Sydney-Hobart 2006-Battle of the Canters

Movable Ballast

Movable ballast is without question the future of fast monohulls: from canting ballast, to water ballast to combinations of the two. Heres a rundown on some of the major technologies in use for canting ballast:
-----------------
Canting ballast is being used in several different ways on racing and cruising boats.The major differences revolve around the way the boat generates lateral resistance.With back to back Sydney-Hobart victory's and hundreds of thousands of safe miles on canting keel boats it is a technology that is here to stay. It will only get better, faster, and safer:
=====================
1)From CBTFco: CBTF™ - The Sailing Revolution
Today, we are seeing CBTF being incorporated in designs for both high performance racing boats and fast, comfortable CRUISING boats. CBTF has a bright future as designers from around the world are finding new ways to take advantage of this technology.
Canting Ballast Twin Foil™ (CBTF™) technology is an elegant yet practical and effective solution that incorporates the significant advantages of movable ballast into CRUISING and racing sailboat designs. A canting strut with a bulb of ballast at its tip provides righting moment quickly and easily. Because of the advantageous position of the ballast, a CBTF design needs only about half of the ballast required for a conventional keelboat and can be achieved at the touch of a button rather than the efforts of a large crew.
The CBTF patents cover sailing yachts using a canting keel or ballast with fore and aft controllable foils or rudders to affect changes in side force and/or maneuvering, including sections with trim tabs and jibing daggerboards.
*
The One-Design Class Schock 40 dubbed "Boat of the Year 2001; by Sailing World Magazine
**The One-Design Class Yacht is CBTF's complete solution. At 40 feet long it is a perfect mid-size sailboat for all. With Canting Ballast Twin Foil Technology™ built into the design from step one, these boats represent the next generation in sailing.
---------------------------
2) WINGS- Andy Dovell is a pioneer in this technology as was the much older Procyon . The new Backman 29 and Julian Bethwaites 79er all use versions of this technology. The use of wings on the keel bulb instead of a forward rudder or daggerboard(s) opens up lots of interior space and may be the simplest form of canting ballast. See the "Notable" thread for info on Andy Dovell's Radical 40....
-----------------------
3) Retractable daggerboard(s)-Perhaps the most widespread system used on canting keel boats twin asymetrical daggerboards are used on VOR 70's and Open 60's and others.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Engines: many of the boats using CBTF or other forms of canting ballast don't run engines to move the keel: Schock 40, Backman 21,79er, Open 6.5's and others.
As pointed out earlier almost EVERY ocean racer runs it's engine! It's a disingenuous argument that some "anti-techo's" use to emotionalize their position - singling out movable ballast boats as big bad boys for running their engine is unfair
and wrong.
As power supplies like fuel cells become available; as battery technology improves the need for any boat to run it's engine in an oceanrace will be reduced or eliminated. Thats what the future holds-movable ballast moving even on big boats without engine power at all.The future is here in many boats up to around 40' -and some larger.And the future of fast mono's is MOVABLE BALLAST-not just canting ballast. The anti-techno's and some uninformed people use the engine argument in a
lame onesided, unfair attempt to demonize canting ballast. Believe me, those same people will come up with another argument why movable ballast is evil even if the engine was not used.
----------------------
Movable ballast on big boats is NO DIFFERENT than movable ballast on dinghies: if you say that Wild Oats is a "power boat" then you must also say that every trapeze dinghy is HUMAN POWERED. And many of us know that both of those positions are absurd.....
----------------------

 

Doug, on several occasions, you have been asked direct questions. In the spirit of discussion, could you consider answering those direct questions rather than merely repeating yourself and once again insulting those who do not agree with you? For example, is the pic of Alfa Romeo I recently posted really that much more exciting to the general public and the average sailor than the pic of Pegasus 77?

That's a fairly simple question.......is there any particular reason why you don't want to answer it?

And if movable ballast boats are so significant, exciting and breathtaking, why haven't you hopped on a plane and got onto one?

Would you like me to see if I can get you a ride? I haven't tried to get on one for a while, but it used to be easy; just tell me when you can get here to Sydney and I'll see what I can do. I'm out of the loop these days ( I haven't sailed with a canter skipper for about three weeks) but I'm willing to try despite the fact that my obvious best shot has lost its stick. Come on, this is (you say) a revolution. Why not take part in it rather than peering from the sidelines?

