• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CARBONINIT

VOR Leg 5

2,151 posts in this topic

Raise your hands if you would prefer tougher boats that gave it all in the Southern Ocean than boats that have to be nursed to win the overall? Wouldn´t it be great to have a "Round the Cape" race only where they just gave it all with tough boats and a lot of safety?

 

I think what's happening now reinforces this. Basically just one boat left intact. Is this a race or a repair derby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With this detour, how hard will it be for Camper to make it to Brazil on time?

It looks like 3 or 4 days in port, followed by alot of extra miles. They may not even get there for another 6 days.

 

And why not go into Ushuaia? Even geographically Montt looks like a headache to get in and out of, though what amount of motoring is allowed to avoid wind shadows, rips and tides?....none I guess if they are suspending racing.

[/quote

 

After looking at it, it may be worse for Camper. If they are 2500 miles away and going 10 to 12 knots, it will take them close to 10 days to get to port. Follow that with 3 days in port for the repair and another 3 or 4 to cape horn.

That does not leave them alot of time before the next start.

Is there a plan B to truck the boat across the continent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise your hands if you would prefer tougher boats that gave it all in the Southern Ocean than boats that have to be nursed to win the overall? Wouldn´t it be great to have a "Round the Cape" race only where they just gave it all with tough boats and a lot of safety?

 

I think what's happening now reinforces this. Basically just one boat left intact. Is this a race or a repair derby?

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. As a sailboat race, this is getting downright ridiculous. You can't tell me that you can judge the relative skill levels of the crews when it has become pure luck. The Whitbread boats were obviously slower, but that was balls-to-the-wall, ultra competitive sailing. The boats weren't much of a factor -- they could take pretty much everything that was dished out and come back for more.

 

So only Puma and Groupama seem to be undamaged. Did someone on here reference that there's damage to Tele? What happened? I couldn't find any specific reference to it.

 

What a shame it would be if this leg became a race between two boats. Or, worse, a racing between just one ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty interesting and very open (as usual) analysis on Gpma website as of 3.45 UTC;

 

Indeed, the depression, which was wilting as it dropped down towards the Antarctic, has been reinvigorated as it's compressed against Graham Land. The upshot of this is that from noon on Tuesday, Groupama 4 and her two pursuers will once again get slapped by 35 to 40 knots of established westerly wind! This means that the ride through Drake's Passage on Wednesday promises to be very violent with very heavy seas and squalls of over 50 knots... Franck Cammas and his men have a dilemma on their hands then. One option would be to make very fast headway on Monday, and even sail more than 600 miles in 24 hours in `reasonable' and `manageable' conditions (eight-metre waves, 25-30 knots of wind, one reef in the mainsail and storm gennaker). Like this, they'll be able to show their pursuers a clean pair of heels, as conditions will be a little less favourable behind.

 

After all that though, would they be quick enough to get round Cape Horn before noon on Wednesday, which is when the front associated with the revived disturbance in the Amundsen Sea is due to track across Drake's Passage? Right now things are far from clear-cut. Either they should avoid going too fast over the next few hours, or they should go pedal to the metal to get past the dodgy area before the austral storm hits. In the first scenario, the three Juan K. designs would probably be tightly bunched at Cape Horn. In the second scenario, Groupama 4 would benefit from some excellent conditions to climb up towards Brazil, whilst her two pursuers would have to ease up to let the worst of the austral gale roll through... Response from noon on Monday!

 

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puerto Montt is quite the detour:

 

With this detour, how hard will it be for Camper to make it to Brazil on time?

It looks like 3 or 4 days in port, followed by alot of extra miles. They may not even get there for another 6 days.

 

And why not go into Ushuaia? Even geographically Montt looks like a headache to get in and out of, though what amount of motoring is allowed to avoid wind shadows, rips and tides?....none I guess if they are suspending racing.

 

The only way that Montt makes sense from a racing standpoint is if the damage is pretty severe and they are trying to avoid sailing in gale force winds.

 

On the other hand, if the repairs are expected to take 3 days, they will finish behind AD no matter where they stop. Perhaps they are just being conservative, trying to finish the leg for points, but knowing they will be in last place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty interesting and very open (as usual) analysis on Gpma website as of 3.45 UTC;

 

I

 

After all that though, would they be quick enough to get round Cape Horn before noon on Wednesday, which is when the front associated with the revived disturbance in the Amundsen Sea is due to track across Drake's Passage?

 

link

 

Can't see that happen. By now (tracker at 16:00UTC) they have 2000 nm to the horn. Impossible to do this before Wednesday noon, i.e. 66 hrs. Including overtaking the front. Rather stay behind and enjoy the fast ride downhill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise your hands if you would prefer tougher boats that gave it all in the Southern Ocean than boats that have to be nursed to win the overall? Wouldn´t it be great to have a "Round the Cape" race only where they just gave it all with tough boats and a lot of safety?

 

I think what's happening now reinforces this. Basically just one boat left intact. Is this a race or a repair derby?

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. As a sailboat race, this is getting downright ridiculous. You can't tell me that you can judge the relative skill levels of the crews when it has become pure luck. The Whitbread boats were obviously slower, but that was balls-to-the-wall, ultra competitive sailing. The boats weren't much of a factor -- they could take pretty much everything that was dished out and come back for more.

 

So only Puma and Groupama seem to be undamaged. Did someone on here reference that there's damage to Tele? What happened? I couldn't find any specific reference to it.

 

What a shame it would be if this leg became a race between two boats. Or, worse, a racing between just one ...

 

It's funny because of all the people saying these sorts of things, I'd wonder how many have ever been out in a boat in conditions even half as severe as these, I sure as hell haven't. Plus the Whitbread boats had a ton of breakages too. Frankly, I've been surprised with how durable these boats are.

 

The boats could be built big and strong with ten feet of freeboard and a fully enclosed crew compartment but then they would be much slower and all the grumpy folks on these boards would be crying about the dumbing down of sailing and how these folks are supposed to be professionals.

 

This leg is in 50kt winds and building sized waves. Shit's gonna break no matter what kind of boat you're on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boats might actually be stronger, isn't there something about increased (doubled) speeds equals much higher loads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise your hands if you would prefer tougher boats that gave it all in the Southern Ocean than boats that have to be nursed to win the overall? Wouldn´t it be great to have a "Round the Cape" race only where they just gave it all with tough boats and a lot of safety?

 

I think what's happening now reinforces this. Basically just one boat left intact. Is this a race or a repair derby?

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. As a sailboat race, this is getting downright ridiculous. You can't tell me that you can judge the relative skill levels of the crews when it has become pure luck. The Whitbread boats were obviously slower, but that was balls-to-the-wall, ultra competitive sailing. The boats weren't much of a factor -- they could take pretty much everything that was dished out and come back for more.

 

So only Puma and Groupama seem to be undamaged. Did someone on here reference that there's damage to Tele? What happened? I couldn't find any specific reference to it.

 

What a shame it would be if this leg became a race between two boats. Or, worse, a racing between just one ...

 

It's funny because of all the people saying these sorts of things, I'd wonder how many have ever been out in a boat in conditions even half as severe as these, I sure as hell haven't. Plus the Whitbread boats had a ton of breakages too. Frankly, I've been surprised with how durable these boats are.

 

The boats could be built big and strong with ten feet of freeboard and a fully enclosed crew compartment but then they would be much slower and all the grumpy folks on these boards would be crying about the dumbing down of sailing and how these folks are supposed to be professionals.

 

This leg is in 50kt winds and building sized waves. Shit's gonna break no matter what kind of boat you're on.

 

I've been out in short seas in over 60 knots- that is when the instruments shit themselves- on a 74 ULDB sled and even bare poles was tough to keep the boat in control. The 50'ers further behind us on the track had an easier time simply because they were just shorter than the troughs of the waves. We were fucked in the waves and I reckon that is where a lot of this is coming from, just like the long boats in the Hobart crossing the Bass.

They're not even at the point where they can say they're in the middle of Buttfuck, Egypt and, as someone has already said, there are two boats racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whitbread boats had plenty of issues, and they lacked the legs to stay with a system and take this beating for about a week. The devil is in the details when it comes to design, build, upkeep, planning.

 

Re the comment about CE, these very boats must submit data to prove ISO compliance, but I reckon they have plenty of margin beyond that. The keel system and structure is calculated in another league to ISO. There are some papers of data collection for g forces, and strains, mostly in imoca class. Still, the crew have to dial it back to save the boat, they must. That is racing. One mistake and you will pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boats might actually be stronger, isn't there something about increased (doubled) speeds equals much higher loads?

 

These boats are heavy and powerful which is a recipe for high structural loads.

 

The maxi were heavy and not so powerful, the Imoca are lighter and less powerful than the volvo boats, they may looks less robust but when you integrate the lesser loads, they may be actually more seaworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been pretty amazed that this iteration of Volvo 70s have been able to overtake a system from behind. That's a significant step forward. Albeit this has been a fairly slow moving depression. They overtook it from behind and have been progressing through the already developed sea state; to be close to the center now is incredible.

 

I guess that is why they have been referring to canters as mono-marans. It not too surprising that pushing this hard through a system and staying on rum line might break a few bits and pieces. It's a credit to Groupama that they have managed their boat as well as they have and kept this pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conditions are appalling and this talk of tough Whitbread boats is BS; there were heaps of failures and their average speeds would have been half the Volvos - greater speed = much greater loads.

I've sailed in 58 knot winds off New Zealand ... in a multihull, but in seas nothing like what the VO70's are in, even so, for a few hours, (not day after day) that got your attention.

Dare I suggest the obvious suggestion: the "heavy" monohulls are not suited for this fast sailing, but Dantesque stuff. With say, a 70 foot ocean racing multihull, they would be so fast they could Ma'a Nonu-like sidestep the brutal stuff, either by outrunning or detouring, like Banque Populaire 5 and Groupama 3 did during their record breaking runs around the world. And they wouldn't, because of their light weight, be covered in dangerous white water a large percentage of the time, nor pound their bow interior structures into shattered carbon and foam pieces. Okay, blaze away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telefonica apparently now also slowing down to preserve the boat. Martinez said something about problems with the bow, must be similar to Camper. It's now effectively a 2 boat race if nothing happens to GPMA and PUMA. It seems the worst of the system has passed and 20+ kn sailing for the next 48 hrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody is slowing down ...... According to the G4 report.... for easier Cape Horn passage.

 

 

Ah no... it is just the tracker playing games with me ... When I checked everybody was at 15kts or less blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conditions are appalling and this talk of tough Whitbread boats is BS; there were heaps of failures and their average speeds would have been half the Volvos - greater speed = much greater loads.

