Planing Trimarans

Discussion in 'Multihulls' started by Doug Lord, Sep 30, 2006.

  1. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Posted by Doug Lord:

    Do I sense more than a little bit of hesitation on your part, Doug? Why else would you try to dodge the challenge by answering my question with another question? I see obfuscation and smoke screens, but precious little substance in your response.

    This is your golden opportunity. Both you and Ian claim these boats can plane and Mike and I say they don't. Since our boat won't be planing, it should be down right easy for you guys to just fly on by us while we're being held-up by all that water we're pushing around. Simple stuff, Doug, it's not rocket science.

    More talk shows weakness on your part. What's it going to be, Doug?

    And while you are answering the challenge, how about you dig-up a collection of photos showing this pair of fabulous boats you mention. We'd all like to see them, how they are designed and from what materials they are made. Is that possible, or is the proof conveniently "archivally inaccessible" at present? Feel free to post them in a separate thread, if it makes you nervous.

    You have a history of producing vapor boats, so please indulge my skepticism and pull a portfolio together on the two mentioned trimarans.

    Looking forward to hearing from you soon,

    Chris
     
  2. Crag Cay
    Joined: May 2006
    Posts: 643
    Likes: 49, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 607
    Location: UK

    Crag Cay Senior Member

    It's good to see your contribution has raised the standard of this debate.

    So now in addition to all the 'anti Doug' animosity we have someone with a commercial drum to beat against F-boats. And all under the smoke screen of pretending to throw light on the scientific definition of planing.

    I went out yesterday on one of those brilliant blustery days of 'late summer' and got the (pretty knowledgeable) crew to point out (monohull) boats that everyone could agree were definitely planing. Their selection included both windsurfers and boats with conventional and asymmetric spinnakers. Now, both of these types of boats weren't planing by hydrodynamic forces alone, as they were both getting lift from their rigs. When we were at full chat on our boat, the carbon bowsprit was clearly bent upwards and the spin sheet contacted the turning block at quite an elevated angle. To quantify this uplift I had the bow monkey go both out along the bowsprit and then hang from the spin clew. In each case his weight (145 lbs) was insufficient to cause either to droop significantly.

    So were we planing or did this aerodynamic uplift confine us to merely 'bouncing along the top of the water?' And if we were planing, why are we trying to assign a stricter definition to multihulls?

    The concensual answer from pretty much everyone to which I have addressed this, was summed up by one of the younger crew; 'who gives a ****..... you can call it what you like, we don't care - it was fun'.

    So if you've got a better all round product than the Farrier tris, let the market decide which they prefer. But pointing out F-boats do the wrong sort of planing doesn't seem to connect particularly with the ordinary boating public. I even checked with the Advertising Standards Authority and no one has yet filed a complaint about Farrier misrepresenting his boats' ability to plane in any promotional material here in the UK.
     
  3. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Background, Doug, background

    Apparently you have no idea of the history between these two guys. Doug, you seem to have a good deal of "acquired admiration" for Farrier. I suggest that you give Mike a call and find out the next time he's going to be in Florida (he makes regular trips there) While he's in the area, arrange to meet him and share a sandwich. Then you can take the time to get to know the guy, his passion, his depth of knowledge and the fact that he's not out to do anybody any harm. You'll likely have a much different take on the man than your pseudo indignance from his having called Farrier a ******.

    Mike is an established and highly respected multihull sailor/racer on the West Coast of the US. He also has a business selling multihulls, effecting repairs, providing improved parts, etc.

    A couple of years ago he and a partner designed the L-7 trimaran as an economical, performance oriented solution to folding trimaran sailing. With new F-style boats starting at the $60,000+ figure, (Corsair Sprint750) it made the boat out of reach for all but the most well-off guys. (I'll bet you can't afford one, Hell, I'll bet you can't even afford to build an F22, for that matter)

    When Mike's L-7 hit the water, he promptly drove it to a string of amazing victories over much larger canvassed Farrier designed boats. This, of course, set Ian into his typical, "dirty tricks", cycle of doing anything he could to degrade the design/build effort by Lenemen.

    We've all seen how Ian uses the invective when describing the products of other, well established, designers. Phrases like "skinny coffin like hulls with much less room"... "are usually very impractical boats"... "It is easy to make a multihull fast, just pile on sail, while eliminating the room and such convenient features like easy folding" ... "such boats usually end up as marketing flops, and worse, some can threaten the very viability of the multihull market"

    Skinny, coffin-like hulls...? Now there's a phrase that is destined to improve the market appeal of multihulls everywhere. Yet, at the end of the tirade, Farrier attempts to protect the viable interests of mulithull designers and owners by using the phrase, "can threaten the very viability of the multihull market" Let's see, "coffin-like" and "threatened" in the same paragraph. I think Ian needs to take a class in Marketing 101 in which you learn to never dis the product segment in which you also have your products. Is it any wonder that production multihulls of this type are not a large part of the market with designers saying things like this in order to defend their fat boats? Sheesh!

