• 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.

Mr Happy

Farr 400 vs McConaghy 38 vs Farr 40

722 posts in this topic

For sure two of them are charters as they are sailing in the Rolex regatta in the virgin islands with different owners.

As for the other three I would assume that they are privately owned. I am sure for most boats the price depends on the commitment and at what time it comes in.

I would be happy if I were an owner to see the builder/class busting so much as to get some traction. They have been traveling to both coasts in the US ans well as the Caribbean.

They all look like cools boats to me.

 

I'm reckoning on one having been sold at that regatta; I'm mean to a private buyer and not between marketing entities or promises of a sale etc. That's all that anyone has come up with in the last week.

 

If Farr Marketing doesn't clarify how everyone participated in the regatta, they know that the general sailing public, when reading the press releases, will assume the 5 boats were sailed by owners in the 1st major regatta for the class.

 

Surely this is cynical?

 

Utter horseshit. Why would the "general sailing public" (and why only they?) assume such a thing? As already mentioned, many boats are sold this way.

Gives prospective buyers (and buyers awaiting delivery) a chance to sail the boat. Also provides class racing for the first few owners. Nothing cynical about it.

 

Because we DON'T know. That's why several posters asked the question; yet it has been ignored.

 

Of course it gives them a chance but SAY SO.

 

Your post assumes we now all know this, but we don't. .. There lies the `Horseshit' as you call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Technician, you said "Also provides class racing for the first few owners."

 

So you know of more than one owner at that regatta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

 

No question, the Farr is considerably more expensive - could very well be twice the price of the MC38 depending on specifics. For some people it might be worth the premium, for (many?) others it will not be. We will see the answer in the market soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Trickypig, March 25, 2012 - No reason given

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

 

No question, the Farr is considerably more expensive - could very well be twice the price of the MC38 depending on specifics. For some people it might be worth the premium, for (many?) others it will not be. We will see the answer in the market soon.

 

The answer, the Farr Website tells us is, 13 BOATS SOLD. So all 5 boats at Key West were sold.. easy. No Horseshit there.

Share this post


Link to post

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

 

No question, the Farr is considerably more expensive - could very well be twice the price of the MC38 depending on specifics. For some people it might be worth the premium, for (many?) others it will not be. We will see the answer in the market soon.

 

The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

 

No question, the Farr is considerably more expensive - could very well be twice the price of the MC38 depending on specifics. For some people it might be worth the premium, for (many?) others it will not be. We will see the answer in the market soon.

 

The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.

 

Wrong, it means no such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

 

No question, the Farr is considerably more expensive - could very well be twice the price of the MC38 depending on specifics. For some people it might be worth the premium, for (many?) others it will not be. We will see the answer in the market soon.

 

The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.

 

Wrong, it means no such thing.

 

So what does it mean? (this is like pulling teeth)

 

Have all boats built by Premier Composites been sold? Have they built more than 13 boats? Tell me?

 

Careful now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is that they are being smoked by the new Carkeek 40 in the Rolex at St. Thomas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[sNIP]

 

The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.

 

Wrong, it means no such thing.

 

So what does it mean? (this is like pulling teeth)

 

Have all boats built by Premier Composites been sold? Have they built more than 13 boats? Tell me?

 

Careful now.

 

Very simple:

  • Not all boats that have been ordered have been built/finished yet.
  • Some of the boats built are dealer/promotional boats available for charter and test sails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is that they are being smoked by the new Carkeek 40 in the Rolex at St. Thomas.

 

On the water, for sure - as it should be. Would be ridiculous to expect anything else.

 

On handicap, not so much - at least not under CSA. But much too early to tell, I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So, what's the problem with a cynical marketing scheme that assumes potential customers can be lead to believe the class has already reached some kind of critical mass? Absolutely nothing, it's pretty much key...blah, blah..."

 

(fixed it for you...)

 

thanks for that...

 

Anybody with enough money to afford one of these boats in the first place is smart enough to understand how things are marketed and to do his homework.