I've sailed in 58 knot winds off New Zealand ... in a multihull, but in seas nothing like what the VO70's are in, even so, for a few hours, (not day after day) that got your attention.

Dare I suggest the obvious suggestion: the "heavy" monohulls are not suited for this fast sailing, but Dantesque stuff. With say, a 70 foot ocean racing multihull, they would be so fast they could Ma'a Nonu-like sidestep the brutal stuff, either by outrunning or detouring, like Banque Populaire 5 and Groupama 3 did during their record breaking runs around the world. And they wouldn't, because of their light weight, be covered in dangerous white water a large percentage of the time, nor pound their bow interior structures into shattered carbon and foam pieces. Okay, blaze away.

 

Groupama broke into pieces and ended up in Dunedin.

 

Telefonica apparently now also slowing down to preserve the boat. Martinez said something about problems with the bow, must be similar to Camper. It's now effectively a 2 boat race if nothing happens to GPMA and PUMA. It seems the worst of the system has passed and 20+ kn sailing for the next 48 hrs.

 

Yeah - nervous times on those boats. I really hope they get to South America OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boats might actually be stronger, isn't there something about increased (doubled) speeds equals much higher loads?

 

These boats are heavy and powerful which is a recipe for high structural loads.

 

The maxi were heavy and not so powerful, the Imoca are lighter and less powerful than the volvo boats, they may looks less robust but when you integrate the lesser loads, they may be actually more seaworthy.

 

Good theory, except almost none of the competitve, new IMOCA boats finished the last Vendee Globe. There was a goldilocks trail of broken hardware left from the North Atlantic to the Southern Ocean,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conditions are appalling and this talk of tough Whitbread boats is BS; there were heaps of failures and their average speeds would have been half the Volvos - greater speed = much greater loads.

I've sailed in 58 knot winds off New Zealand ... in a multihull, but in seas nothing like what the VO70's are in, even so, for a few hours, (not day after day) that got your attention.

Dare I suggest the obvious suggestion: the "heavy" monohulls are not suited for this fast sailing, but Dantesque stuff. With say, a 70 foot ocean racing multihull, they would be so fast they could Ma'a Nonu-like sidestep the brutal stuff, either by outrunning or detouring, like Banque Populaire 5 and Groupama 3 did during their record breaking runs around the world. And they wouldn't, because of their light weight, be covered in dangerous white water a large percentage of the time, nor pound their bow interior structures into shattered carbon and foam pieces. Okay, blaze away.

 

Groupama broke into pieces and ended up in Dunedin.

 

Telefonica apparently now also slowing down to preserve the boat. Martinez said something about problems with the bow, must be similar to Camper. It's now effectively a 2 boat race if nothing happens to GPMA and PUMA. It seems the worst of the system has passed and 20+ kn sailing for the next 48 hrs.

 

Yeah - nervous times on those boats. I really hope they get to South America OK.

 

Quite true, paradox of thrift, and they were very lucky to be close to NZ when their beam broke ... but they returned later with improved beam/float structures and set a new RTW record - subsequently broken by BP5.

No, the world sailing movement is obvious: the next(?) Volvo will be in VO70 (MOD?) multihulls, safer, even if they break (not going to the bottom faster than a stone) drier in large waves, much faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to feel for Tele and Camper guys, but they are still better off than the ADOR guys at the moment. At least they are still moving and actually sailing. ADOR are stuck between a brickwall and an ice gate. There are very few options for them except sit back and let it unfold in front of them, see where they are at the finish. Probably in front of Camper I guess will be their silver lining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wave height now under 3m for the front two in fact down to 2m fro Puma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-5312-004418300 1332730345_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

 

I think the enormity of what has been happening down in the Southern Oocean is only just beginning to filter through. We were aware of Camper's issues and I always expected they were going to have to stop. Telefonica it seems also have bow structure damage although they haven't reported the exact issues to my knowledge. The Telefonica footage and deliberate slowdown conveyed serious concern for the safety of the crew as they are so far from land they are almost on their own where emergency help would come from other competitors. Camper are paying the price for perhaps pushing too hard, to be fair we don't know if it was bad luck or not backing off sooner that may have lead to their predicament. Rob Salthouse was a broken man, they obviously tried to repair the damage and he has never not finished a leg. Whilst we acknowledge they are doing an extreme ocean race, these are the extremes that break boats and it's a case of the tortoise vs the hare.Sometimes you are better off being the tortoise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coxcreek if the multi's are so great then organise and run your own race, it's been done before and it turned into a giant yawn with boats scateered accross the ocean,

and no real boat on boat racing

 

These VOR70's are special and are giving great racing, that leg from Sanya to NZ was one of the greatest tactical ocean races we have ever seen and to see most of the fleet into Auckland within 2 hours of each other was amazing (especially when you consider the courses that were sailed) and the intensity of racong in this leg Franck tells us is never matched with multi racing

 

so piss off back to a multi forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calico jack.

 

Are you a sock puppet?

 

If not you are a very opinionated Newbie.

 

By the way fuck off and show us your girlfriend's tits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conditions are appalling

 

The conditions have been pretty much standard for the Southern Ocean. What we are seeing, I think, is the result of designs optimised to sail most of the race in light to moderate conditions, asked to do one single leg in the Southern Ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure dogswatch, this is normal Southern Ocean stuff ... that was just an average couple of normal SO waves that hit Telefonica ... but it still looks fucking appalling to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conditions have been pretty much standard for the Southern Ocean. What we are seeing, I think, is the result of designs optimised to sail most of the race in light to moderate conditions, asked to do one single leg in the Southern Ocean.

 

...combined with more media coverage than ever before + the rise in social media...

 

There are 60 points are available for the in port races (~10 hrs racing) and only 30 for the only leg to dip below 40°S (a lot more than the comparative 5hrs racing).

It's not hard to work out where the designers might be looking to maximise things.

There has been talk of changing the rules to force 'stronger' boats but I wonder if a better appropriation of points might be a more compelling method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure dogswatch, this is normal Southern Ocean stuff ... that was just an average couple of normal SO waves that hit Telefonica ... but it still looks fucking appalling to me.

 

Indeed. I like to ski but the "Couloir de Pisteurs" isn't for me. I've done a few Fastnets but the Southern Ocean isn't for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, when you believe you have a slower boat, your thought process when things get marginal is to push harder to "hopefully" make a break on the opposition.

Camper pushed with their spinnacker (planned take down at sunset) while Groupama and co. went with jibs.

 

Believing you are slow, makes a decision like backing off in marginal conditions very difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boats might actually be stronger, isn't there something about increased (doubled) speeds equals much higher loads?

 

These boats are heavy and powerful which is a recipe for high structural loads.

 

The maxi were heavy and not so powerful, the Imoca are lighter and less powerful than the volvo boats, they may looks less robust but when you integrate the lesser loads, they may be actually more seaworthy.

 

Good theory, except almost none of the competitve, new IMOCA boats finished the last Vendee Globe. There was a goldilocks trail of broken hardware left from the North Atlantic to the Southern Ocean,

 

Yes, but it was mainly masts not up to the task, not hulls crashed into the sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telefonica apparently now also slowing down to preserve the boat. Martinez said something about problems with the bow, must be similar to Camper. It's now effectively a 2 boat race if nothing happens to GPMA and PUMA. It seems the worst of the system has passed and 20+ kn sailing for the next 48 hrs.

 

 

im still not convinced telefonica wont go into Ushuia. If they have some structural problems in the bow, wont it get worse once they get on the wind? After Cape Horn, they are likely to have significant amount of windward work in short seas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conditions have been pretty much standard for the Southern Ocean. What we are seeing, I think, is the result of designs optimised to sail most of the race in light to moderate conditions, asked to do one single leg in the Southern Ocean.

 

...combined with more media coverage than ever before + the rise in social media...

 

There are 60 points are available for the in port races (~10 hrs racing) and only 30 for the only leg to dip below 40°S (a lot more than the comparative 5hrs racing).

It's not hard to work out where the designers might be looking to maximise things.

There has been talk of changing the rules to force 'stronger' boats but I wonder if a better appropriation of points might be a more compelling method.

Agreed, using appropriation of points to steer the design in a safer direction is more elegant than making stricter rules.

 

However, the inports are important not just because of points, but because they give the sponsors a lot of exposure (AAMOF a very smart way of making the VOR more attractive to sponsors). So I'm not sure awarding a lot of points for the SO leg is enough. Depending on the sponsor's profile, a couple of import wins might be seen as better ROI than winning the SO leg anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure there are brighter minds with better numbers are looking at this, but I wonder what the chance of Camper getting to Brazil on time are? Assuming they get to Chile first of course - it sounds pretty nerve racking on the latest blog entry. I bet they are feeling pretty lonely and exposed atm.

 

Camper is 2600nm to Chile, looks like they have settled in at about 10 to 15 knots. 7 to 11 very nervous days with another system to traverse. Lets say 9 days - gets them there 4 April.

4 days to do repairs, dept 8 April.

3000nm to Brazil @ 15 knots get them there in 8 days - April 16

3000nm to Brazil @ 10 knots get them there in 13 days - April 21

 

Pro Am 20 April (not sure if this is compulsory) / In Port 21st / Leg 6 start 22nd.

 

That is sure a tight schedule with a whole lot of dependencies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camper look like they are in a world of trouble to me.

The boat is falling apart now even at seriously reduced pace.

I wonder if the longitudinals and hull parting ways are a continuation of the bulkhead issue or if there is a deeper problem.

Are the shore crew shipping their container workshops to Chile or are they in Itajai?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love all the talk about higher freeboards, increasing safety factors etc.

 

On the freeboard matter, anyone who has climbed onboard a Volvo 70 at the dock will be instantly hit by how hard it is to clamber up, the freeboards are already huge compared to say an IRC mini maxi or a similar sized Swan etc. You would have to go up a metre to get a dry deck in these conditions, and that would be plane stupid.

 

It is also interesting that the safety factors in teh rule have hardly changed since the first version. Some aspects have been made clearer, but in general they are the same. What has changed is the understanding of the loads these boats have to cope with and how to engineer better to those. The forward slamming areas seem to be getting a hiding, but the internal structure has to meet ISO structural standards and the minimum panel weight is approximately 150% of the ISO requirements for an ocean going yacht. So these boats are built far, far stronger than any other race yacht. The problem is that any yacht can be broken. The job of the crews is not to break them. Some manage, some don't. What is certain is that any other could be broken in these conditions, and I suspect most woudl only last hours at tops before breaking their backs in what these guys are seeing.

