Sydney-Hobart 2006-Battle of the Canters

Speed/length ratio's

VOR 70-4.85
Alfa Romeo II(sistership of Wild Oats)- 3.62
Open 60-3.87
---------------
These are easily attainable S/L's for modern monohull ocean racers and virtually unheard of in the good old days-and thats progress. Basing S/l ratio's on race statisics that include periods of lulls, head seas etc. and that don't(didn't) apply to all boats in the race equally has absolutely no value at all.Basing an assesment of the state of the art on such voodoo is,well,voodoo.

 

But in real sea conditions what happens?

The smaller and simpler a boat (to a point) is the closer it can sail to these s/l ratios.

But as the retrodude pointed out an almost 40 year old ocean racer managed a better speed to length ratio than the winner. So what is the theoretical performance worth if the high tech boat has to be nursed all the way in real conditions and retire as soon as the conditions get a bit nasty.

If it had blown up to 50 or 60 knots for several hours the results would have been completely different - and that's what you have to bank on with ocean racing.

It is not about finding a 24 hour window of "nice" weather for a blast down to Hobart.

And the canters are not sailing boats unless they get stop running their engines to enable the boats to sail.

They don't deserve to be in the Hobart and the only thing that has put them there is dollars.

How can they avoid something as fundamental to our sport as:
42.1 Basic Rule
Except when permitted in rule 42.3 or 45, a boat shall compete by
using only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her
speed. Her crew may adjust the trim of sails and hull, and perform
other acts of seamanship, but shall not otherwise move their bodies to
propel the boat.

It takes dollars to get around such obstructions.

MIK

 

Dudism(s)

=========================
So, are you saying that the sailors of Moths, Lasers, 49er's,Lightnings,Thistles,Hobies,windsurfers etc,etc are violating the basic premise of sailing???
They must have a lot more money than I would have thought.....
---
Hold it-maybe they don't propel the boat when they move their bodies so they're legal,huh? Maybe the boat would just sit there if they moved their body with no wind? Maybe it's actually the WIND that moves the boat whether it's a 16'Hobie or 98' canter?
Maybe it's all just great ,spectacular sailing?

 

I'll forward your opinion to C A Marchaj, I'm sure that he will find it amusing. He'll be glad to know that the pages he devoted to such comparisons are voodoo because D Lord says so.

The only speed that you posted that carries any weight is the 23.45 BDR for a VO70 (S/L = 2.80). The other speeds are not backed by data. Some dude with a GPS claiming xxx knots is indeed voodoo. My Catalina hit 12.4 knots (10 second GPS average) for a S/L of 2.48 ... I guess Catalina 30's are almost as fast as VO70's (foot for foot)?

The fact is that YOU are the one claiming that modern mono's with their hinged keels and powered systems are faster. Evaluating the overall performance of the boats over ocean race distances is valid to support or dispute the claim of relative speed. Dubious claims of top speed don't win ocean races.

If you want to compare outright speed you have to show that the brave new breed is faster outright ... you can't, because they aren't.

You try to claim that they are fast in the ocean, yet the hard data available to anyone with an Internet connection does not show that to be true.

You tout Wild-Oats' performance in the S-H as being some great achievement made possible by the technology you worship, but the data does not support that either.

What you can prove is that boats with engines are faster than boats without engines, but anyone born in this century knows that.

Instead of addressing facts, you claim voodoo, call the ideas and posts of others rubbish and cite unsubstantiated claims of speed as your defense.

And you have the gall to whinge about personal attacks.

 

Facts

Wrong again,dude: all the facts I quoted were from or derived from the September 2006 Sail magazine.......

 

You can't even read english.

"Her crew may adjust the trim of sails and hull ..."

The crew can adjust hull trim, but moving ballast to do so is not legal.

 

"Facts" because some editor in a magazine took someones word for a speed claim?

Derived from ...? Like, "When viewed through my rose coloured glasses"?

Where is the data?

 

Doug I think you are being a bit narrow here.

You KNOW these rules don't cause probs to conventional boats or even shifting ballast boats.

But they do cause problems for boats running their engines for the purposes of basic seakeeping.

Best wishes

MIK

 

Hiking on 49ers, Lightnings, Thistles, windsurfers does NOT violate the rule Boatmik posted.

One thing that I don't get is why, if canters and movable ballast and foilers excite you so much, you don't go out and sail one. If they don't excite you to just get on a plane or bus and go up to hop on board Maximus or a Z86, why would they excite other people so much that they will cause a "revolution" (ie 5,700 boats/year like the Laser; 400 boats/yr like the J/24; up to 1 million boards/year)???? If foiling doesn't excite you enough to encourage you to get a foiler Moth and experience the state of the art, why should it excite other people enough for them to get a foiler?

Remember, other "revolutions" made enormous changes in the sport, in numbers of boats launched, within a very short time

If you want to come out here. you should be able to get onto a movable-ballast boat; after all it's no big deal. It's quite fun to drive a movable-ballast maxi under assy, you should try it some time*. You can watch a fleet of foiling Moths, and maybe see if you can sail one. Why not try it?

PS - Frank Bethwaite and Rob Brown, multi 18 Foot Skiff world champ, Australia II crew member etc, put the 18's speed as 35 knots. And in S/L terms, windsurfers and kiteboards make everything look a bit slow.

* but the extra fun isn't enough to warrant changing the rules.

Tell me, how exciting does this look, really?

 

But you are doing the same thing here.

These boats have managed these speeds at one point in their career.

But they have spent the rest of it at lower speeds.

As retrodude points out - the canted keel "winner" barely managed a S/L over 1.

I have a proposal - simple but effective.

We remove half the ballast from all the boats you mention.