 

And for the record that marketing technique (of showing how good class racing can be) did in fact work to sell boats.

 

MC38 is nice but having climbed all over one I wouldn't take it any more than 100 miles offshore. Farr 400 is a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decision broke her prod on Ben Poucher and Tim Fetsch's Class 40 Icarus's ass today in the final start. Pooch was above and ahead of Decision, who clearly thought there was no overlap when she turned up hard to start. End of the dick caught port side pushpit, mangling the stainless, and crunching the last foot or so off. Got back to the dock and it was already unbolted, no evidence to see! Got pics when Meg gets her camera back here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed the two MC38's in the Sydney Harbour regatta were just match racing

 

You going to do that with the Farr 400 at Port Stephens if you are both in the same fleet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meg Hislop photo, with my editing screwing it up.

HPRBROKE.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.

No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and no sails.

So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.

You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.

Don't believe me do the maths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.

No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and no sails.

So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.

You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.

Don't believe me do the maths.

 

Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

 

So whats your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So, what's the problem with a cynical marketing scheme that assumes potential customers can be lead to believe the class has already reached some kind of critical mass? Absolutely nothing, it's pretty much key...blah, blah..."

 

(fixed it for you...)

 

thanks for that...

 

Anybody with enough money to afford one of these boats in the first place is smart enough to understand how things are marketed and to do his homework.

 

And for the record that marketing technique (of showing how good class racing can be) did in fact work to sell boats.

 

MC38 is nice but having climbed all over one I wouldn't take it any more than 100 miles offshore. Farr 400 is a different story.

 

I notice the Farr sales site has removed references to owners at Key West, although Dee's blog still refers to the owner drivers, not loaners. I don't have a problem with them lending or chartering the first boats they've built (and yes its a good idea) just don't imply they're sold by calling them owners.

 

It seems to me that if you were to prefer the 400 offshore it is because of the headroom and those high topsides (what is with that?). Any other reason? (and don't tell me McConaghys don't build a quality product)

 

I think that to claim one wouldn't go offshore in the MC38 is a reflection on what level of discomfort you'll accept..and frankly it'll be about the same with the Farr. Yes, the Farr 400 will be marginally more comfortable but it's pretty academic at 2 in the morning hiking your arse off. Both crews will be wet, both crews will have racks to catch a nap if the breeze lightens and one crew will be whinging occasionally about headroom. For the record, McConaghy's have a natty hard glass dodger for the companionway for offshore racing. The interior on both Cones has been left clear finished carbon which makes it hard to see below. I'll be encouraging Jamie to invest in 12oz of white polyurethane though I don't like my chances..

 

We sailed the old Cone for 4 seasons in the various East Coast races here as well as Jamie entering two Transpacs and the new owners doing Bermuda, Chicago Mackinac, Pineapple Cup and others. Same goes for the Mumm 3o Tow Truck, they even did a Sydney Hobart.. The new Cone will be easier offshore, by comparison. The MC38 and the Farr will be two of the less comfortable boats, but if you want to go to sea and be comfortable buy a Hinkley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1332685716[/url]' post='3642796']
1332675349[/url]' post='3642690']
1332669948[/url]' post='3642668']
1332669627[/url]' post='3642667']

[sNIP]

 

The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.

 

Wrong, it means no such thing.

 

So what does it mean? (this is like pulling teeth)

 

Have all boats built by Premier Composites been sold? Have they built more than 13 boats? Tell me?

 

Careful now.

 

Very simple:

  • Not all boats that have been ordered have been built/finished yet.
  • Some of the boats built are dealer/promotional boats available for charter and test sails.

 

Thank you for adding some common sense to this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.

No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and no sails.

So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.

You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.

Don't believe me do the maths.

 

Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

 

So whats your point?

 

Point is, SA posters to this thread have been talking basic price of the MC and Farr not the ready to sail/compete all up cost.

If you are going to argue the price of different yachts, at least use the realistic figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.

No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and no sails.

So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.

You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.

Don't believe me do the maths.

 

Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

 

So whats your point?