 

And by the way, the white interior is generally vinyl to keep weight down, and it was added to the rule for the last race because none of the video footage from the interior was usable with the black interiors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camper look like they are in a world of trouble to me.

The boat is falling apart now even at seriously reduced pace.

I wonder if the longitudinals and hull parting ways are a continuation of the bulkhead issue or if there is a deeper problem.

Are the shore crew shipping their container workshops to Chile or are they in Itajai?

 

 

If the bulkheads part thats fairly easy to fix with a fillet and tape.If the bow longditudnals part thats serious as the fibres normally fail causing the fillets to part on the bulkheads hence the bow panting.It might be why they have had no speed in the previous legs. Its taken now to see the problem.What an ocean to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After one sensible post by WY Daddy, I feel like adding up my feelings.

 

OK boats have broken in this tough leg.

Three potential causes:

- Design: doubt it, we never heard of any helmsman commenting on an inacceptable behaviour of any boat.

- Engineering: yes there are mistakes even by the highest reputation engineers, a collapsing bulkhead would relate to that, in my opinion. Now: boats designed by the same designer might have been engineered by different offices.

- Build quality: happens time and time again, even with the best yards Photographs seem to show that on ADOR the bulkhead was intact and bonding is in cause. Camper talks about longitudinals secondary bonding giving up.

 

IMHO, there is little chance that the actual causes be known outside the inner circle but I doubt they can be related either to the VO 70 concept or the class regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After one sensible post by WY Daddy, I feel like adding up my feelings.

 

OK boats have broken in this tough leg.

Three potential causes:

- Design: doubt it, we never heard of any helmsman commenting on an inacceptable behaviour of any boat.

- Engineering: yes there are mistakes even by the highest reputation engineers, a collapsing bulkhead would relate to that, in my opinion. Now: boats designed by the same designer might have been engineered by different offices.

- Build quality: happens time and time again, even with the best yards Photographs seem to show that on ADOR the bulkhead was intact and bonding is in cause. Camper talks about longitudinals secondary bonding giving up.

 

IMHO, there is little chance that the actual causes be known outside the inner circle but I doubt they can be related either to the VO 70 concept or the class regulations.

 

 

Moody, If they want boats taht eth crews can't break then I suggest they replace the carbon with steel. But then again, such boats would not go anywhere near as fast, so the dynamic loads would be lower and they would be over built, but the crews woudl really struggle to break them. Alternatively the crews could do as Grouama seem to be doing - accept that the boats are not indestructable and back off using the approach that to finish first, first you need to finish.

If you lose control of your car on a bend and wrap it around a tree you don't blame the car designer or the tree. Why are we blaming yacht designers and engineers for sailors losing control and wrecking their boats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After one sensible post by WY Daddy, I feel like adding up my feelings.

 

OK boats have broken in this tough leg.

Three potential causes:

- Design: doubt it, we never heard of any helmsman commenting on an inacceptable behaviour of any boat.

- Engineering: yes there are mistakes even by the highest reputation engineers, a collapsing bulkhead would relate to that, in my opinion. Now: boats designed by the same designer might have been engineered by different offices.

- Build quality: happens time and time again, even with the best yards Photographs seem to show that on ADOR the bulkhead was intact and bonding is in cause. Camper talks about longitudinals secondary bonding giving up.

 

IMHO, there is little chance that the actual causes be known outside the inner circle but I doubt they can be related either to the VO 70 concept or the class regulations.

 

 

Moody, If they want boats taht eth crews can't break then I suggest they replace the carbon with steel. But then again, such boats would not go anywhere near as fast, so the dynamic loads would be lower and they would be over built, but the crews woudl really struggle to break them. Alternatively the crews could do as Grouama seem to be doing - accept that the boats are not indestructable and back off using the approach that to finish first, first you need to finish.

If you lose control of your car on a bend and wrap it around a tree you don't blame the car designer or the tree. Why are we blaming yacht designers and engineers for sailors losing control and wrecking their boats?

 

Though I do understand your point re the car, these boats are designed to sail through the southern ocean and around the world. The storms are the same they have been for the last X number of years. The water is not physically harder than it was in the past and the wind they are experiencing isn't anything out of the ordinary so the boats are simply not performing like they should.

 

Rudder or rig damage could be considered as a moderate probability at one stage or another but bulkhead delimitation shouldn't be acceptable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Though I do understand your point re the car, these boats are designed to sail through the southern ocean and around the world. The storms are the same they have been for the last X number of years. The water is not physically harder than it was in the past and the wind they are experiencing isn't anything out of the ordinary so the boats are simply not performing like they should.

 

Rudder or rig damage could be considered as a moderate probability at one stage or another but bulkhead delimitation shouldn't be acceptable

 

If you hit water at 20 knots it hurts a lot more than hitting it at 10 knots. So the impact is harder the faster you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if a bit of Kevlar would make things much better.

 

Having the last layer in Kevlar would make the hulls more resilient to impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official word from Sanya regarding shipping:

 

 

TEAM SANYA TO SHIP TO MIAMI AS FASTEST OPTION TO GET BACK INTO THE RACE

 

Team Sanya will make their return to competitive action in the Volvo Ocean Race in Miami following the rudder and hull damage that has forced them to head back towards New Zealand on Leg 5, with the team reluctantly announcing on Monday that all options that would get the boat back in the race in Brazil have now been exhausted.

 

The damage which occurred on March 22 meant the Sanya could not carry on racing into the Southern Ocean, with the team unable to deploy the reserve race rudder as the bearings had been mangled. They are using the emergency rudder over the stern of the boat to sail to New Zealand and the shore team have spent the last four days investigating all options on how they might get back into the race as quickly as possible.

 

Unfortunately, it has not been possible to arrange for the boat to Itajaí in time, meaning they will miss Leg 6 and return in time for the Miami In-Port Race on May 19 and the start of Leg 7 to Lisbon on May 20.

 

The race boat and team are due to reach Tauranga in New Zealand on the evening of Tuesday, March 27, where they will immediately prepare the boat for shipment from Tauranga to Savannah in the United States. The Maersk Line ship 'Maersk Bratan' departs on the evening of Thursday, March 29 and is due to reach Savannah on April 27.

 

Once the repairs have been completed, the team will sail the boat to Miami.

 

This solution was agreed upon only after the team researched all options to try and get the boat from New Zealand to Itajaí in Brazil. The lack of time means that they would not have time to sail back to New Zealand, carry out the required repairs and rejoin Leg 5. That fact, combined with the danger of sailing in the Southern Ocean completely alone and separated from the rest of the fleet, has forced the team to retire from Leg 5 and not compete in Leg 6 (from Itajaí to Miami) which is "gutting" to the team and all involved, according to skipper Mike Sanderson.

 

David Duff, COO for Team Sanya, explained the process the team has been through since Thursday:

 

"For sure the initial focus was on assessing if the guys could resume racing in Leg 5 but time is against us as they need five days to sail back to New Zealand, a further 5-6 days to carry out the repair and then the 20 days for the leg which meant they could only reach Itajaí after the other boats had left on Leg 6.

 

"We then turned our focus to finding a ship to get our race boat from New Zealand to Brazil. We have had huge support from the Volvo Ocean Race organisation and the race's official logistics partner DHL and our own Team Shipping Partner Maersk Line as well as Volvo Cars in New Zealand. With all of their help we have explored every possible transport option and sadly there are no shipping solutions that can get us from New Zealand to Brazil before the Leg 6 re-start.

 

"Once we reach Savannah, we will re-assemble our shore team there and carry out the necessary repairs and then sail the race boat for the 350 mile trip from Savannah to Miami as a shake-down opportunity and we should be in place in Miami in early May – in line with the other race boats that are expected there on May 6.”

 

Mike Sanderson, Team Sanya CEO & Skipper, commented from the race boat on the next plan of action:

 

“For sure we are absolutely gutted to find ourselves for the third time in a devastating position. Twice now we have been leading the fleet only to encounter a major issue forcing us out of the leg. That said, we are as focused as ever to get back into the race and to make our sponsors and fans proud. The support we have received from the event and team partners has been amazing – for sure we could not achieve this without them. That coupled with the overwhelming number of messages of support from friends, families and fans has helped us all the focus our determination on getting back into this race.

 

"Right now it’s a case of pushing the boat as fast as we can to reach Tauranga in time as our turn-around time there is very tight – and trying to do that with a damaged hull and emergency rudder is not ideal. But we will make it happen and Team Sanya will be back in action before you know it.”

 

Special thanks from Team Sanya to the following organisations and people who have made this logistical operation possible:

Volvo Ocean Race organisation: specifically Craig Rogers

 

DHL : specifically Mark Harrison DHL NZ and Renier Vens DHL NL.

 

Maersk Line – specifically John Hawthorne (you are a special legend!)

 

Peters and May and Oceanbridge, Craig Stanbury and Richard Thorpe

 

Volvo Cars in New Zealand - Stephen Ketchington

 

Bridge Marina in Tauranga - Bruce Goodchap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the Kevlar, from VO 60 Design. If VO 70's were Kevlar would we have these structural Carbon Fibre issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the Kevlar, from VO 60 Design. If VO 70's were Kevlar would we have these structural Carbon Fibre issues?

and the Whitbread/Volvo 60's never had any issues? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Though I do understand your point re the car, these boats are designed to sail through the southern ocean and around the world. The storms are the same they have been for the last X number of years. The water is not physically harder than it was in the past and the wind they are experiencing isn't anything out of the ordinary so the boats are simply not performing like they should.

 

Rudder or rig damage could be considered as a moderate probability at one stage or another but bulkhead delimitation shouldn't be acceptable

 

If you hit water at 20 knots it hurts a lot more than hitting it at 10 knots. So the impact is harder the faster you go.

 

The boats have been hitting 20 knots + for the past 20 years or more. Waves have been rolling over yachts since before the race started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After one sensible post by WY Daddy, I feel like adding up my feelings.

 

OK boats have broken in this tough leg.

Three potential causes:

- Design: doubt it, we never heard of any helmsman commenting on an inacceptable behaviour of any boat.

- Engineering: yes there are mistakes even by the highest reputation engineers, a collapsing bulkhead would relate to that, in my opinion. Now: boats designed by the same designer might have been engineered by different offices.

- Build quality: happens time and time again, even with the best yards Photographs seem to show that on ADOR the bulkhead was intact and bonding is in cause. Camper talks about longitudinals secondary bonding giving up.

