wonder just how far these guys will take this "making men out of boys" concept? Surely the boats would be faster as well, without all the drag--hydro and aero-dynamic--of a half-dozen men and their gear on deck? No argument in favor I've heard to date ("they need to see; they need to get to their stations quickly, etc, etc." hold any water in a trans-oceanic race. Is this the 21st century or the 19th?

Just wondering...

Dave

 

You are joking around...right?