 

Point is, SA posters to this thread have been talking basic price of the MC and Farr not the ready to sail/compete all up cost.

If you are going to argue the price of different yachts, at least use the realistic figures.

 

For sure... and so its has always been in the marine industry. I just couldn't be arsed going through the one design stuff to see which sails are specified etc etc. Your rough estimate of around 110k on top of the basic price for the MC38 sounds right but the Farr needs more than that to get it to the start line.

 

Which means the Farr400 is a much more expensive boat compared to the MC38 and I can't see why it should be, especially if you've had a good look at both boats, which I have..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed the two MC38's in the Sydney Harbour regatta were just match racing

 

You going to do that with the Farr 400 at Port Stephens if you are both in the same fleet?

maybe... :ph34r:

 

in IRC it's likely to be 7 TP52s + M38 + F400 in Div 1. even rabid supporters of the smaller boats won't expect us to be mixing with the TPs, so that only leaves the F400 to play with

 

but hopefully it will be more follow the leader than match racing...

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that the 400 has entered in PHS and left the MC38 in IRC...... Souds somthing like the SHR a couple of weeks ago, but then they left it until the last mintue to change so the MC had no chance of changing divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that the 400 has entered in PHS and left the MC38 in IRC...... Souds somthing like the SHR a couple of weeks ago, but then they left it until the last mintue to change so the MC had no chance of changing divisions.

yes...just looking at the entry list and seen the change. bugger !

 

anybody got any background - apart from the obvious assumption ?

 

anyway, now gives us an interesting decision...we may have to change too !

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that the people running the website haven't moved Ichi Ban into the IRC division yet. They've been on the entry list for Port Stephens for at least a month or more and that piece of housekeeping may not have been done. It could have been a strategic move by Matt Allen to get the boat entered and ensure he got a marina pen at Dalbora then worry about divisions etc later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that the people running the website haven't moved Ichi Ban into the IRC division yet. They've been on the entry list for Port Stephens for at least a month or more and that piece of housekeeping may not have been done. It could have been a strategic move by Matt Allen to get the boat entered and ensure he got a marina pen at Dalbora then worry about divisions etc later.

maybe...

 

all we can see is the boat was in the IRC div...then we entered the M38 in IRC div...now it's in the PHS div

 

wonder what will happen if we switch to PHS div ?

 

:D

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting. I hadn't looked at the entry list until I read your post the other day about The Cone being entered and Ichi Ban getting an IRC cert. When I did look I saw that Ichi was "still" in PHS and they hadn't re-shuffled the divisions yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.

No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and no sails.

So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.

You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.

Don't believe me do the maths.

 

Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

 

So whats your point?

2 and a half times the cost of a Farr 40 OD maybe even three!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

The Farr's are bottomless pits in the arms race whereas the M38 have a limited sail inventory per season in OD config. I guess it'll take someone with kahuna's as big as Rock mellons to prove that a M38 will do an offshore race as was done for the F40 OD's a while ago. There were plenty of nay sayers back then as well as there are now. Just fuckin sendit ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

The Farr's are bottomless pits in the arms race whereas the M38 have a limited sail inventory per season in OD config. I guess it'll take someone with kahuna's as big as Rock mellons to prove that a M38 will do an offshore race as was done for the F40 OD's a while ago. There were plenty of nay sayers back then as well as there are now. Just fuckin sendit ......

I agree that it can be sailed offshore but it will need some good guys like the Tigers and the Cone to do it. They just do not sleep for the 2-3 days to do the long offshore east coast ozzie races. Nice SE and send it! Still a chance I could join the fleet just need to rationalise the ownership levels and for what it is worth the MC38 would get my vote over the Farr 400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

Easy Tiger.. the boat fits in a 40 foot container so the cost of shipping is very competitive from China and you get a galvanised reusable cradle to use for overseas regattas. The GST is not 50k but I'll let McConaghys tell you and the sails are the new Norths Infusion and they weren't that much! Where's Jamie when you need him?? He is about to buy the Ocean racing options that'll add a bit. We've got some cat 1 kit in his garage so we'll be offshore racing for not too much over 400k with a brand new state of the art boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.