 

IMHO, there is little chance that the actual causes be known outside the inner circle but I doubt they can be related either to the VO 70 concept or the class regulations.

 

 

Moody, If they want boats taht eth crews can't break then I suggest they replace the carbon with steel. But then again, such boats would not go anywhere near as fast, so the dynamic loads would be lower and they would be over built, but the crews woudl really struggle to break them. Alternatively the crews could do as Grouama seem to be doing - accept that the boats are not indestructable and back off using the approach that to finish first, first you need to finish.

If you lose control of your car on a bend and wrap it around a tree you don't blame the car designer or the tree. Why are we blaming yacht designers and engineers for sailors losing control and wrecking their boats?

 

Again I fully agree with you WIYD, building the boat in the best possible way and then drive them "astutely", pushing when you can and backing off when you need to, is all part of the game and should be rewarded.

Somehow this is an ocean-race sorting-out the best yacht and best crew, not a speed trial.

 

If I mentioned the designers, engineers and builders, it's only because the ultimate responsibility is that of the campaign, in managing them and keeping control of inevitable hiccups in such a complex process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the Kevlar, from VO 60 Design. If VO 70's were Kevlar would we have these structural Carbon Fibre issues?

 

By definition, no. They would have structural Aramid fibre issues. Aramid interlaminar bonds are far worse than virtually any carbon fibre and is not a great choice. Race boats are and will be made of carbon fibre for the foreseeable future, because nothing better exists at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the first trip with the VO60s was basically carnage when they got to the Southern Ocean and about 5 boats broke!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you lose control of your car on a bend and wrap it around a tree you don't blame the car designer or the tree.

 

Actually I know someone who wrote off a one week old supercar and the designer was precisely who he blamed. Whether he was right or not, watch Top Gear and you will find certain cars described as "wanting to kill you". Those of us old enough to have experienced helming some IOR boats downwind in a blow may have held them in similar regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the first trip with the VO60s was basically carnage when they got to the Southern Ocean and about 5 boats broke!

 

OK but this is iteration #3 in VO70s. Should they not be debugged by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably is just about true that the 3rd VO60 outing was a lot less carnage. Wierd to think that they only did 3 races actually.

 

I would agree with the people on here - it's really not the boat design that's the problem, it's the high level of competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the Kevlar, from VO 60 Design. If VO 70's were Kevlar would we have these structural Carbon Fibre issues?

 

By definition, no. They would have structural Aramid fibre issues. Aramid interlaminar bonds are far worse than virtually any carbon fibre and is not a great choice. Race boats are and will be made of carbon fibre for the foreseeable future, because nothing better exists at this time.

So how did this one manage to achieve several Vendee Globe and managed to go round the world against the wind?

 

12-monnet-sur-uunet-recordman-du-tour-du-monde-a-lenvers-contre-vent-et-courants-dominants-en-151-jours.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the Kevlar, from VO 60 Design. If VO 70's were Kevlar would we have these structural Carbon Fibre issues?

 

By definition, no. They would have structural Aramid fibre issues. Aramid interlaminar bonds are far worse than virtually any carbon fibre and is not a great choice. Race boats are and will be made of carbon fibre for the foreseeable future, because nothing better exists at this time.

So how did this one manage to achieve several Vendee Globe and managed to go round the world against the wind?

 

12-monnet-sur-uunet-recordman-du-tour-du-monde-a-lenvers-contre-vent-et-courants-dominants-en-151-jours.jpg

 

Seamanship.

 

My statement should not be taken as a vendetta against a boat or even a material. At the time that boat was built, Kevlar or aramid was well known and used. Carbon was too expensive and experimental for a period. Aramid still has its place, but pretty firmly on the margins of yacht engineering. Because now, not only is carbon fibre known and used, it is in fact a better material. Higher specific strength, bonds better, and in the end cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the first trip with the VO60s was basically carnage when they got to the Southern Ocean and about 5 boats broke!

 

OK but this is iteration #3 in VO70s. Should they not be debugged by now?

 

This is what debugged looks like. When they go into 50-60 knots in SO waves against other boats they perceive as very competitive and strong, they will find the edge, often the hard way. Not debugged? See Movistar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love all the talk about higher freeboards, increasing safety factors etc.

 

On the freeboard matter, anyone who has climbed onboard a Volvo 70 at the dock will be instantly hit by how hard it is to clamber up, the freeboards are already huge compared to say an IRC mini maxi or a similar sized Swan etc. You would have to go up a metre to get a dry deck in these conditions, and that would be plane stupid.

 

It is also interesting that the safety factors in teh rule have hardly changed since the first version. Some aspects have been made clearer, but in general they are the same. What has changed is the understanding of the loads these boats have to cope with and how to engineer better to those. The forward slamming areas seem to be getting a hiding, but the internal structure has to meet ISO structural standards and the minimum panel weight is approximately 150% of the ISO requirements for an ocean going yacht. So these boats are built far, far stronger than any other race yacht. The problem is that any yacht can be broken. The job of the crews is not to break them. Some manage, some don't. What is certain is that any other could be broken in these conditions, and I suspect most woudl only last hours at tops before breaking their backs in what these guys are seeing.

 

And by the way, the white interior is generally vinyl to keep weight down, and it was added to the rule for the last race because none of the video footage from the interior was usable with the black interiors.

 

+1

 

Simply amazing that ADOR is potentially looking at a podium finish. Obviously this SO leg is not really much of a tactical race (until turning north anyway), but more of a contest of throttle control. Like downhill skiing and knowing when to scrub speed so you don't scrub it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what debugged looks like.

 

Hmmmm to that. In what other form of modern grand-prix sport do you tend to find 2/3rds of competitors broken down less than half way through a leg of a race? Or every single competitor having experienced a break-down somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The breakage rate of these boats is pretty predictable. Hooking into the back of the low made the skippers decide just how far beyond the design envelope they would push their boats. Camper thought that their boat had a higher breaking point than their competitors. The result was that they carried their kite into a rougher seastate than the boat could take and they broke. Telephonica did not want to lose touch with Camper and while they backed off some, they broke as well. Groupama have done a great job of managing their boat while making the best progress to the mark. They are probably on the bleeding edge of breaking. Puma has definitely throttled back the most and have advanced through the attriciation of those that pressed too hard.

These boats have gears. It's up to the crew to manage the boats in the appropriate gear. The only critisism I would have of the current VO70 rule is the sail restrictions may make the range of the step downs too large. With only three down wind sails allowed, it might incentivize hanging on to too much gear for too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what debugged looks like.

 

Hmmmm to that. In what other form of modern grand-prix sport do you tend to find 2/3rds of competitors broken down less than half way through a leg of a race? Or every single competitor having experienced a break-down somewhere?

Happens from time to time that half of the f1 cars retire with all sorts of issues. Once per season or so a third of the cars are out after the first curve.

 

(Anecdote: A Norwegian F1 commentator and previous motorsports driver said that the f1 is difficult cars run on an easy track, while the wrc rally is easy cars run on a difficult track. Bit like the AC and VOR?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Anecdote: A Norwegian F1 commentator and previous motorsports driver said that the f1 is difficult cars run on an easy track, while the wrc rally is easy cars run on a difficult track. Bit like the AC and VOR?)

 

The VOR in the Southern Ocean is probably more like difficult cars on a difficult track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a report where the driver was knocked off the helm of (I think Camper) eight times and the boat would sail itself until the crew recovered. That doesn't sound like too difficult of a boat. That sounds like pressing too hard in too high of a gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure there are brighter minds with better numbers are looking at this, but I wonder what the chance of Camper getting to Brazil on time are? Assuming they get to Chile first of course - it sounds pretty nerve racking on the latest blog entry. I bet they are feeling pretty lonely and exposed atm.

 

Camper is 2600nm to Chile, looks like they have settled in at about 10 to 15 knots. 7 to 11 very nervous days with another system to traverse. Lets say 9 days - gets them there 4 April.

4 days to do repairs, dept 8 April.

3000nm to Brazil @ 15 knots get them there in 8 days - April 16

3000nm to Brazil @ 10 knots get them there in 13 days - April 21

 

Pro Am 20 April (not sure if this is compulsory) / In Port 21st / Leg 6 start 22nd.

 

That is sure a tight schedule with a whole lot of dependencies...

 

 

It is pretty obvious that they will not make it to the Brazil finish line in time. They are either arranging for a ship or tug and barge for pick up in Chile, or a fleet of trucks to drive the whole kit over the Andes Mountain range which is not very likely. The reason they are so quiet is because they already know that they will not finish this leg and will most likely need to miss the next leg and ship to Miami just like the Sanya boat. Watch for an announcement soon. The other alternative is to start the next leg a few days late. Pretty much a bummer any way you slice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seamanship.

 

My statement should not be taken as a vendetta against a boat or even a material. At the time that boat was built, Kevlar or aramid was well known and used. Carbon was too expensive and experimental for a period. Aramid still has its place, but pretty firmly on the margins of yacht engineering. Because now, not only is carbon fibre known and used, it is in fact a better material. Higher specific strength, bonds better, and in the end cheaper.

 

He wouldn't have gone round without seamanship but when you read the account from Monnet, you realise that the boat got hammered while he crossed the Indian ocean.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that boats are structurally designed using statics with equivalent dynamic loads, there is nothing wrong with this up to a certain point when the high stiffness of the structure enhance the loads. Some people think that the IMOCA fleet might have died of this (old Voiles et Voiliers article, I think that VPLP said this but I am not sure and unfortunately I haven't got the article to hand.) as when they moved to CF with higher MOE the impact loads may have gone up beyond control with the disastrous effects we know. I am wondering if the VO70 aren't suffering from the same plague. It's a question that I am asking loudly rather than a statemeent, I know for instance that when you design crash barriers you need to look at the relation between kinetic energy and deflection and steel is obviously favoured over concrete because of the extra deflection.

 

Aramide are used for many applications where resilience matter (motorbike helmets, bullet proof armours...), Fleury Michon 10 / uunet was built of Kevlar and carbon fibre, it is certainly one of the most abused yacht in modern history of yacht racing, I can't even remember how many times it has competed in the Vendee Globe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a report where the driver was knocked off the helm of (I think Camper) eight times and the boat would sail itself until the crew recovered. That doesn't sound like too difficult of a boat. That sounds like pressing too hard in too high of a gear.

 

Meanwhile, the boat with the most experienced crew at throttling back ultra high performance boats from extremely high speeds is winning. Certainly has become a hell of a race to watch, for me anyway.