It will improve their ultimate S/L

So I have improved the "state of the art" as you define it.

But really it comes down to real boats in real conditions.

If the wind had come up to 50 knots I would be betting real money that none of the canters would have made it.

But Love and War still would have - she has done exactly that in the past.

The canters like wild oats seem to be built around the premise that they will get a perfect 24 hour window and blast down to hobart in that time.

Even Love and War has better rounded performance than that - whatever the wind condition she will finish and do well in the placings.

The narrowness of the performance data you are presenting here is misleading.

A reasonalbe 40 ft multi would clean them up upwind or reaching and probably downwind in real sea conditions.

It's not sailing "state of the art" by any reasonable measure.

And I would continue to argue that it is not sailing anyhow - as soon as that engine is ticking over to get basic seakeeping ...

MIK

 

Is this really all that boring?

Would you really say that people will look at a pic like Alfa (above) and then look at a pic like this of fixed-keel no-movable ballast Pegasus 77, and go "Gee, that Pegasus makes sailing look really boring - but that Alfa makes it look so good I'll get into the sport!".

Is there really THAT much difference in terms of attracting attention and creating visual spectacle, between canters and non-canters? Sure as hell there isn't.

Most of the people who watch the race don't know a canter from an IOR maxi. The media gets no more excited about the latest canters than they got about the latest IOR maxi, or the latest IRC maxi. They get excited about maxis regardless, and they get excited about little boats.

PS - and using the Open 60 S/L figure as proof of the success of shifting ballast boats ignores the fact that in light winds, around a short course, or upwind they are slower than a fixed keel IRC racer, as demonstrated by Xena; by Hugo Boss in the Hobart before this one; by Gusto this Hobart; and by several Opens (40s, 50s, and 60s) in the last Fastnet, and in other races. So S/L in perfect conditions for the boat does not necessarily translate to a boat that performs well all-round.

 

Another Whoooee!

My dearest friend Doug Lord,

You are once again at the precipice of losing it, grandly, in the face of far superior logic, statistics and just plain old seamanship. My most sincere suggestion would be for you to completely drop out of this discussion while you still have some semblance of skin left on your body.

These guys, as collected, have vastly more sailing intellect than do you, their cumulative sailing/racing experience would squash you like a bug and yet... there you are waving your magic pistol of "the newest high technology" as if you can sustain the hit from a 20 foot shorebreak wave while you stand, making sand castles on the beach, as if you were an immune 10 year old with a shovel.

Dude, back out now while you've got a chance to save this twinkling moment of integrity.

Your most considerate friend,

Chris

 

To me it's simple : if they have to run an engine to make the boat work then it isn't really a sailing boat. And the Sydney - Hobart is supposed to be a race for sailing boats .

 

Dear All,
I can't help the feeling that some people seem to have forgotten why we enjoy sailing (and racing). There is little point in competing in an event where the playing field is so uneven you haven't the faintest hope of doing well. CT 249s comments make sense to me. I accept that the fastest boats (monohull) at present are 30m canting keel maxis. No doubt a 60m version would be faster still for those that could afford it.

So lets have an "open" race. That would attract a field of about 6. The interest and mystique of a classic ocean race would be gone (forever). I am not sure what American yachties would do in this situation, but I think that the Australians would say "stuff this" and we would arrange our own race where everyone could compete and enjoy. This is the sort of schism that kills sports and it would not be good for sailing.

Comparisons with F1 are meaningless. It is viable only because of the budgets and vested interest of the major carmakers. Incidentally, it is one of the most tightly regulated of sports. Any undesirable trend such as the ground effect cars (that although faster were thought to be "too fast" and not safe) is regulated out of the sport (canting keels?).

Most of us who race also like to use our boats for socialising and cruising. Extreme race boats although faster when fully crewed, are harder to sail, less forgiving and less seaworthy than less extreme designs, especially in the smaller sizes. Conditions off our coast are not always easy and I am not prepared to have a boat that puts my family at risk when the weather is less favourable. I also can't afford to loose a mast or have a boat that is uninsurable. Likewise, I can't afford to build a new boat every few years when my old one is no longer competitve (and therefore worthless). Racing rules that restricted entry to the latest extreme racing design would be a sure way of ensuring most of us didn't race.

I don't think there is too much wrong with an event that every year attracts a field of nearly 100 yachts with local and overseas entries in a country as small as ours. I think that it is great that the favourites ranged from small to large, old classics to the latest maxis. Remember that under IRC you have to sail very well to win - Love & War's elapsed time was pretty good for a boat her size, regardless of age or handicap. Sailing to me is a participation sport and needs to be kept that way to be enjoyed (and to thrive long term). Those who prefer to spectate can always watch the F1 on TV.

 

Novel technologys have been applied to sailboat development for a very long time.The good ones tend to remain in use and be widely adopted.Canting ballast may have its uses in the interest of extracting boatspeed,but conceptually its not too different to the sandbaggers of old.They had to use muscle power to rearrange the ballast because the internal combustion engine had yet to be invented.
Its difficult to see CBTF being used for anything other than well budgeted racing boats.The recreational sailor may not appreciate the constant droning of the engine and the resultant reduction in the boats range to the distance achievable on the boats fuel reserves.Given their record of fragility in normal use,why would the sailor who is afloat for recreation accept the potential vulnerablity?I would imagine that almost all sailors of keelboats have nudged the bottom once in a while,what happens with a CBTF configuration?
The evidence seems to be that extreme boats are either paid for by a sponsor or a very wealthy individual.They have no thought for the resale value of the boat and the boat is unlikely to be easily adapted to any other role.This does not only apply to seagoing keelboats,the extreme designs used on the Italian lakes for the Bol d'or are really spectacular but not likely to pop up anywhere else.