    He also likes to make snide value judgements when speaking of other design/build forms. He's especially fond of criticizing wooden, home built designs that use multichine techniques. Farrier's critical of any other method that isn't vertically stripped foam. Would anybody like to guess as to what is the most frequently used material by homebuilders around the world? Yet, Mr. Farrier likes to deride that process for thousands of homebuilders in order to set his style of choice apart as something more beautiful and more effective. (and more expensive, mind you, which once again takes the potential for owning a boat of this type away from the common guy)

    These are the comments from a measured, respected designer? It would seem to me that Farrier should be in the professional position to just let this stuff roll off his psyche, yet he seems to look for opportunities to make lousy comments and comparisons about the competition.

    Oh, and there's been many more. Too numerous, in fact, to fully quote in this small message. All of it points to a guy who feels threatened by the arrival in the marketplace of a bunch of new boats. New boats that are faster and less expensive to build... so, perhaps, Ian should feel threatened. He's been sitting on his design laurels for such a long time now that he only has two cards to play.... bump the status of his new and improved, much fatter hulls to planing claims and then... lash out at the competition.

    I would have rather that he wished the newcomers well, made room for them in the multihull landscape and preserved some measure of dignity as a respected, senior desiner. If he has any trust at all in his design capabilities, he wouldn't need to feel threatened. After all, it is he who, at present, has the largest number of boats of this type in the marketplace and the marketplace, itself, is the best yardstick for product success. Right now, it looks like Mr. Farrier really doesn't trust that process. I find that amusing in light of the fact that it was just such a process that allowed his design work to achieve what it has in the last twenty years. Clearly a love/hate relationship.

    I get that the young turks in the business need to carve out a spot for themselves and that, occassionally, they do it with more than a bit of vigor. That's to be expected. But for a senior designer like Farrier to behave like this with floaty claims of planing trimarans (in the most generous of interpretations of the form) is beyond me.

    Lastly, Doug, why are you so damned desperate to make a claim for some performance status for a boat in which you have no design interest? And before you trot-out your supposed two trimarans from the past, perhaps you could produce said trimarans for our inspection? Photos, line drawings, working plans, etc. should do the trick nicely. Otherwise, I don't think you have Clue One about what goes into a trimaran from a design, or build, perspective.

    I know, I know, you'll try to ignore this challenge to produce the boats about which you crowed, but hey, Big Boy... you're the one who trotted it out in the argument. Since you opened the door, you should have the courtesy to produce said proof. (God knows you are so ready to chastise anyone who shows the least bit of courtesy) Or is that too much of an effort for you? Is it easier to spew orally about references and then not produce them, once challenged?

    If that's the case, Doug, it's pretty weak.
     
  4. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    So, Crag.... If nobody truly gives a **** as you so aptly put it, why are you taking the time to write to the forum?

    Feel free to use the word, ****** if you like. I've heard it before.
     
  5. Crag Cay
    Joined: May 2006
    Posts: 643
    Likes: 49, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 607
    Location: UK

    Crag Cay Senior Member

    My point is, that it has been stated (endlessly) that boats which are planing have their weight supported solely by hydrodynamic lift from the hull. My question is therefore, what are monohulls and windsurfers doing when there is an aerodymnamic component to the lift? Are they still planing? Or is there another term for this situation ?

    And if these monohulls with kites and windsurfers are still planing, why can't the centre hull of a tri have as much 'lifting help' from the heeling than these others get from their rigs?

    By sticking to the 'hydrodynamic lift only' definition, we are limiting which craft can plane to power boats with level prop shafts and una rigged monohulls sailed upright.
     
  6. Willallison
    Joined: Oct 2001
    Posts: 3,590
    Likes: 130, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2369
    Location: Australia

    Willallison Senior Member

    Chris - ot could just as easily be asked, why are you so desparate to dispute the claim?

    Sadly, this thread has descended (even further) into little more than a slanging match. Insults and abuse have no place on this forum IMHO. It's clear that there will never be agreement between the two 'sides'. What's say we just leave it at that before somebody has another read of the 'internet defamation' thread and decides that enough is enough....
     