 

Also got a cryptic anonymous note that the protest against Tele was dismissed, but the sender wouldn't verify or identify himself - looks to maybe be someone just pulling my chain. Tele answered my emails and wouldn't comment before the jury hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, maybe some of the crews are forcing these boats too much. Maybe the boats are not designed to be pushed so hard in these conditions, given the design compromise for the rest of the legs. Maybe the most conservative or better management crews are winning this leg. But is it not possible to design, build and sail boats that can be taken to the limit in these conditions, with all the necessary safety for the crew of course. I am quite sure that if there was a race that was mostly just like this leg, the right boats could and would be built. But I guess (correct me if I am wrong designers and builders) that the organization of this race could, via rules, make the boats more apt for these kinds of conditions. Sure, they would not be as fast elsewhere, but more of them would be able to finish tough legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure people appreciate how much power canters can produce with the simple push of a button relative to a fixed keel boat. The first time that you are on a big canter and the helmsman swings the keel, it's amazing just dialing the heel out. Keeping the sail plan close to perpendicular to the wind induces huge loads. Knowing when to dial back these loads in a kaotic sea state amongst tight competition is a very fine line. Yes, there are designs out there that can be driven faster around the entire range of conditions that the VO70's race in. But, these designs don't carry around lead bulbs. They are maxi multi's and they can be push too hard as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telefonica is not reporting particular troubles so far as I can see, but they are sailing a more northerly course, in much smaller waves than the leaders (3m rather than 5.5m) and in easily manageable winds (currently reported at 18-24 knots), but severely throttled back to only 15 knots boat speed beam reaching. At this rate, they may fall out the back door of the system the leaders are riding - and if things don't improve, they soon become a viable target for Abu Dhabi. (AD would be impressive on the podium, no?)

 

I want hard news on Telefonica's situation, dammit! There's some kind of story here.

 

Good wishes to Harmer on Groupama. I wonder how much his loss for the present will hurt an already thinly staffed crew for the balance of the leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty obvious that they will not make it to the Brazil finish line in time. They are either arranging for a ship or tug and barge for pick up in Chile, or a fleet of trucks to drive the whole kit over the Andes Mountain range which is not very likely. The reason they are so quiet is because they already know that they will not finish this leg and will most likely need to miss the next leg and ship to Miami just like the Sanya boat. Watch for an announcement soon. The other alternative is to start the next leg a few days late. Pretty much a bummer any way you slice it.

 

Only 2200 miles from Puerto Montt to Itajai by road....

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Puerto+Montt,+Chile&daddr=Itaja%C3%AD+-+Santa+Catarina,+Brazil&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sll=-34.198173,-60.908203&sspn=23.821818,41.264648&geocode=FSwxh_0dPBKn-ykH9CBpTToYljHfyaV5WvGjhg%3BFZ5pZf4dtncZ_Sk7ZpQbZczYlDF7MECUYS1vUA&doflg=ptm&mra=luc&t=m&z=5

 

Google maps says you can make it in two days drive (good luck with that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question,

How did these guys attempt to make a repair with epoxy to the bulkhead and beams with the hull flexing, pumping, oil canning, twisting, etc?

My limited fiberglass repair experience required the two pieces remain static. Or did they stop the boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it possible with an MCM aboard that we are guessing what news of Telefonica?

Pepe is covered with Glue in last Video on Volvo site. Is it to protect the families from worrying?

 

Looks like a two horse race to Cape Horn. Boys can spend a bit more time drinking Rum and smoking cigars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably is just about true that the 3rd VO60 outing was a lot less carnage. Wierd to think that they only did 3 races actually.

 

 

Remember all the problems with first-generation canting keels.

Luckily there has been no repetition of that in the mayhem of the southern ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty obvious that they will not make it to the Brazil finish line in time. They are either arranging for a ship or tug and barge for pick up in Chile, or a fleet of trucks to drive the whole kit over the Andes Mountain range which is not very likely. The reason they are so quiet is because they already know that they will not finish this leg and will most likely need to miss the next leg and ship to Miami just like the Sanya boat. Watch for an announcement soon. The other alternative is to start the next leg a few days late. Pretty much a bummer any way you slice it.

 

Only 2200 miles from Puerto Montt to Itajai by road....

 

http://maps.google.c...mra=luc&t=m&z=5

 

Google maps says you can make it in two days drive (good luck with that).

 

I've driven some of those roads and if memory serves the route that Google is one of the lowest altitude and easiest passes over the Andes. So just maybe they are working on logistics to do just that and therefore have not made an official announcement until they determine whether it would be possible. It must be some difficult logistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what debugged looks like.

 

Hmmmm to that. In what other form of modern grand-prix sport do you tend to find 2/3rds of competitors broken down less than half way through a leg of a race? Or every single competitor having experienced a break-down somewhere?

 

I contend there is no other sport like this one. No sport that I can think of involves a competition taking weeks competed continuously, where the team sleeps in the equipment during the competition, that itself is fully exposed to elements that are way beyond their control. Dog sled racing? Rally car racing? Maybe mountaineering in the high Himalaya does come the closest, considering the peril of just being at sea.

 

 

 

 

Or war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seamanship.

 

My statement should not be taken as a vendetta against a boat or even a material. At the time that boat was built, Kevlar or aramid was well known and used. Carbon was too expensive and experimental for a period. Aramid still has its place, but pretty firmly on the margins of yacht engineering. Because now, not only is carbon fibre known and used, it is in fact a better material. Higher specific strength, bonds better, and in the end cheaper.

 

He wouldn't have gone round without seamanship but when you read the account from Monnet, you realise that the boat got hammered while he crossed the Indian ocean.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that boats are structurally designed using statics with equivalent dynamic loads, there is nothing wrong with this up to a certain point when the high stiffness of the structure enhance the loads. Some people think that the IMOCA fleet might have died of this (old Voiles et Voiliers article, I think that VPLP said this but I am not sure and unfortunately I haven't got the article to hand.) as when they moved to CF with higher MOE the impact loads may have gone up beyond control with the disastrous effects we know. I am wondering if the VO70 aren't suffering from the same plague. It's a question that I am asking loudly rather than a statemeent, I know for instance that when you design crash barriers you need to look at the relation between kinetic energy and deflection and steel is obviously favoured over concrete because of the extra deflection.

 

Aramide are used for many applications where resilience matter (motorbike helmets, bullet proof armours...), Fleury Michon 10 / uunet was built of Kevlar and carbon fibre, it is certainly one of the most abused yacht in modern history of yacht racing, I can't even remember how many times it has competed in the Vendee Globe!

 

The history of FMX. link DNF, capsized, has to rerighted (a specialty of that generation, so dangerous), dismasted, lost keel, boom broken, the list speaks for itself. You will say this is not the boat, perhaps. What would have happened to the boat if the rig did not drop first, or the keel did not come off first, etc. That argument leads nowhere.

 

I don't know what you want me to say. I will start with the point that carbon fibre construction does not enhance the loads. The loads are their from the sea state in this case. It does not deform much either, so it can be that the loads are not mitigated as with other composites or even metals. Do you want me to say that structural engineers understand all they need to know about handling the loads? That would be pretty foolish to say, one can always learn more. The sea will find every weakness, always does eventually.

 

As for the material, I like Kevlar just fine, use it in many boats. But not transocean racing yachts. Why? Well I mentioned the bonding, it is so problematic bonding to core material that IIRC W60 design rules banned core ahead of the mast, but there is also the fact that compression characteristics of Kevlar are pretty bad. So far problems that can be limited to tension (like bullet proofing) great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've driven some of those roads and if memory serves the route that Google is one of the lowest altitude and easiest passes over the Andes. So just maybe they are working on logistics to do just that and therefore have not made an official announcement until they determine whether it would be possible. It must be some difficult logistics.

 

My good luck comment (making it in 2 days) had to do with the need to traverse through 3 to 4 countries with a 70 foot long New Zealand papered yacht. Logistical challenge for certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they will make it

 

"Things certainly aren’t getting any easier onboard CAMPER. Last night as we were sailing along trying to keep the boat slow and under control we managed to pop the starboard longitudinal. The forth-big blow we have had in a row. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they will make it

 

"Things certainly aren't getting any easier onboard CAMPER. Last night as we were sailing along trying to keep the boat slow and under control we managed to pop the starboard longitudinal. The forth-big blow we have had in a row. "

 

Any comments from Dalts recently? Even if an imperfect Botin hull causes the boat to be fractionally slower on specific points of sail, a disintegrating ETNZ structure causes the boat to be a hell of a lot slower...and way more dangerous. Will the finger swing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they will make it

 

"Things certainly aren't getting any easier onboard CAMPER. Last night as we were sailing along trying to keep the boat slow and under control we managed to pop the starboard longitudinal. The forth-big blow we have had in a row. "

 

Any comments from Dalts recently? Even if an imperfect Botin hull causes the boat to be fractionally slower on specific points of sail, a disintegrating ETNZ structure causes the boat to be a hell of a lot slower...and way more dangerous. Will the finger swing?

 

As far as I can tell, everyone has missed an important point along the way. Understandable, since it's a matter of physics that's a bit remote for most Anarchists. When any object faces stresses, there will eventually be failure. Some failures may take eons, some come in fractions of a second. But there will be failure. The key for engineering good boats (or good anything else) is to understand the potential modes of failure and make sure that the more probable failures afford the best chance of survival and focusing the structure into the most graceful failure mode possible. A few comments have danced close to the point by noting that it's better for a boat to lose a rig than to face the hull rupturing from "oil canning" in a seaway. In the present boats, it's clear that the failure modes are not graceful at all, and human lives are put at greater risk than should be the case. These are not failure modes that were designed in and are coming as a big, nasty surprise. It's one thing to say that the skippers have to exercise good judgment in throttling back to suit conditions - presuming the engineers have given enough clear information about the limits of the design - and quite another when a failure comes (as it always seems to do in extreme conditions) and it's not graceful at all.

 

In many contexts, it is good engineering practice to design in failure modes be creating the "weakest link" to serve as a relatively benign failure. However it has come to be, it appears that at least a substantial chunk of the VO70 fleet face unintended, potentially catastrophic failure mode(s). While we all accept a bit of risk when we leave the dock, the VO70 engineering puts lives at considerable risk none of the sailors on board knowingly or intentionally accepted at the outset.