No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and no sails.

So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.

You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.

Don't believe me do the maths.

 

Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

 

So whats your point?

2 and a half times the cost of a Farr 40 OD maybe even three!

 

You do mean a second hand Farr 40?? Hull starting to go soft and needing new rag? Maybe re rigging, perhaps the rudder bearings are worn? Its not comparing apples with apples to say 2.5 times the cost.

 

The speed difference between the old Farr 40 and these new one designs off the wind is startling. I've raced on Cone with the kite on and any analysis on any course that thinks the old Farr 40 will have a similar pace is pure Disneyland. On corrected time I hope it'll be a lot closer because that will mean the IRC handicap system works. That's the only analysis which has any traction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.

No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, and no sails.

So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.

You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.

Don't believe me do the maths.

 

Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

 

So whats your point?

2 and a half times the cost of a Farr 40 OD maybe even three!

 

You do mean a second hand Farr 40?? Hull starting to go soft and needing new rag? Maybe re rigging, perhaps the rudder bearings are worn? Its not comparing apples with apples to say 2.5 times the cost.

 

The speed difference between the old Farr 40 and these new one designs off the wind is startling. I've raced on Cone with the kite on and any analysis on any course that thinks the old Farr 40 will have a similar pace is pure Disneyland. On corrected time I hope it'll be a lot closer because that will mean the IRC handicap system works. That's the only analysis which has any traction.

+ 1...except i don't think IRC is able to deal with these sort of boats effectively

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

 

I have test sailed the boat that is in the states, which is gorgeous. Congrats Cone on a killer boat!!

 

I've noticed that you are planning on distance racing. The boat here has all the stuff to make it possible, I get that.

 

What I don't get is distance racing with a snap-on jib and only one jib and one spinnaker halyard. Do rating systems there take that into account?

 

Hoping to enter the build cue soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

Easy Tiger.. the boat fits in a 40 foot container so the cost of shipping is very competitive from China and you get a galvanised reusable cradle to use for overseas regattas. The GST is not 50k but I'll let McConaghys tell you and the sails are the new Norths Infusion and they weren't that much! Where's Jamie when you need him?? He is about to buy the Ocean racing options that'll add a bit. We've got some cat 1 kit in his garage so we'll be offshore racing for not too much over 400k with a brand new state of the art boat.

Last time I looked at GST it is 10% on total costs including shipping and duty is 5% on the same base. This is a total of 15% on anything that comes from China. So I can easily get to a $50k figure. Add any instruments and other options as pointed out by someone before and I reckon you will not get any change out of that number. BTW the Farr 40 hulls are not soft. Have a look at the last wourlds when boats built over 10 years ago were still very competitive. Like any boat you have to do your homework to get the right one and not one that has been bashed in a lot of offshore races. If the MC38 can be around in 15 years time lets see how well these ones stand up as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?

 

 

 

Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

 

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)

 

Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

 

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

 

Mc 38 $285,000

Farr 400 $483,000

 

Difference in price $200,000.

 

Difference in performance ??????????

 

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

Easy Tiger.. the boat fits in a 40 foot container so the cost of shipping is very competitive from China and you get a galvanised reusable cradle to use for overseas regattas. The GST is not 50k but I'll let McConaghys tell you and the sails are the new Norths Infusion and they weren't that much! Where's Jamie when you need him?? He is about to buy the Ocean racing options that'll add a bit. We've got some cat 1 kit in his garage so we'll be offshore racing for not too much over 400k with a brand new state of the art boat.

Last time I looked at GST it is 10% on total costs including shipping and duty is 5% on the same base. This is a total of 15% on anything that comes from China. So I can easily get to a $50k figure. Add any instruments and other options as pointed out by someone before and I reckon you will not get any change out of that number. BTW the Farr 40 hulls are not soft. Have a look at the last wourlds when boats built over 10 years ago were still very competitive. Like any boat you have to do your homework to get the right one and not one that has been bashed in a lot of offshore races. If the MC38 can be around in 15 years time lets see how well these ones stand up as well!