  7. mike leneman
    Joined: Nov 2006
    Posts: 16
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: los angeles

    mike leneman Junior Member

    planning

    O.K. no one gets the humor of me calling Ian a ****** and sailing against him with one hand tied behind my back :) . I have plenty of reason, as Chris started to show, to call him that (a lot more than what he showed even) ......but that wasn't the point of the discussion.......so I'll stay on point.
    Planning is when a good percentage of the boats weight is "supported" by hydrodynamic lift as opposed to static displacement lift. Now the boats weight is clearly the "effective" weight of the boat. The percentage of lift from bouyancy as compared to the percentage of lift from hydrodynamic forces is the percentage of planning that boat is doing. That percentage is, of course, never fully 100%.
    So, how much hydrodynamic lift does a Farrier hull produce? First, there is negative lift with the general rocker of the boat.......the boat squats as it's speed picks up due to this rocker. The amount of actual lift from the underside near the bow is pretty minor, and I can't imagine that more than 10% of the effective weight of the main hull is ever derived from hydrodynamic lift.
    Need more indication? We put a 40 h.p. motor on the F-31 one day. How fast did we get? 10.5 kts. Gee, I would have thought that with planning hulls it would go faster.
    Again, no one responded to the facts presented.......all the really fast trimarans in the world have "non-planning" rounded main hull bottoms which go a bit flat in the transom, but are not flat up front.
    The L-7, by the way, is about 31" at max. waterline beam.
    The main cabin bunk (with the walkway filled in) is 48" wide......hardly a coffin bunk.
    Cheers,
    Mike Leneman
     
  8. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Planing Tris-updated earlier post

    Mike, I don't think it's semantics at all if the facts matter. Mr. Farrier has clearly said why he chose a planing hull: because the main hull can be wider and still have respectable performance.
    --------------------------
    Just out of curiosity : what is the maximum beam at the waterline of the L7?
    -------------------------
    PS- calling Ian Farrier a "******" is uncalled for; it is clear you are a competitor of his-even so coming on this forum where Mr. Farrier has been kind enough to share his thoughts and dissing him in such a disrespectful way is/should be beneath you. It calls into question your motives and the value of your opinion on planing main hulls....
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    UPDATE
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The personal invective and insults are way out of hand but for anyone who still cares about the facts heres this:
    Lenemans L7 is almost 24' with a mainhull beam at the waterline of 31" compared to Farrier's F22 at
    36.3". That means that Farriers 22 has 5.3" more interior space AT THE WATERLINE than does the L7.
    Leneman says(among other things) that the L7 is
    faster. Farrier says that his boat utilizes a planing main hull because it provides more interior room while still having great performance.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2006
  9. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Quote from Doug Lord's posting:
    Help me here if I have this all wrong, Doug, but isn't the difference actually only five point three inches? Or less than the distance across the palm of your hand. Maybe this is new math, or maybe this is your way of bending things to suit your position more effectively. I don't really know, but if you can't get this right, how can you get anything else right?

    You see, it's the cumulative total of all the little things that you get so completely wrong that makes us all wonder just what you use for a logic process.

    And Doug says under his breath... "Well I bend stuff to my liking as far as, and until, someone nails me on my process and then I act as if it was all just a mistake. I have complete deniability of my non-denial... or something like that."
     
  10. mike leneman
    Joined: Nov 2006
    Posts: 16
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: los angeles

    mike leneman Junior Member

    planning

    What happened to the discussion of planning? The L-7 is 5.3" narrower on the waterline beam.....so what. It's probably wider, or as wide further up the hull since we no longer have a wine glass mainhull shape like a Farrier.......it's more like a straight V. But, again.....was that the discussion?
    The questions was, if I remember, does a Farrier mainhull really plane or not?
    Does the advertizing claim that it does really hold any water? (sorry for the pun, it was unintentional)
    Not one of the arguments, observations, or data points I brought up has been refuted.
    The focus has been that I called a designer who knowingly put up false and mis-leading information on his website and internet posts a "******".
    Forget that........I apologize !
    Now, how about getting on with the discussion?
    How much lift do you think a Farrier trimaran gets from it's "planning" main hull?
    You can offer an option in either.......% of displaced weight or lbs. of lift.
    Cheers and forget the personal stuff,
    Mike
     
  11. PI Design
    Joined: Oct 2006
    Posts: 673
    Likes: 21, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 328
    Location: England

    PI Design Senior Member

    Crag is absolutely correct. In the real world, no boat can ever develop all of its support hydrodynamically. There will always be some buoyant support and aerodynamic support. As I pointed earlier, the original research into planning was for the purposes of sea planes, which obviously create a huge amount of aerodynamic lift. Surely no-one can argue that a sea-plane taxiing at high speed is not planning? Trimarans can, in theory, definitely plane. To describe the boat (as a whole) as planing, I would want both the ama and the main hull to be planing. If the ama was slicing rather than planing, I would still the describe the main hull as planing, but the boat (as a whole) would be semi-planing Whether the Farrier designs do/will plane (or even semi-plane) or not, I do not know. I also don’t know whether his designs are broad and flat for space purposes, with the planing as an after thought, or whether the planing was an intended goal. Only Ian himself knows that, so it is not really a subject the rest of us can confidently debate.
    However, just because a trimaran can, in theory, plane does not mean there is any benefit to making it do so. It is not the only route to high speed nor, in the case of slender hulls, is it probably the best.
     