 

We have always had lives at risk in a variety of ways over the years. I did time as a trimmer some years ago using wire sheets and guys. Scary shit, man! But we knew the risks and did what we could to manage them. And we got away with it most of the time. And then and now, jibing a storm chute in the middle of the night is a deadly serious maneuver and you'd better have a really good sailor on the after guy. But there's very little way to manage the risk of a hull falling apart under your feet in the roaring forties. I just hope these guys all get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JumpingJax,

While I completely agree that good engineering considers various failure modes. I don't agree with your premise that the current crop have not had weakest links and strong points designed in. Each of the failures to date have been behind water tight bulkheads. The first iteration VO70's failures were in the main cabin in the keel boxes. Now, that was a huge problem. But, Groupama, Abu Dabi, Telephonica and even Sanya's failures have all been within containable compartments and each boat has sailed (at a reduced pace) to a point where repairs can be made. We are yet to see what exactly has occurred to Camper. But, it initiated with a J4 bulkhead issue. TNZ made repairs and pushed on hard. Then after the repair failed it appears that the damage has propegated into more critical structure. I'm still not sure if that area is not in a containable area or not. But, they are continuing on to Chile on their own bottom at over 10 knots. So, they red lined it. Blew a head gasket, patched it back together, redlined it again and now have lost a cylinder. I probably should have used a suspension analogy. But, you get my drift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JumpingJax,

While I completely agree that good engineering considers various failure modes. I don't agree with your premise that the current crop have not had weakest links and strong points designed in. Each of the failures to date have been behind water tight bulkheads. The first iteration VO70's failures were in the main cabin in the keel boxes. Now, that was a huge problem. But, Groupama, Abu Dabi, Telephonica and even Sanya's failures have all been within containable compartments and each boat has sailed (at a reduced pace) to a point where repairs can be made. We are yet to see what exactly has occurred to Camper. But, it initiated with a J4 bulkhead issue. TNZ made repairs and pushed on hard. Then after the repair failed it appears that the damage has propegated into more critical structure. I'm still not sure if that area is not in a containable area or not. But, they are continuing on to Chile on their own bottom at over 10 knots. So, they red lined it. Blew a head gasket, patched it back together, redlined it again and now have lost a cylinder. I probably should have used a suspension analogy. But, you get my drift.

 

I hope you're right. Yet,

  1. Camper reports longitudiinals coming adrift this time. That's a bit more than a non-structural bulkhead drifting a bit. And the loss of the longitudinals is causing the hull panels to flex. Hard to assure that stays inside a watertight compartment when the hull is flexing. Could they cause a rupture of the next bulkhead aft? You know, the watertight one? It's still a long way to Chile. They are still nursing the thing along in the roaring forties. I'll keep my fingers crossed for 'em. Not sure I'd want to see 10 knots for long under the circumsatnces.
  2. Abu Dhabi's problems were somewhat like Campers, but were stopped earlier by the turn around and unloading the boat and rig. Good seamanship and hopefully good repairs will now get 'em through. Hope so. Even though they are 1,000 miles behind the leaders, Telefonica's troubles may give Abu Dhabi a spot on the podium. Ain't that a surprise!
  3. Sanya lost a rudder through a rupture of the shaft inside the hull, destroying the lower bearing and ripped it loose from the hull when good design dictates a failure point outside the hull. So they lose two legs and one inshore race (assuming they can make their extremely tight schedule for the transit to Savannah and then Miami and don't lose more). There's nothing graceful about an event that rips part of the hull apart. Given the experiences so far with the integrity of bulkhead tabbing, I'm not too sure I'd be really happy with my life hanging by those tabs. Looks like they've just about made it back safely,
  4. Telefonica isn't telling us what's wrong, so far. It's obviously something serious, since they've given up 250 miles to the leaders in about 24 hours. If you look up above, some guys are speculating that the situation is so dire that they don't want to report to spare their families the scary bits. Hope they're wrong. Hope it's not bad at all. Hope they'll be back to real racing real soon.

As far as I can tell,none of these failures are the sort of normal risk of offshore racing, or even the greater risks of VOR racing that the sailors agreed to assume when they signed on. Yes, as was said earlier by someone, the sailors have be intimately involved in the construction and fitting out of the boat and bear some share of responsibility for the risks. But they weren't involved in the engineering bits and have no share of responsibility for the engineering or the risks stemming from engineering errors. So far they're getting away with it. I certainly hope that continues to be the case but I'm not ready to say "no harm, no foul" when it gets this close to killing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JumpingJax,

While I completely agree that good engineering considers various failure modes. I don't agree with your premise that the current crop have not had weakest links and strong points designed in. Each of the failures to date have been behind water tight bulkheads. The first iteration VO70's failures were in the main cabin in the keel boxes. Now, that was a huge problem. But, Groupama, Abu Dabi, Telephonica and even Sanya's failures have all been within containable compartments and each boat has sailed (at a reduced pace) to a point where repairs can be made. We are yet to see what exactly has occurred to Camper. But, it initiated with a J4 bulkhead issue. TNZ made repairs and pushed on hard. Then after the repair failed it appears that the damage has propegated into more critical structure. I'm still not sure if that area is not in a containable area or not. But, they are continuing on to Chile on their own bottom at over 10 knots. So, they red lined it. Blew a head gasket, patched it back together, redlined it again and now have lost a cylinder. I probably should have used a suspension analogy. But, you get my drift.

 

Sorry to be dumb on the subject, but no one has commented on the "build" aspect of the equation. Designs can be perfect, but if the build quality suffers or is not done correctly.....this can lead to some of the structural problems we are seeing...no? Puma was a New England Boatworks project, but I don't know the builders (and their reputations) for the other teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seamanship.

 

My statement should not be taken as a vendetta against a boat or even a material. At the time that boat was built, Kevlar or aramid was well known and used. Carbon was too expensive and experimental for a period. Aramid still has its place, but pretty firmly on the margins of yacht engineering. Because now, not only is carbon fibre known and used, it is in fact a better material. Higher specific strength, bonds better, and in the end cheaper.

 

He wouldn't have gone round without seamanship but when you read the account from Monnet, you realise that the boat got hammered while he crossed the Indian ocean.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that boats are structurally designed using statics with equivalent dynamic loads, there is nothing wrong with this up to a certain point when the high stiffness of the structure enhance the loads. Some people think that the IMOCA fleet might have died of this (old Voiles et Voiliers article, I think that VPLP said this but I am not sure and unfortunately I haven't got the article to hand.) as when they moved to CF with higher MOE the impact loads may have gone up beyond control with the disastrous effects we know. I am wondering if the VO70 aren't suffering from the same plague. It's a question that I am asking loudly rather than a statemeent, I know for instance that when you design crash barriers you need to look at the relation between kinetic energy and deflection and steel is obviously favoured over concrete because of the extra deflection.

 

Aramide are used for many applications where resilience matter (motorbike helmets, bullet proof armours...), Fleury Michon 10 / uunet was built of Kevlar and carbon fibre, it is certainly one of the most abused yacht in modern history of yacht racing, I can't even remember how many times it has competed in the Vendee Globe!

 

The history of FMX. link DNF, capsized, has to rerighted (a specialty of that generation, so dangerous), dismasted, lost keel, boom broken, the list speaks for itself. You will say this is not the boat, perhaps. What would have happened to the boat if the rig did not drop first, or the keel did not come off first, etc. That argument leads nowhere.

 

I don't know what you want me to say. I will start with the point that carbon fibre construction does not enhance the loads. The loads are their from the sea state in this case. It does not deform much either, so it can be that the loads are not mitigated as with other composites or even metals. Do you want me to say that structural engineers understand all they need to know about handling the loads? That would be pretty foolish to say, one can always learn more. The sea will find every weakness, always does eventually.

 

As for the material, I like Kevlar just fine, use it in many boats. But not transocean racing yachts. Why? Well I mentioned the bonding, it is so problematic bonding to core material that IIRC W60 design rules banned core ahead of the mast, but there is also the fact that compression characteristics of Kevlar are pretty bad. So far problems that can be limited to tension (like bullet proofing) great.

 

Well yes Fleury Michon X lost keels, was left to its own destiny capsized etc but the hull is still in one piece and I doubt that a VO70 would survive such treatment.

 

According to the article you linked to, the Kevlar was used for impact resistance and they were careful to limit the hull stiffness in exposed area to limit loads (first page 3rd column), may be they were overly cautious but I suspect that design trends have gone to the opposite extreme. In the 80s they had limited computing power but still managed to build a bullet proof boat that has sailed so many miles, their design approach can't be completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JumpingJax,

While I completely agree that good engineering considers various failure modes. I don't agree with your premise that the current crop have not had weakest links and strong points designed in. Each of the failures to date have been behind water tight bulkheads. The first iteration VO70's failures were in the main cabin in the keel boxes. Now, that was a huge problem. But, Groupama, Abu Dabi, Telephonica and even Sanya's failures have all been within containable compartments and each boat has sailed (at a reduced pace) to a point where repairs can be made. We are yet to see what exactly has occurred to Camper. But, it initiated with a J4 bulkhead issue. TNZ made repairs and pushed on hard. Then after the repair failed it appears that the damage has propegated into more critical structure. I'm still not sure if that area is not in a containable area or not. But, they are continuing on to Chile on their own bottom at over 10 knots. So, they red lined it. Blew a head gasket, patched it back together, redlined it again and now have lost a cylinder. I probably should have used a suspension analogy. But, you get my drift.

 

Sorry to be dumb on the subject, but no one has commented on the "build" aspect of the equation. Designs can be perfect, but if the build quality suffers or is not done correctly.....this can lead to some of the structural problems we are seeing...no? Puma was a New England Boatworks project, but I don't know the builders (and their reputations) for the other teams.

 

Further to my question/point....with the two mast failures in Leg #1 (Puma and ADOR) and problems with Sanya in Leg #2, the discussions were on the "builders" of the masts and rigging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JumpingJax,

While I completely agree that good engineering considers various failure modes. I don't agree with your premise that the current crop have not had weakest links and strong points designed in. Each of the failures to date have been behind water tight bulkheads. The first iteration VO70's failures were in the main cabin in the keel boxes. Now, that was a huge problem. But, Groupama, Abu Dabi, Telephonica and even Sanya's failures have all been within containable compartments and each boat has sailed (at a reduced pace) to a point where repairs can be made. We are yet to see what exactly has occurred to Camper. But, it initiated with a J4 bulkhead issue. TNZ made repairs and pushed on hard. Then after the repair failed it appears that the damage has propegated into more critical structure. I'm still not sure if that area is not in a containable area or not. But, they are continuing on to Chile on their own bottom at over 10 knots. So, they red lined it. Blew a head gasket, patched it back together, redlined it again and now have lost a cylinder. I probably should have used a suspension analogy. But, you get my drift.