 

Last time I looked it was 2012, not 1995.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI..

3 x Farr 40's with IRC mods for sale in WA. Ive sailed them all.

Boat I run is on the Market, once sold MC 38 OD is on the way. Racing is 30 to 235nm offshore/inshore racing.

Owner looked at a Farr 40 speeds v MC38. looked at the theoretical W.L comparison under IRC. Looked at how boring the Farr 40 looked and said, "Lets get the cool looking one"

 

Sorry Edake, numbers have been crunched and people dont spend all that coin without doing the math, multiple times.

 

If they end up close on IRC, then the rule works and being on the MC 38 you would be having a hoot of a time in comparison.

 

As to your 15 years comment.. Give any boat 15 years of pro tweaking and the numbers of any new boat would far surpass the Farr 40.

 

Plus if u want to sail a Farr 40 OD in IRC to its potential you need not class standard sails, keel mod, stumpy thing for a Zero, extra bunks for offshore safety cat.. etc etc etc etc etc.. a $150k boat ends up costing $250k, and as you said, its a 15 year old design..

 

If OD is your game, as we know it is, I would still prefer the fast planing boat any day. And to be honest Melges 32's interest me more the the Farr 40 OD circuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI..

3 x Farr 40's with IRC mods for sale in WA. Ive sailed them all.

Boat I run is on the Market, once sold MC 38 OD is on the way. Racing is 30 to 235nm offshore/inshore racing.

Owner looked at a Farr 40 speeds v MC38. looked at the theoretical W.L comparison under IRC. Looked at how boring the Farr 40 looked and said, "Lets get the cool looking one"

 

Sorry Edake, numbers have been crunched and people dont spend all that coin without doing the math, multiple times.

 

If they end up close on IRC, then the rule works and being on the MC 38 you would be having a hoot of a time in comparison.

 

As to your 15 years comment.. Give any boat 15 years of pro tweaking and the numbers of any new boat would far surpass the Farr 40.

 

Plus if u want to sail a Farr 40 OD in IRC to its potential you need not class standard sails, keel mod, stumpy thing for a Zero, extra bunks for offshore safety cat.. etc etc etc etc etc.. a $150k boat ends up costing $250k, and as you said, its a 15 year old design..

 

If OD is your game, as we know it is, I would still prefer the fast planing boat any day. And to be honest Melges 32's interest me more the the Farr 40 OD circuit.

Sounds to me like there's a Freo to Geraldton run on the books. A picture perfect race for the M38.

 

Mex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI..

3 x Farr 40's with IRC mods for sale in WA. Ive sailed them all.

Boat I run is on the Market, once sold MC 38 OD is on the way. Racing is 30 to 235nm offshore/inshore racing.

Owner looked at a Farr 40 speeds v MC38. looked at the theoretical W.L comparison under IRC. Looked at how boring the Farr 40 looked and said, "Lets get the cool looking one"

 

Sorry Edake, numbers have been crunched and people dont spend all that coin without doing the math, multiple times.

 

If they end up close on IRC, then the rule works and being on the MC 38 you would be having a hoot of a time in comparison.

 

As to your 15 years comment.. Give any boat 15 years of pro tweaking and the numbers of any new boat would far surpass the Farr 40.

 

Plus if u want to sail a Farr 40 OD in IRC to its potential you need not class standard sails, keel mod, stumpy thing for a Zero, extra bunks for offshore safety cat.. etc etc etc etc etc.. a $150k boat ends up costing $250k, and as you said, its a 15 year old design..

 

If OD is your game, as we know it is, I would still prefer the fast planing boat any day. And to be honest Melges 32's interest me more the the Farr 40 OD circuit.

Sounds to me like there's a Freo to Geraldton run on the books. A picture perfect race for the M38.

 

Mex

 

At about half the cost to put in the water than General Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not likely.. They changed the time of the year.. from October to April for next season.. So all we would have to look forward to is cray pots and lighter winds more so from the East rather than the usual bombing SW'er..