 

Movable Ballast

---------------
CT, I have not intentionally insulted anyone who disagrees with me! And I apologize to anyone who was inadvertantly insulted.
I have ,however,'returned fire' in a manner(I hope) consistent with the approach taken toward me personally and my position by certain individuals.
-------------
I have invested years in developing movable ballast systems for RC Yachts and am putting thousands of dollars and much of my time into developing a full size movable ballast system particularly for disabled people and others in my X18T.
The tendency by several people in this thread has been to attempt to obfuscate the issues involved in the application of movable ballast by trying to tie it to the use of engine power. The same individuals who do this know that only a small percentage of all canting keel boats use engine power to move the keel-yet they persist.
The same individuals involved in attempting to dinigrate the performance of Wild Oats and others know that movable ballast is used on almost every sailboat in one form or another-most especially on dinghies.These same individuals are well aware that almost EVERY ocean racing boat runs it's engine at some point! And ,as I said earlier: if you call Wild Oats a "power boat" then you must call a 49er "human powered"-they both use movable ballast to generate more power to carry sail and both are awesome sailboats-powered exclusively by the wind.
Calling Wild Oats a "power boat" is completely ridiculous-as ridiculous as saying the 49er, Moth, Laser ,Aussie 18 are "human powered".

 

Clueless in Cocoa

First of all, Doug, it's not a BS argument, this business about using engines to manipulate structural components of a sailing craft for purposes of advantage. Further, comparing these engine powered, ballast devices to anything human in nature, such as hiking out on conventional boats is, as you would typically say, "ABSURD and SILLY"

This specious argument is every bit as dumb as comparing a high-powered, NASCAR vehicle with a Soapbox Derby car that runs on gravity alone simply because they both have wheels and a driver.

Human beings have been an essential component of sailboating and sail racing since the very beginning. In your effort to selectively compartmentalize the argument so you can sway opinion, you have conveniently left out that part of the equation. Or, to further your line of thinking and take it into the realm of your toy boats... perhaps what you are really trying to get at, through any means possible, is the potential for unmanned, full scale boats in the future?

Yes, there are canting keel-equipped boats in which no engine is present. I don’t believe that anyone has attacked that representation of the technology in any way shape or manner. The fact that you choose to bring that part of the non-issue into the discussion shows that you are defensive and protective of the entire engine assist argument. Further, it completely supports the principal argument that engines are really not necessary for boats of this type. I do want to thank you, though, for making that such a valid additional argument in this discussion.

If you can manage to put Wild Oats (and her type) out on the racecourse with a human powered, canting keel, I will quickly remove my objections, as would a whole bunch of other guys here. Just because it is possible to install an engine and call it fair, or worse, make hideously foamy claims about crushing exercises over non-engine equipped boats, does not make it appropriate for a sailing event. Technology exists today to allow for a full set of turbine powered jet engines to be mounted on a sailboat deck with but the tiniest of vestigial sails for "the rules". I suppose that under your total gooey love affair regime with all things techno in nature, you'd find that adaptation just dandy.

Since you are so adept at coining trite, meaningless phrases regarding these new, gooey technologies for boats, Doug, why don't you take a few minutes to come up with an appropriate, trademarked phrase that describes the defined separation of engine supported sailboats as a wholly new class that has no business having their efforts being registered alongside those of more traditional craft that do not use engines. The world will be a better place for your efforts and two hundred years from now, sailing historians will make a place for your name in the annals of the sport. "Here strode Doug Lord"

From where I sit, the owners and designers of engine powered canters made a significant departure from the norms of recognized sailing technology when they chose to go with a full time engine-on strategy to simply move the keel about. This is not the same as the sandbaggers of yore, hiking crew on hundreds of existing designs, trap wired crew or any other human based process and never will be. Industrial Revolution is a more apt comparison.

I really liked Chris Thompson's point about you not addressing any posed question if it creates too much difficulty for your pat answer process. When will you address that for which you have no answer, Doug? Is proper conversational interaction so difficult for you... or is it more about the fact that you have run out of clever retorts and you now stand naked in front of the gathered audience? EEEUUU! Check that, I really don't need to see your form naked before us at all. Perhaps hoist on your own petard would be a better phrase.

Come on, Doug, simply and efficiently answer the points as posed over the length of the thread and get yourself a measure of respect from the gang in the process.

 

Moving ballast, in classes that allow it, certainly has been proved to increase performance. IMO water ballast has great potential to improve the performance of cruising mono's also.

Marketing hype does not prove anything. There is no requirement to prove that something works to get a patent.

Getting dubbed BOTY is no guarantee of success either. All it takes is a few minutes with a search engine to see that many "BOTY" are no longer in production less than 10 years after "winning" the award. The Schock 40 One Design is a good example of BOTY "success". The information on the manufacturers page links to Dynayacht, since that link is a dead end, what conclusion would someone draw? Looking at the site they delivered about 6 boats, the last race results are from 2001-2002. Compare this to the numbers of other 40 foot boats built and delivered in the last 6 years. It is ridiculous to call the Schock 40 a success.

I tried to find examples of successful CBTF production boats and I was unable to find any, perhaps I was not using the right search terms. I was unable to find any CBTF boats in production, some custom or semi-custom designs in the 50+ foot range, but nothing that would indicate that CBTF is a commercial success.

Yes, several systems are in use to provide lateral resistance. The twin daggerboard system has advantages over CBTF in that the dagger boards only add drag when they are needed, asymmetric foils are more efficient than symmetric foils when lift is required, and they require no complex linkages to adjust. During VO70 development, a forward rudder, canting keel design was compared to a dagger board, canting keel design. The forward rudder system was superior only when leeway angles were high. The performance of the VO70's is higher on a foot for foot basis than the CBTF examples that I am aware of.

Here we go, you can't bring yourself to say, "In my opinion ... " , you don't set a tone that invites discussion, you set a tone that invites argument. Then you complain about personal attacks when people argue with you!

There are two or three arguments here.
1. Moving ballast is not the same as moving crew. The RRS are very clear in this respect. Ignoring this fact undermines your position, so you ignore it. Moving ballast is not legal under the RRS, *unless* the RRS is modified by class rules or sailing instructions.

2. Manual power (human). The RRS are very clear here also. Rigging, spars, and hull appendages must be adjusted by the crew using manual power. Systems that use other than manual are not allowed, *unless* the RRS is modified by class rules or sailing instructions. This is not limited to engines, batteries, and bungee cord powered systems are not legal either. Powered winches and autopilots are also excluded.

3. Comparing the performance of widely different boat types is very difficult. IMO, this is the valid reason for not racing multi-hulls or ULDB's against traditional boats. The performance polars of the three types are very different. ULDB's and Multi's are more similar to each other than either is to a traditional displacement boat. This is a good argument for placing Multi's and ULDB's in separate classes from traditional boats.

Comparing the performance of a VO70 to Swan 65 is ludicrous. Just as comparing a AA/Fuel Funny Car to a Coupe de Ville is ludicrous. They don't compete under the same rule. When claims are made that the moving ballast boats have beaten records held by conventional boats, the claims are hollow. It would be news if the moving ballast ULDB's were not faster than their conventional cousins. Why people cannot accept the fact that the new boats race under different rules escapes me. Climbing Mt Everest without supplemental oxygen has been done on several occasions, there are also tours that stop just short of carrying you to the summit. Is it fair to compare the two?

I don't have a problem with new classes and alternate ways to enjoy sailing. I have a huge problem with people that think different = better. I have a problem with people that spout hype and are unable or unwilling to back their outrageous statements with verifiable data.

It is a fact that powered systems allow performance that is not attainable using human power. The natural limit of human performance has been a cornerstone of the sport for 100's of years. What benefit to sailing in general is the result of allowing moving ballast and powered systems?

Powered system boats have to race against other powered system boats. Since all the boats have the same systems, the racing would be just as good or bad without the powered systems.

Racing is about comparing the performance of your boat, your crew, and yourself against others. It is not necessarily about ultimate speed. What pride can you have when you bring a gun to a knife fight by comparing your performance to boats, crews, and skippers that do not need special rules to compete?

Moving ballast and powered systems are not revolutionizing sailing. Compare the change from full keels to a fin/rudder combination to the change to moving ballast. In the space of ten years, the majority of production designs adopted the fin/rudder configuration. We see no such "revolution" with moving ballast on production boats. Why is that?

Ah yes grasshopper ... the RRS allows human power, but bans other powered systems. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that simple fact?

BTW, the ideas are not new ... here is a cartoon from 1983 :

 

Hi Randy (RHough),

Good points all well argued.

Thanks

Michael

 

Thanks mate. I doubt that any eyes have been opened or any minds changed. I just can't seem to let what I consider BS of the highest order to go unchallenged.

I could wake up one day and see a marina full of Schock 40's instead of Catalinas, Beneteaus, and Hunters, but I doubt it. If that day ever comes I will be the first to pat Doug on the back and admit the error in my thinking.

BTW. I helped commission a Riptide 50 this month. Built down your way (NZ). It is a very impressive boat. 12,000 pound displacement with water ballast and a lifting keel that reduces the draft from 13 feet to 9 or so. All carbon hull, rudder, mast, and boom. Navtec PBO Rigging and the whole lot. During sea trials it sailed = to wind speed up to 12-15 knots. Should be quite the terror on the VARC circuit next year.

Happy New Year!

Randy

 

Hey,

I just had a thought!

Given the current penchant for diesel electric in commercial boats which allow the engine to be placed anywhere within the boat (as it is only connected to the drive unit by a couple of wires) ...

perhaps the canters could also use the engine to pull the engine up to windward.

Then you'd just have the much lighter weight of the drive unit static on the centreline.

Maybe this could be extended to building the galley as a moveable unit and hoisting it up to weather as well.

What other big bits of gear could we do?

Sail bins - rather than handing the sails over to the new side they could be moved over hydraulically - means crew can be busy with more important things.

There might be a nett saving of weight if the bunks are moveable too - only need to carry the weight of one set and move them to where they are needed.

FANTASTIC - there is a whole new world just dawning.

A brave new world!

MIK

 

Frankly, I find it more than amusing that Doug never mentions bettering the human component of the sailing equation.... only bigger, tricker and more expensive mechanical stuff to solve the sailor's "problems".

Hmmmm? One can only wonder...

 

CT 249, It looks as crowded as Bangkok, not exactly what I look for when I get out of Bangkok

Mikey

 

Eggzackly why I like to sail smaller boats. I once had a maxi T-shirt that had a number on the back, so people could just yell out "26, pull the sheet on!!". It seemed just a trifle impersonal.

I notice we still haven't had an answer from Doug - does Pegasus REALLY look significantly less exciting than Alfa????? The claim is that the motorboats are incredibly exciting, but (size apart) they look pretty damn much like normal yachts most of the time.

 

Sydney-Hobart

CT: yes, really-and I bet it FEELS more exciting as well....
--------
Wild Oats in it's fantastic back to back victory in the Sydney-Hobart race won:
1) JH Illingworth Trophy
2) Jack Rooklyn Memorial Trophy(1st out of Sydney Heads)
3)F& J Livingstone Trophy-1st due south of Tasman Island
4) finished 2nd in IRC Division 0
==================
Love and War in a great handicap effort won:
1) Tattersall Cup
2) Rolex Timepiece
3) Sir Arthur Warner Trophy
4) 1st in IRC Div. 4
source Scuttlebutt or Sail-World(sorry)
-------------------------
As an aside there were at least two other canters -making 7 total- that suffered no damage whatsoever to their canting keels or mechanics during this race.
Wild Oats XI wins Sydney-Hobart. 28/12/2006. ABC News Online
Address:http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1819034.htm

 

Frankly, I see this as a decidedly embarrassing performance for Wild Oats when compared to Ichi Ban. Wild Oats is 40% bigger than the ex-VOR machine and it still finished 35 minutes (corrected) slower. And wasn't Ichi Ban assessed that mind numbing 30 minute time penalty just before the event started? That just makes it worse for WO.

In fact WO was closer to falling into third than it was to actually winning the division. And Doug, the Division is A ... not zero. http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/standi...ndingsTime=current&frmClass=315&frmDivision=A

Furthermore, what was most startling was that fully 38% of the boats with canting keels that were supposed to start the race had to fall out or not start at all due to demolished masts. Since when is that a statistic to crow about? If it had been a bunch of different maladies that had mysteriously befallen the canting fleet, then you could say it was an unfortunate run of bad luck. When it's all due to mast failure, you can't simply ignore the fact and start tossing kudos for a job well done. How many boats of the non-canting variety had their masts taken down in the very same conditions? Was it equally as problematic when looking at a percentage of the traditional keel fleet?

Nearly 40% failure, out of the event, all from the same problem...? That has seriously problematic written all over it. I'm willing to be corrected on this position, but I still haven't seen any info that would tell the story differently. Perhaps Randy could shed some light on the stress issues for canting keel equipped boats and how that loading is pushed through the rig under the stress of racing?