  12. ActionPotential
    Joined: Oct 2006
    Posts: 45
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: Sydney Australia

    ActionPotential Junior Member

    Absolutely incorrect. The only rig that has any net lifting effect on the hull is the kite (real kite, not spinnaker). For every other rig, mainsails, jibs and spinnakers the net effect on the hull is downforce. They can lift the stern by depressing the bow. Spinnakers can appear to lift the bow by depressing it less than other sails.

    Ian Farrier has defined planing earlier in this thread as "skimming across the top of the water" and by Ian's definition of course his main hulls plane as they were designed to. Their shape makes it easier to plane. My catamaran hulls have a shape that makes it harder to plane but my catamaran goes fastest when the windward hull is planing on it's daggerboard and rudder tips with the leeward hull 'cheating' the displacement mode by virtue of it's waterline l/b ratio.
     
  13. ActionPotential
    Joined: Oct 2006
    Posts: 45
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: Sydney Australia

    ActionPotential Junior Member

    My understanding of the word ****** is that it means masturbater.
    Since 95% of males admit to masturbating and the other 5% are lying, then we can substitute Male for ******. I'm sure Ian doesn't mind being called Male. I don't mind being called male.

    Regarding misrepresentation, Ian defines planing as "skimming across the top of the water" and his main hulls definitely do that so where's the misrepresentation?
    Regarding the market, Ians designs sell not because he claims they plane. They sell because they are such a well thought out and executed package.
    People who only want to race buy them because they perform so well and are easy to trail. People who only want to cruise buy them because they cruise so well and are easy to trail. People who want to do both Buy them because they do both so welland are easy to trail. Ian and others can design faster trimarans that can trail as well, with less cruising ability. Ian chooses not to go there. Ian and others can design even faster trimarans that can't trail as well, with less cruising ability. Again Ian chooses not to go there.
    The market is for the good all round package such as Ian designs. Planing don't come into it.
    So let's just accept Ian's definition of planing and remember that when a monohull is planing it is doing something different than just "skimming across the top of the water".

    Back to performance. The surprise boats this week at Wangi are the Corsair 750 Sprint. These are Farrier F24 Mk2 with much of the accomodation removed and a much bigger, modern rig. Boat for boat (not on handicrap) they are beating much bigger trimarans, Farrier and others, in all wind conditions, on all points of sail. Farrier hull shapes (superceded) with Farrier trailability with some Farrier accomodation sacraficed (these are overnighters at best - not cruisers) to the god of performance and ease of crew work.
    I expect the market to speak on these (it is already!).
    Nobody cares if they plane or not or how planing is defined - they are fun to race, especially as a 1 design fleet.
     
  14. mike leneman
    Joined: Nov 2006
    Posts: 16
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: los angeles

    mike leneman Junior Member

    planning

    I was not referring to Ian's claim of planning as mis-representation. Ian has publicly stated that the L-7 was over-powered and dangerous......he posted a link to a picture of a boat (not an L-7) broken on the beach and said, in essence, this is what will happen if you build an underdesigned and over-powered boat like the L-7.
    THAT IS MIS-REPRESENTATION. The L-7 has a smaller sail area to weight ratio than the F-25C and in almost three years of sailing them......none have broken.
    Now: why debate whether an F-boat planes or not? Well, I thought this was a design forum. I guess I'm mistaken. I thought people here cared about the design and physics of boats and what makes them go fast, guess I was wrong.
    I like the f-boats.......hell, I sold them new for 12 years and still sell them used. I have developed the largest group of F-boats in one storage area IN THE WORLD, and we have the most active fleet of F-boats IN THE WORLD.....and sold almost every one of them. BUT: this isn't about the market place or marketing the boat, it's about what makes a boat go.
    Cheers,
    Mike Leneman
     

  15. Crag Cay
    Joined: May 2006
    Posts: 643
    Likes: 49, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 607
    Location: UK

    Crag Cay Senior Member

    So this is 'downforce' this guy is experiencing?

    Could you publish the vector diagram that shows, say a normal spinnaker, running, with the boat trimmed upright, that produces a net downforce ?

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

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.