 

Sorry to be dumb on the subject, but no one has commented on the "build" aspect of the equation. Designs can be perfect, but if the build quality suffers or is not done correctly.....this can lead to some of the structural problems we are seeing...no? Puma was a New England Boatworks project, but I don't know the builders (and their reputations) for the other teams.

 

In a competent program, the build should be supervised and subjected to appropriate QA evaluations by the designer and/or engineers. Screw-ups in construction can happen, but detecting and correcting them is what the designer and engineer are there for. In big time projects, it's pretty unusual for a major screw-up to slip through. But it can happen. In engineering terms, a screw-up in the build is itself a failure mode, and not a particularly graceful one. Safety margins and redundancies and such like are intended in engineering of finest kind to prevent construction screw-up that slip past the inspections from being catastrophic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JumpingJax,

While I completely agree that good engineering considers various failure modes. I don't agree with your premise that the current crop have not had weakest links and strong points designed in. Each of the failures to date have been behind water tight bulkheads. The first iteration VO70's failures were in the main cabin in the keel boxes. Now, that was a huge problem. But, Groupama, Abu Dabi, Telephonica and even Sanya's failures have all been within containable compartments and each boat has sailed (at a reduced pace) to a point where repairs can be made. We are yet to see what exactly has occurred to Camper. But, it initiated with a J4 bulkhead issue. TNZ made repairs and pushed on hard. Then after the repair failed it appears that the damage has propegated into more critical structure. I'm still not sure if that area is not in a containable area or not. But, they are continuing on to Chile on their own bottom at over 10 knots. So, they red lined it. Blew a head gasket, patched it back together, redlined it again and now have lost a cylinder. I probably should have used a suspension analogy. But, you get my drift.

 

Sorry to be dumb on the subject, but no one has commented on the "build" aspect of the equation. Designs can be perfect, but if the build quality suffers or is not done correctly.....this can lead to some of the structural problems we are seeing...no? Puma was a New England Boatworks project, but I don't know the builders (and their reputations) for the other teams.

 

In a competent program, the build should be supervised and subjected to appropriate QA evaluations by the designer and/or engineers. Screw-ups in construction can happen, but detecting and correcting them is what the designer and engineer are there for. In big time projects, it's pretty unusual for a major screw-up to slip through. But it can happen. In engineering terms, a screw-up in the build is itself a failure mode, and not a particularly graceful one. Safety margins and redundancies and such like are intended in engineering of finest kind to prevent construction screw-up that slip past the inspections from being catastrophic.

 

Many thanks for the reply. So JK teams would visually supervise the build process for their three VOR boats from beginning to end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the reply. So JK teams would visually supervise the build process for their three VOR boats from beginning to end?

 

I'm no expert in the boat building field (boring static buildings are more my fare) but I would imagine they would offer the service.

Whether the client takes you up on that service is up to them.

If you think about it it's a pretty fundamental part of the improvement loop for a designer.

If a designer doesn't know what the current construction methods are, and they are constantly evolving, how can he design to optimise for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if a bit of Kevlar would make things much better.

 

Having the last layer in Kevlar would make the hulls more resilient to impact.

 

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. Kevlar boats do not break, you would never have hull breaches that could compromise the boat. Having had a Kevlar boat before I can vouch for their strength. Yes it is heavier and hardy to maintain hull rigidity after time, harder to get runner loads up as the boat ages but by then these boats are out of date and ready to be recycled through private owners. There is no disadvantage if all boats are built accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JumpingJax,

While I completely agree that good engineering considers various failure modes. I don't agree with your premise that the current crop have not had weakest links and strong points designed in. Each of the failures to date have been behind water tight bulkheads. The first iteration VO70's failures were in the main cabin in the keel boxes. Now, that was a huge problem. But, Groupama, Abu Dabi, Telephonica and even Sanya's failures have all been within containable compartments and each boat has sailed (at a reduced pace) to a point where repairs can be made. We are yet to see what exactly has occurred to Camper. But, it initiated with a J4 bulkhead issue. TNZ made repairs and pushed on hard. Then after the repair failed it appears that the damage has propegated into more critical structure. I'm still not sure if that area is not in a containable area or not. But, they are continuing on to Chile on their own bottom at over 10 knots. So, they red lined it. Blew a head gasket, patched it back together, redlined it again and now have lost a cylinder. I probably should have used a suspension analogy. But, you get my drift.

 

I hope you're right. Yet,

  1. Camper reports longitudiinals coming adrift this time. That's a bit more than a non-structural bulkhead drifting a bit. And the loss of the longitudinals is causing the hull panels to flex. Hard to assure that stays inside a watertight compartment when the hull is flexing. Could they cause a rupture of the next bulkhead aft? You know, the watertight one? It's still a long way to Chile. They are still nursing the thing along in the roaring forties. I'll keep my fingers crossed for 'em. Not sure I'd want to see 10 knots for long under the circumsatnces.
  2. Abu Dhabi's problems were somewhat like Campers, but were stopped earlier by the turn around and unloading the boat and rig. Good seamanship and hopefully good repairs will now get 'em through. Hope so. Even though they are 1,000 miles behind the leaders, Telefonica's troubles may give Abu Dhabi a spot on the podium. Ain't that a surprise!
  3. Sanya lost a rudder through a rupture of the shaft inside the hull, destroying the lower bearing and ripped it loose from the hull when good design dictates a failure point outside the hull. So they lose two legs and one inshore race (assuming they can make their extremely tight schedule for the transit to Savannah and then Miami and don't lose more). There's nothing graceful about an event that rips part of the hull apart. Given the experiences so far with the integrity of bulkhead tabbing, I'm not too sure I'd be really happy with my life hanging by those tabs. Looks like they've just about made it back safely,
  4. Telefonica isn't telling us what's wrong, so far. It's obviously something serious, since they've given up 250 miles to the leaders in about 24 hours. If you look up above, some guys are speculating that the situation is so dire that they don't want to report to spare their families the scary bits. Hope they're wrong. Hope it's not bad at all. Hope they'll be back to real racing real soon.

As far as I can tell,none of these failures are the sort of normal risk of offshore racing, or even the greater risks of VOR racing that the sailors agreed to assume when they signed on. Yes, as was said earlier by someone, the sailors have be intimately involved in the construction and fitting out of the boat and bear some share of responsibility for the risks. But they weren't involved in the engineering bits and have no share of responsibility for the engineering or the risks stemming from engineering errors. So far they're getting away with it. I certainly hope that continues to be the case but I'm not ready to say "no harm, no foul" when it gets this close to killing people.

 

 

Well, Camper is now making 13 knots towards Chile away from the fleet and any security that provides.

Telephonica is still making over 17 knots on the latest sched towards Cape Horn. So, they've backed off. But, there is no reason to believe they're damaged any worse than a popped bulkhead.

And, that was my previous point about Camper. The mindset of the crew was that the boat was built stronger than the Juan K boats. That if they got in extreme conditions they could push harder longer than the JK boats. They popped a bulkhead, which they thought they repaired sufficiently to go back to "pedal to the metal" strategy. The only problem was the weather they were sailing faster than anyone else into was getting more intense every mile that they extended on their competitors. To the point that whether or not the repair to the bulkhead was structurally sound the structure around it became compromised. They are not sinking. They are making about the same pace as a contemporary 40 footer would make racing flat out for Chile. But, they got that way because they pressed too hard and did not back off before small things became big things.

It doesn't matter how strong you build something with enough horse power and the determination to use it, you're going to break anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if a bit of Kevlar would make things much better.

 

Having the last layer in Kevlar would make the hulls more resilient to impact.

 

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. Kevlar boats do not break, you would never have hull breaches that could compromise the boat. Having had a Kevlar boat before I can vouch for their strength. Yes it is heavier and hardy to maintain hull rigidity after time, harder to get runner loads up as the boat ages but by then these boats are out of date and ready to be recycled through private owners. There is no disadvantage if all boats are built accordingly.

 

 

Man, if this is true I'd take a Kevlar boat -- or at least a Kevlar layer on my carbon boat -- in two seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An aramid ply in the laminate schedule might help. But, the softest boat I ever hauled out was Strider a N/M 55 that was of Kevlar construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any place on the web where we can see the DTL numbers over time? It would be interesting to see the various gains/losses and put major milestones in.

 

Sailing is a very complex endeavor. It involves lots of physics as well as meteorology, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, team dynamics, and a whole lot of judgement. It is hard to just from a chair in my LR whether these guys pushed too hard on the water, or some other people skimped or misjudged something.

 

I am very glad that all sailors are safe, and I am following the race pretty closely, and enjoying it very much. So much video I can't come close to seeing it all! I think race organizers, shore crews, and sailing crews have done a great job overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JumpingJax,

While I completely agree that good engineering considers various failure modes. I don't agree with your premise that the current crop have not had weakest links and strong points designed in. Each of the failures to date have been behind water tight bulkheads. The first iteration VO70's failures were in the main cabin in the keel boxes. Now, that was a huge problem. But, Groupama, Abu Dabi, Telephonica and even Sanya's failures have all been within containable compartments and each boat has sailed (at a reduced pace) to a point where repairs can be made. We are yet to see what exactly has occurred to Camper. But, it initiated with a J4 bulkhead issue. TNZ made repairs and pushed on hard. Then after the repair failed it appears that the damage has propegated into more critical structure. I'm still not sure if that area is not in a containable area or not. But, they are continuing on to Chile on their own bottom at over 10 knots. So, they red lined it. Blew a head gasket, patched it back together, redlined it again and now have lost a cylinder. I probably should have used a suspension analogy. But, you get my drift.

 

I hope you're right. Yet,

  1. Camper reports longitudiinals coming adrift this time. That's a bit more than a non-structural bulkhead drifting a bit. And the loss of the longitudinals is causing the hull panels to flex. Hard to assure that stays inside a watertight compartment when the hull is flexing. Could they cause a rupture of the next bulkhead aft? You know, the watertight one? It's still a long way to Chile. They are still nursing the thing along in the roaring forties. I'll keep my fingers crossed for 'em. Not sure I'd want to see 10 knots for long under the circumsatnces.
  2. Abu Dhabi's problems were somewhat like Campers, but were stopped earlier by the turn around and unloading the boat and rig. Good seamanship and hopefully good repairs will now get 'em through. Hope so. Even though they are 1,000 miles behind the leaders, Telefonica's troubles may give Abu Dhabi a spot on the podium. Ain't that a surprise!
  3. Sanya lost a rudder through a rupture of the shaft inside the hull, destroying the lower bearing and ripped it loose from the hull when good design dictates a failure point outside the hull. So they lose two legs and one inshore race (assuming they can make their extremely tight schedule for the transit to Savannah and then Miami and don't lose more). There's nothing graceful about an event that rips part of the hull apart. Given the experiences so far with the integrity of bulkhead tabbing, I'm not too sure I'd be really happy with my life hanging by those tabs. Looks like they've just about made it back safely,
  4. Telefonica isn't telling us what's wrong, so far. It's obviously something serious, since they've given up 250 miles to the leaders in about 24 hours. If you look up above, some guys are speculating that the situation is so dire that they don't want to report to spare their families the scary bits. Hope they're wrong. Hope it's not bad at all. Hope they'll be back to real racing real soon.

