Team Philips Videos

Discussion in 'Multihulls' started by HydroNick, Dec 19, 2015.

  1. HydroNick
    Joined: Apr 2010
    Posts: 87
    Likes: 3, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: British Columbia

    HydroNick Nick S

  2. warwick
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 423
    Likes: 7, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 63
    Location: papakura south auckland new zealand

    warwick Senior Member

    Thanks for that Hydronick. could this have been a boat ahead of availible technology
     
  3. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,597
    Likes: 300, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    Thanks, Nick!
     
  4. HydroNick
    Joined: Apr 2010
    Posts: 87
    Likes: 3, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: British Columbia

    HydroNick Nick S

    Warwick...I think I read somewhere that, as they had run out of money, they were building it in a cold shed with a dirt floor somewhere (same as the old Norton motorbikes then)...so, if true, it was all destined to go horribly wrong. A pity, I think.
     
  5. catsketcher
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 1,209
    Likes: 91, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 790
    Location: Australia

    catsketcher Senior Member

    I don't think the shed was at all rudimentary. I recall there being a webcam with shots from the build nice shed.

    Really it was just a publically dumb idea. If we are lucky our dumb ideas are found out by us alone. Having thin hulls with no forebeam is a silly way of reducing drag as the engineering problems skyrocket. The lesson is that you should be very wary when you change size or material. Doing two changes (going very large and no forebeam) at once was very risky. It didn't pay off in this instance.
     
  6. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,597
    Likes: 300, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    Team Philips

    Phil, I don't think it was a dumb idea. I think there was a failure in engineering and/or building but I'd bet the idea could work real well.
     
  7. hump101
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 261
    Likes: 14, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 58
    Location: Brittany, France

    hump101 Senior Member

    It would be interesting if one of those involved in TP's operation would offer an opinion as to whether driving into a North Atlantic gale as they did was something that would be done again. At the time there were a few statements about necessary testing, but the big French multi's are handled very carefully in the same conditions, and can generally outrun them when going around the world.

    I've long wondered if this was a failure in design, construction, or operation, or some mix of the three. The French multi teams have historically under-built their boats, then, with this knowledge, controlled loadings during operation, and enjoyed the increased performance during the 99% of the time when conditions are not extreme. From what I have read TP was driven hard into heinous conditions, but I wasn't there.
     
  8. catsketcher
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 1,209
    Likes: 91, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 790
    Location: Australia

    catsketcher Senior Member

    Doug I really do think that the idea is dumb. A forebeam does a few things but one important thing a forebeam does is make both bows deflect sideways the same way. As cat hulls are thin they are more prone to bending sideways than up and down. If you tie both hulls together then both have to move the same way which will turn the boat - lessening any loads.

    A cantilever beam deflects as a function of length to the power of three or four. When Thompson did away with the guff at the front of the cat he must not have understood the implications of his omission. Even a tight net will help resist sideways movement of the bows. In fact a boatbuilder who made Fossets Playstation said the glue was not really needed in the beams as the net held the boat together with huge force. (Every 100mm or so the team put 400N of force on the net).

    Thompson then makes the hulls narrower just at the same time the bows need extra reinforcing. Of course we can engineer for this but as Irens and everyone else has found out, you can't always scale things up. (Irens tris in the RDR fell apart with their carbon honeycomb lacking crack stopping ability)

    I think Team Phillips and One Australia and the RDR boats show us that engineers can get things wrong if they make big steps. Also no one has gone down this road again. It seems as though there is no real reason to do so. Maybe a beam halfway back would have save Team Phillips, we will never know.
     
  9. catsketcher
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 1,209
    Likes: 91, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 790
    Location: Australia

    catsketcher Senior Member

    Then again Doug - I could look at the pictures of maxi trimarans and see them with their big, thin, unsupported bows. Sometimes my thoughts sound so reasonable until I have another look.

    Maybe that is where Team Phillips ghost ended up - as a tri. Big wave piercing bows and nice central cockpit. Had to put that main hull in to get it to work properly.

    cheers

    Phil
     
  10. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,597
    Likes: 300, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    Team Philips-the idea

    Phil, I was thinking I had seen a big tri with, at least, the long bow of Team Philips. The white tri below is Team Tritium(and may now be Lending Club?)-look at the ama bows forward of the cross. She is a modified Mod 70 72' long:
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 2,959
    Likes: 102, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    There has to be little difference between catamaran Team Phillips and say, trimaran Idec 2 (Groupama 3) hull or float cantilever sections, both are way out there and unsupported. Trying to remember, on TP they beefed up the hard point areas directly below forward beam connection with extra fore and aft box (foam and carbon) frames in an attempt to spread the loads - but that is where the big cat failed. The crew and designer were concerned about extra weight but there was no other option. And remember, so did Groupama 3's float fail off South Island of New Zealand during their first Round World record attempt.
     
  12. HASYB
    Joined: Jun 2011
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 143
    Location: The Netherlands

    HASYB Senior Member

    Nice video of the sailing, but ajajajaj, that screaming resonance sounds just disturbingly violent in my ears.
    Resonance can be a serious destroyer for sure. Could the loud and wicked rattling resonance be an omen to the breaking up of TP, to breaking any boat?
     
  13. he b gb
    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 18
    Likes: 7, Points: 3, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: ELLIOTT HEADS

    he b gb Junior Member

    I thought I read that the bow overhang problems were repaired (ie. strengthened) before her ultimate demise and the main reason for abandonment was that the aft beam to cockpit pod join was separating at an alarming rate. Also they had big problems with the lower bearings of the freestanding masts. An experimental boat of those proportions would have to be a major engineering headache in anybodies book.
     
  14. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 2,959
    Likes: 102, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    That is correct he b gb, I failed to check up. They broke bow off earlier then beefed it up. I thought the central accommodation pod coming adrift was the final straw/reason for leaving the boat. Didn't half of one hull wash up many months later?
     

  15. he b gb
    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 18
    Likes: 7, Points: 3, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: ELLIOTT HEADS

    he b gb Junior Member

    Hi Gary, yeh the pod coming adrift was the main reason for abandoning the boat, I think I read that there was a six inch gap in parts of the pod to aft beam connection and it was steering cables and wiring etc that was holding her together, scary **** I reckon. The problems with the mast bearings happened on tests between the bow falling off incident (which I think was its first sail) and the abandonment (obviously its last sail!). When you watch that 1st vid posted above of TP at Tower Bridge you can't help but wonder how you could engineer the hull in between the crossbeams to handle the loads of those huge heavy wingmasts which look nearly as wide as the hulls themselves! I remember reading an article in Seahorse mag not long after the loss of TP which was an interview with Adrian Thompson. I think he said that even though they had a respected engineer working with the design team he (Thompson) still "winged it" on some off the structure. He sounded quite depressed about the whole affair but jokingly stated that they had to keep him away from suitable lengths of rope (that he could use to maybe make a noose.) Anyway the whole affair is a crying shame and I still believe that if ever attempted again with the knowledge and materials we have today this design would be an all round awesome boat. Cheers, Gerald
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Corley
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    2,152
  2. Corley
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,181
  3. Corley
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,293
  4. Corley
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    5,801
  5. Corley
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,838
  6. coralislander
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    903
  7. Corley
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    937
  8. oceancruiser
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    800
  9. Corley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,378
  10. oceancruiser
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,075
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.