 

Sydney-Hobart

I corrected my previous post: there were at least 7 canters in the Hobart; two had rigging problems . I read somewhere that a fitting failed on ABN AMRO-a veteran of the Volvo ocean race(1st place) and Maximus(recent record around the Ilse of Wight(?)) has had several problems including(I think) a previous rig problem. Both boats have thousands and thousands of ocean miles completed successfuly.
To try to tie two mast failures to a canting keel(s) is absolutely ridiculous given the history of the two boats.
Trying to do that is like saying the seven(?) fixed keel boats retired because of their leadbellies....
-----------
More on the race and rig failures:
ISAF - Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race 2006
Address:http://www.sailing.org/default.asp?ID=j6vFh?A1l&format=popup
--
Radio New Zealand - Bad weather causes havoc in Sydney-Hobart race
Address:http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200612272039/bad_weather_causes_havoc_in_sydney-hobart_race
---
NEWS Flash-- Apparently, one of the new Cookson 50 canters "Living Doll" also was among those that retired-can't find out what the problem was so far.

 

Actually, Doug, to try to ignore it or pretend it didn't happen is potentially foolhardy. The history of the two boats would lead me to believe that the rigs are already suspect, but for differing reasons. Maximus taking a dump in this race and also having lost her mast just last year, would tell me the whole rig is engineered too lightly and she's suffering from being too close to the operational edge.

ABN Amro 2, if it is still functioning on the same stick as it took around the world, was probably near the end of its operational life span and they were simply trying to get in one last go before putting the boat away as a display item at ABN's corporate HQ.

The history of the two boats is true, Doug. Take a long look at how they pencil-out, though, in reality.

In fact, there would be a basis for an argument if all the fixed keel craft suffered from the same family of race ending problems. To not analyze that type of issue is asking for future problems with only best guess answers and no real facts to support them.

Perhaps you would agree that canting keels increase righting moment on these dudes? Where do you suppose that additional righting moment loading is going while the boat is underway?

The problem extends past the two boats in the race.

Before the race started, Diabetes (ex Nicorette) had its mast fail just before the start and couldn't get it fixed in time for the race.

Incident report:

“The line-up for the 2006 Rolex Sydney Hobart dropped to 79 today after Ludde Ingvall's 90ft maxi Diabetes was dismasted during a training sail.

While sailing under reefed main and jib in 16-17 knot easterly winds off Sydney Heads, the mast appeared to compress causing it to buckle and fall overboard, said a disappointed Ingvall, a two time line honours winner of the Sydney Hobart race.”

"Appeared to compress and buckle" A fairly heady observation from the skipper while he's watching a carbon bomb go off just feet away from his person, yet very telling. This was a repeat, mast dumping, affair for Diabetes. Additionally, Maximus dropped its first mast last year at the Maxi Worlds.

If you want to see what goes on for most of these boats before the S/H, just flick through the photos on Sailing Anarchy’s Ocean Racing Anarchy. http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45297
There, you can see the whole deal as the keels are installed, the masts are stepped, etc. Are you now going to tell me that a full and detailed inspection is not carried out on every minute part of the standing rigging and the mast itself before it is stepped for a race as big as this one? The issue is real, Douglas, and ignoring the facts won't help you to sort through the problems in anything remotely resembling a responsible process. It could turn out that the incidents are, in fact, not related at all, but if you simply stuff your noggin in the dirt, you're never gonna know that.

Have you bothered to see if there was anything even close to the mast failure rate in the non-canting classes as a comparative benchmark? Are you aware that repetitive failures can establish a pattern and that the causal effect of that failure pattern can be the result of a secondary connective source?

You seem to thrive on technology, Doug... so, how about this? Make a serious attempt to do a work-up on the additional loads, as seen by the standing rigging on a canting keel craft when compared to a similar type of traditionally keeled yacht. Let us know if there is any reason to suspect that shroud strength and/or mast column strength is a location for concern if they remain the same as the non-canting variety of design.

While you're at it, let us know the differences in shroud type and sizing for each of the two styles of boat so we can all see if there is work being done in this area to compensate for the enhanced loads on the mast and rigging.

If there are bigger shrouds on the canter as well as a bigger mast section, then the argument is made and the trail leads in the direction of successive mast/shroud failures as a possible component in the rather strange series of events in the S/H race.

A prudent designer looks at these things, Doug. He ignores them at his own peril as a professional.