As far as I can tell,none of these failures are the sort of normal risk of offshore racing, or even the greater risks of VOR racing that the sailors agreed to assume when they signed on. Yes, as was said earlier by someone, the sailors have be intimately involved in the construction and fitting out of the boat and bear some share of responsibility for the risks. But they weren't involved in the engineering bits and have no share of responsibility for the engineering or the risks stemming from engineering errors. So far they're getting away with it. I certainly hope that continues to be the case but I'm not ready to say "no harm, no foul" when it gets this close to killing people.

 

 

Well, Camper is now making 13 knots towards Chile away from the fleet and any security that provides.

Telephonica is still making over 17 knots on the latest sched towards Cape Horn. So, they've backed off. But, there is no reason to believe they're damaged any worse than a popped bulkhead.

And, that was my previous point about Camper. The mindset of the crew was that the boat was built stronger than the Juan K boats. That if they got in extreme conditions they could push harder longer than the JK boats. They popped a bulkhead, which they thought they repaired sufficiently to go back to "pedal to the metal" strategy. The only problem was the weather they were sailing faster than anyone else into was getting more intense every mile that they extended on their competitors. To the point that whether or not the repair to the bulkhead was structurally sound the structure around it became compromised. They are not sinking. They are making about the same pace as a contemporary 40 footer would make racing flat out for Chile. But, they got that way because they pressed too hard and did not back off before small things became big things.

It doesn't matter how strong you build something with enough horse power and the determination to use it, you're going to break anything.

 

+1. I question how much engineering actually goes into the structure of these boats. Look at the total time these programs have to put a boat in the water-2, maybe 3 years tops? How long did it take a team to design the F-22 or any modern fighter? 10-15 years? Ok, perhaps a better example is the SR-71, which was a 6 year bleeding edge program without the red tape. Point is, 2-3 years isn't much if any time to do full FEA on every piece of the structure. I suspect the teams rely on past analysis and tweak the structure that worked in the past, putting the energy into FEA on key high load structures. Look at the team currently leading the fleet in one of, if not the harshest environment on Earth-arguably the team with the most experience designing, building and sailing boats in that climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

+1. I question how much engineering actually goes into the structure of these boats. Look at the total time these programs have to put a boat in the water-2, maybe 3 years tops? How long did it take a team to design the F-22 or any modern fighter? 10-15 years? Ok, perhaps a better example is the SR-71, which was a 6 year bleeding edge program without the red tape. Point is, 2-3 years isn't much if any time to do full FEA on every piece of the structure. I suspect the teams rely on past analysis and tweak the structure that worked in the past, putting the energy into FEA on key high load structures. Look at the team currently leading the fleet in one of, if not the harshest environment on Earth-arguably the team with the most experience designing, building and sailing boats in that climate.

 

Are we going to pretend that Groupama didn't have to do urgent repairs before Abu Dhabi and when they got into Auckland, both after fairly soft passages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1. I question how much engineering actually goes into the structure of these boats. Look at the total time these programs have to put a boat in the water-2, maybe 3 years tops? How long did it take a team to design the F-22 or any modern fighter? 10-15 years? Ok, perhaps a better example is the SR-71, which was a 6 year bleeding edge program without the red tape. Point is, 2-3 years isn't much if any time to do full FEA on every piece of the structure. I suspect the teams rely on past analysis and tweak the structure that worked in the past, putting the energy into FEA on key high load structures. Look at the team currently leading the fleet in one of, if not the harshest environment on Earth-arguably the team with the most experience designing, building and sailing boats in that climate.

 

Are we going to pretend that Groupama didn't have to do urgent repairs before Abu Dhabi and when they got into Auckland, both after fairly soft passages?

 

Shhh there's no place for facts here.

 

Besides the mast-fall-down-go-boom part has Puma had any real structural issues so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I guess no records this leg?

 

Seems to me that Kenny Read deserves some props. Knock on wood! (oh, and Franck Cammas too!)

 

Groupama and Puma have both put together very professional programs. Not sure how Cammas does it with so many Irons in the fire, but I think Read has been very focused on this project since perhaps even before the end of the last race!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"and now we understand that Telefonica has similar structural issues to us and is heading to Ushuaia for repairs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JumpingJax,

While I completely agree that good engineering considers various failure modes. I don't agree with your premise that the current crop have not had weakest links and strong points designed in. Each of the failures to date have been behind water tight bulkheads. The first iteration VO70's failures were in the main cabin in the keel boxes. Now, that was a huge problem. But, Groupama, Abu Dabi, Telephonica and even Sanya's failures have all been within containable compartments and each boat has sailed (at a reduced pace) to a point where repairs can be made. We are yet to see what exactly has occurred to Camper. But, it initiated with a J4 bulkhead issue. TNZ made repairs and pushed on hard. Then after the repair failed it appears that the damage has propegated into more critical structure. I'm still not sure if that area is not in a containable area or not. But, they are continuing on to Chile on their own bottom at over 10 knots. So, they red lined it. Blew a head gasket, patched it back together, redlined it again and now have lost a cylinder. I probably should have used a suspension analogy. But, you get my drift.

 

I hope you're right. Yet,

  1. Camper reports longitudiinals coming adrift this time. That's a bit more than a non-structural bulkhead drifting a bit. And the loss of the longitudinals is causing the hull panels to flex. Hard to assure that stays inside a watertight compartment when the hull is flexing. Could they cause a rupture of the next bulkhead aft? You know, the watertight one? It's still a long way to Chile. They are still nursing the thing along in the roaring forties. I'll keep my fingers crossed for 'em. Not sure I'd want to see 10 knots for long under the circumsatnces.
  2. Abu Dhabi's problems were somewhat like Campers, but were stopped earlier by the turn around and unloading the boat and rig. Good seamanship and hopefully good repairs will now get 'em through. Hope so. Even though they are 1,000 miles behind the leaders, Telefonica's troubles may give Abu Dhabi a spot on the podium. Ain't that a surprise!
  3. Sanya lost a rudder through a rupture of the shaft inside the hull, destroying the lower bearing and ripped it loose from the hull when good design dictates a failure point outside the hull. So they lose two legs and one inshore race (assuming they can make their extremely tight schedule for the transit to Savannah and then Miami and don't lose more). There's nothing graceful about an event that rips part of the hull apart. Given the experiences so far with the integrity of bulkhead tabbing, I'm not too sure I'd be really happy with my life hanging by those tabs. Looks like they've just about made it back safely,
  4. Telefonica isn't telling us what's wrong, so far. It's obviously something serious, since they've given up 250 miles to the leaders in about 24 hours. If you look up above, some guys are speculating that the situation is so dire that they don't want to report to spare their families the scary bits. Hope they're wrong. Hope it's not bad at all. Hope they'll be back to real racing real soon.

As far as I can tell,none of these failures are the sort of normal risk of offshore racing, or even the greater risks of VOR racing that the sailors agreed to assume when they signed on. Yes, as was said earlier by someone, the sailors have be intimately involved in the construction and fitting out of the boat and bear some share of responsibility for the risks. But they weren't involved in the engineering bits and have no share of responsibility for the engineering or the risks stemming from engineering errors. So far they're getting away with it. I certainly hope that continues to be the case but I'm not ready to say "no harm, no foul" when it gets this close to killing people.

 

 

Well, Camper is now making 13 knots towards Chile away from the fleet and any security that provides.

Telephonica is still making over 17 knots on the latest sched towards Cape Horn. So, they've backed off. But, there is no reason to believe they're damaged any worse than a popped bulkhead.

And, that was my previous point about Camper. The mindset of the crew was that the boat was built stronger than the Juan K boats. That if they got in extreme conditions they could push harder longer than the JK boats. They popped a bulkhead, which they thought they repaired sufficiently to go back to "pedal to the metal" strategy. The only problem was the weather they were sailing faster than anyone else into was getting more intense every mile that they extended on their competitors. To the point that whether or not the repair to the bulkhead was structurally sound the structure around it became compromised. They are not sinking. They are making about the same pace as a contemporary 40 footer would make racing flat out for Chile. But, they got that way because they pressed too hard and did not back off before small things became big things.

It doesn't matter how strong you build something with enough horse power and the determination to use it, you're going to break anything.

 

+1. I question how much engineering actually goes into the structure of these boats. Look at the total time these programs have to put a boat in the water-2, maybe 3 years tops? How long did it take a team to design the F-22 or any modern fighter? 10-15 years? Ok, perhaps a better example is the SR-71, which was a 6 year bleeding edge program without the red tape. Point is, 2-3 years isn't much if any time to do full FEA on every piece of the structure. I suspect the teams rely on past analysis and tweak the structure that worked in the past, putting the energy into FEA on key high load structures. Look at the team currently leading the fleet in one of, if not the harshest environment on Earth-arguably the team with the most experience designing, building and sailing boats in that climate.

 

I do composite and metal FEA studies for boats and components pretty much every other day for 5 or 6 years. A VO70 probably gets about 2 or 3 man years of structural simulation before/during construction and testing. More during racing with what is ALWAYS learned when you actually race. You are totally wrong about relying on past analyses and faking it. Maybe that is a necessity of the Whorington VO70 back when or of the Sanya team. But every boat gets a full FEA global simulation. The assumptions of loading are generally taken from the design rule and from experience/research. Without absolutely perfect loading scenarios, all of that work still leaves potential for issues.

 

As for build, every structural designer attempts to gauge the impact of imperfection in build. To be more sure in more critical areas by adding weight/material. The best boatbuilders in the world are involved in these constructions. I would personally rate Cookson (Camper) above King (Tele) or NEB (Puma). I have not worked with Persico (ADOR).

 

I will point out further that most of the failures, if not all, have to do with secondary bonding. The panels of the boat have only broken from UFO impact to date. And that with a good survival rate. Kevlar will not help bonding failures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites