Vo70

Guit, I was not thinking about the Shipman (even if it is not an expensive boat for its size) but on other Slovenian boat, the Westerly Gk35, an all carbon boat for around 180 000 euros. But I don't think that if more boats are made in carbon the price will go up. Probably it will be quite the opposite.

Back to the topic of unseaworthy and very fast boats:

"Bouwe Bekking tells the tale:

In the last few moments Bouwe Bekking sent this email from the boat: "'WE ARE SINKING!!!!!!!!!! EVERYBODY UP.' I can tell you, not a nice way to get woken up. 'SLOW THE BOAT DOWN, THE WATER IS COMING IN VERY FAST, AND CLOSE THE WATERIGHT HATCHES.' A sailor’s nightmare is sinking, and this looked like a pretty serious situation. If we had rats onboard they would have jumped off by now.

“Mobilised some people on deck to drop all the sails, and when I went downstairs again, I got a real shock. The generator box was already completely underwater, and the water had spread now through the entire mid-compartment, and was close washing already over the main engine box as well. And what a mess inside, sails, sleeping bags, food bags, you can't name it, was floating around.
....
"Now Chris was diving underwater to connect the two emergency high capacity bilge pumps directly to the batteries as that was the only way of assuring power and running off the pumps. What else do you do, bailing of course like mad, but I felt like [I was] watching TV where somebody is using one small waterhose, to protect his house against a raging bushfire. Even though we knew we were on the losing hand, strangely enough you don't give up. Then the shout, 'PUMPS ARE RUNNING'. Now we maybe have a chance to beat the incoming flow rate, and get the level down.

“To all our big relief this was the case. Slowly but surely the levels went down... and got the situation under control. We have made an emergency fix on the leaking box, and the incoming flow is minimal."
http://www.volvooceanrace.org/news/article/2006/march/0302movistar/index.aspx

That was close!!!

"This is a similar problem to those encountered by The Pirates on the first night of the first leg out of Vigo. ...."

That means it can happen again.... Fantastic boats...but scary boats too.

 

The reason that composite parts don't fail in F1 Races very often, is because they test them to failure before the part gets used in a race. They routinely run 10 times a race distance in testing before committing a design to a race weekend.

If you cannot afford to test parts until you are almost certain they will not fail, you should be VERY conservative in your design. That means sailing 10-12 6,000 mile legs in the southern ocean before building your race boat. None of the teams had the time or the budget to do that. The Volvo rule that forces every team to race every boat they build and the short lead time almost guaranty failures. That idiocy has nothing to do with Farr.

If you are going to put your name on the line and your ego is a big as Farr's you should make damn sure that the boats get built to your specifications. If the client refuses, you walk away.

No matter that a builder got it wrong, the Headline reads "Farr designed boats fail to finish." These weren't free plans in Popular Mechanics, where the finished boat is connected with the builder rather than the designer. You cannot afford to give up control of the entire process when your name is on the boat.

My purpose? What are you talking about?

I have an opinion about BFA designs, their attitude, and their ego. That has no bearing on the facts.

 

Not at all. The ram designers have stated that the failures were due to flex between the pivot and mounting. They designed to the amount of flex that the designer said would be present.

The boats that have not had the problem use a steel sub-frame to hold the rams and keel pivot in alignment, they do not rely solely on the hull and ring frames.

From the photos I have seen posted on the web, the mechanical failures of the ram attachments are not consistent with torsional loads from binding pivots. They are consistent with off-axis loads due to flex in a support structure.

 

So, like all good talking heads with an axe to grind you only reference one side of the story. Don't let facts get in the way of your dislike of Bruce Farr.

I think you better check this again, so you don't continue to mis-speak.

Thank you for your diagnosis Dr. Frist. Have you bothered to read what Russell bowler had to say about the shelf failure?

 

Yet you continue to make callous remarks about the man and his company.

What ego? What are you talking about? Tell us more.

You obviously don't understand the design/build process of these sorts of programs.

You cannot give up something you never had. The people in the game all know what's what.

Your purpose, well there it is. "BFA Ego". It does seem to have bearing on what "facts" you present. You're going to take that arrogant lot down a peg or two, eh?

Have you ever met or have you ever spoken with anyone at BFA? I've spoken with Bruce and he is a very quiet guy. I think you haven't got any idea about the nonsense you spout.

This is a board about Boat Design. We can all learn a lot from people like Farr and projects like these. This is the leading edge of offshore racing, and it seems this first attempt by BFA has gone wrong. I would rather learn something from this than listen to the jealous mob screaming for blood.

 

"I have an opinion about BFA designs, their attitude, and their ego"

I'll totally agree with Paul B when he takes issue with the comment quoted above. In my rare and minor dealings with BFA, I have never found them to be anything but courteous and helpful and I am not paying them anything. I have seen no evidence that they are arrogant.

Yes, they do know how to charge rich owners, and no I cannot claim to have worked with them much. But I think it's pretty cool that a no-name bloke like me from a long way away can get in contact with Russell or others and get a non-patronising and considered answer. In the most recent matter there wasn't even a real bonus for BFA in terms of publicity in their market. BFA seem to give as well as expect respect.

 

Ok Paul. this thread has been going since the start of the race. I've made observations about events as they have unfolded. Now all of a sudden you are in my face over Farr? The comments and observations would have been the same no matter who had done the design work.

It was not I that spouted nonsense about Farr being undisputed at the top of his game, that was you. I NEVER said that I thought Farr was arrogant.

While I have made statements and made observations based on the information available on the web on the VO site. You have only made confrontational comments back by no substance. No links, no quotes, just claiming that I am wrong.

Prove one time that I have been wrong and I will gladly admit my error.

When Farr freely admits to knowing next to nothing about hydraulic engineering, and the hydraulic engineers state that flex in the support structure caused on contributed to the failures, who is more credible?

The published photos agree with my experience and the statement of the engineers.

Tell me what about the process I don't understand, I would like to learn more.

The only arrogant comments that have been made are yours.

Why don't you go back to the beginning of this thread and become a participant instead of a paranoid Farr defender? Bruce Farr is the undisputed top designer, does he really need you to defend him?

 

I never said BFA are arrogant. Paul B and you chose that word, not I.

Their attitude?

Farr Yacht Design, Ltd. is acknowledged as the top racing-yacht design team in the world based upon one of the most extensive and impressive records of winning race results ever compiled by the yachts of a single design group.

If this is true, why do they feel the need to say so as the first sentence on their website?

Compared to:

For the past 75 years, we have successfully blended our extensive knowledge of yacht design for both power and sail to develop unique and innovative solutions for our clients. Since the establishment of Sparkman & Stephens, the firm has successfully completed over 2700 designs for pleasure, commercial, and military use. These designs have won countless races and international acclaim around the world.

Of the two, which has the attitude?
Which design team has won an America's Cup?

Ego?

Farr has 6 One-designs that have Farr in the name. Farr 40, Farr 52 etc.

S&S has the Lightning ... 15,000 boats and a strong OD class since 1938 ... would Farr have called it the Farr 19?

Since you and Paul have chosen arrogant, and after reading this "the designers at FYD all share a superior and comprehensive understanding of boat design, construction and performance." I guess I'll have to agree they are arrogant.

Structural Engineering
Farr Yacht Design offers extensive structural design services as part of our comprehensive design packages.

Anyone have an un-biased view of this statement?

Funny that I should be thought of as anti-Farr. I've sailed on some of his designs and quite liked them. If I was into IRC or IMS and had a big budget, I would be insane not to talk to Farr. The older Mumm's are getting to be affordable and are great boats.

Given the track record of structural problems in the W60's, VO60's, and VO70's I would probably look elsewhere, particulary in light of the less than stellar speed the Farr VO70's have shown.

I'm a big fan of Oracle/BMW racing, I sincerely hope that Mr Farr finally gets the success that he has wanted for so long in the AC.

Flame away.

 

You are right about one thing. The talented people at BFA/FYD don't need me to defend them. Their portfolio of winners can't be denied.

Your last few posts tell a lot about your bitterness. Nothing further needs to be said.

 

Rhough, re "I never said BFA are arrogant. Paul B and you chose that word, not I."

After having double-checked definitions of "ego", it seems that writing of BFA's ego in the way you did would probably be described as accusing them of being arrogant.

The Farr name is used in many of their boats (but not all - their first 3 big offshore ODs were NOT called Farrs but Mumm 30, Mumm 36 and Corel 45) but after all it is common to use a designer's name so how can it be proof of arrogance?

Nine of the 13 NZ keelboat classes have the designer's name in their title, and only two of them are Farrs.

I would point you to the other classes like NZ's Elliott 1050, Ross 930, Stewart 34, Townson 32, and the Shields, Etchells, Herreshoff H28, S&S 34, S&S 25 (current and former classes in NZ and Australia), Beetle Cat, Hobie 16 etc, Melges 24, Melges 32, B14, J/24 etc.......abundant proof that naming a class after the designer is accepted and not a measure of ego.

By the way, I seem to recall being asked by FYD not to call them Bruce Farr and Associates/BFA as they had changed their name to FYD to direct attention AWAY from Bruce and towards the team.


Re "Structural Engineering
Farr Yacht Design offers extensive structural design services as part of our comprehensive design packages.

Anyone have an un-biased view of this statement?"

I would have thought it means exactly what it says. FYD offer structural services. That does NOT mean that they are always taken up as part of the package and therefore they are not always responsible for failures.

 

I believe you are a bit out of the topic. Nobody in his right mind would doubt or diminish Farr as a prominent top boat designer.

This thread is about the Vo70 and it is that particular Farr design that it is in discussion here, and it looks that, as Lorsail has said, "the design concept ,engineering , building or all three is seriously flawed on the Farr boats". These boats, the Vo70, had structural concept and design problems and two of them were very close to sinking, endangering the lives of the crews.

Have Farr Yacht Design come to public and explain what happened?
It looks to me that the only thing they have done has been putting the blame on the Ram manufacturer in such a manner that they have felt the need to come public to straighten things out. In my opinion, that (and what they have said), has put Farr design in a delicate position, not regarding their designs, but on the assumption of responsibility on this particular fiasco. This behavior shows an arrogant character?... or whatever it shows, it is not very flattering, on the personal side of things.

 

You still cannot answer a single question.

 

You are quite correct, I let Paul B get under my skin and I was overly harsh on FYD. I was wrong to react to his posts in that manner.

I agree with the others that FYD has not handled the VO70 situation very well.

You are also correct in that FYD's structural design services may not always be used.

In the case of the VO70's, is it more likely that 4 independent teams got the structural design wrong and had similar failures or is it likely that the boats shared much of the structural design and it came from FYD?

Since one of the hydraulic engineers has stated that they used specifications from the designer, that would indicate that FYD was responsible for at least some of the structural design.

 

“The difference, Proctor explains, is in the set up between the boats that have broken and those that haven’t. Cariboni provides a stainless steel frame that contains their stainless steel cylinders, keel and rams in a linear fashion. The Marine and Hydraulics system is similar in that the components are lined up straight across the hull. Where Cariboni uses a steel frame to hold them in position, however, Proctor’s company use the two bulkheads of the boat’s structure to contain the system. Problems arose when the bulkheads started flexing under unpredictable dynamic loads caused by the speed of the boat and, subsequently, the harder slamming on the hull in waves”.

Proctor observed, “There has been a certain amount of flex in these bulkheads which sometimes is normal and sometimes isn’t and that makes the difference. That flex was far more than we predicted and has caused the stress to the system. In normal circumstances the frame would be the total unit, whereas in the Caraboni boats, when the boat flexes, the frame moves as a complete unit.

“No (we couldn’t predict the loads). We were given total assurances by the boat builders, or should we say boat designers, that the constraints of the two rams and the keel system were fixed in a solid unit, whereas now we can prove it was not (because of the flexing).”

 

"In the case of the VO70's, is it more likely that 4 independent teams got the structural design wrong and had similar failures or is it likely that the boats shared much of the structural design and it came from FYD?

Since one of the hydraulic engineers has stated that they used specifications from the designer, that would indicate that FYD was responsible for at least some of the structural design."

In my limited experience it's often harder to work out what really went wrong than it seems at first glance, but you seem to make a very good point.