 

Apparently someone was sick of getting beaten up on the Return trip and blamed Cyclone season or some bullshit..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speedwise, how does the F40 OD compare to a DK46 ? They are similar on IRC....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure but its a bit irrelevant when the running cost and crew requirement are in a different league v's these boats..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+ 1...except i don't think IRC is able to deal with these sort of boats effectively

 

 

well thats at the root of the dissatisfaction with IRC, in that they are deliberately disenfranchising a whole potential bunch of owners and sailors who would much rather sail fast and fun, lighter designs - and conveniently ignore the fact that lighter boats can cost a lot less money! So the IRC world is centered around the boring same old/same old Euroshitter configuration indistinguishable from each other except by the maker's name.

 

Good for the 38's and their ilk for just getting on with it and waving two fingers to the rule - maybe we'll see some real design and build progress once more. And then its goodbye to IRC as it finds itself left behind.

 

Happened with the IOR, IMS went the same way but at least has done a bit to try and resurrect itself, metre boat rules and the rest all tried to protect the clunkers. Materials move on and you don't need a ton of steel frames or whatever to hold something together. So don't have a rule that forces people into carting unnecessary weight around which is what both IRC and ORC would have the masses do.

 

Its time for a new rule in maybe the same way that the CCA and RORC rules managed to get together to create the IOR. History does repeat itself but its also been the case that the politics get in the way of common sense. And here we are again!

 

Sportsboats rule B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI..

3 x Farr 40's with IRC mods for sale in WA. Ive sailed them all.

Boat I run is on the Market, once sold MC 38 OD is on the way. Racing is 30 to 235nm offshore/inshore racing.

Owner looked at a Farr 40 speeds v MC38. looked at the theoretical W.L comparison under IRC. Looked at how boring the Farr 40 looked and said, "Lets get the cool looking one"

 

Sorry Edake, numbers have been crunched and people dont spend all that coin without doing the math, multiple times.

 

If they end up close on IRC, then the rule works and being on the MC 38 you would be having a hoot of a time in comparison.

 

As to your 15 years comment.. Give any boat 15 years of pro tweaking and the numbers of any new boat would far surpass the Farr 40.

 

Plus if u want to sail a Farr 40 OD in IRC to its potential you need not class standard sails, keel mod, stumpy thing for a Zero, extra bunks for offshore safety cat.. etc etc etc etc etc.. a $150k boat ends up costing $250k, and as you said, its a 15 year old design..

 

If OD is your game, as we know it is, I would still prefer the fast planing boat any day. And to be honest Melges 32's interest me more the the Farr 40 OD circuit.

You are wrong on the mods that would be needed to be competitive in IRC imo. I will not debate that anymore as I think that all that is needed is a slightly less roachy main and an assy flown off the standard class length pole. Not anywhere near as expensive as you suggest. Around $12k. Running costs are no different unless you do the top 10 type campaign and then you will not be sailing IRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+ 1...except i don't think IRC is able to deal with these sort of boats effectively

 

Good for the 38's and their ilk for just getting on with it and waving two fingers to the rule - maybe we'll see some real design and build progress once more. And then its goodbye to IRC as it finds itself left behind.

 

Happened with the IOR, IMS went the same way but at least has done a bit to try and resurrect itself, metre boat rules and the rest all tried to protect the clunkers. Materials move on and you don't need a ton of steel frames or whatever to hold something together. So don't have a rule that forces people into carting unnecessary weight around which is what both IRC and ORC would have the masses do.

IRC isn't the only rule that can't fairly handicap boats with such different performance profiles as an MC38/F400 and say a King 40 or First whatever. PHRF/PHS/ORCi all have the same problem. How does any single number handicap rule make sense of a boat that planes when the wind is up against one that never, ever planes and only surfs under protest in very big waves? How does any such rule handicap those two boat types fairly in a heavy airs race that is mainly reaching and downwind? Or vice versa - Upwind? Impossible task, pointless pontificating over it. Any rule that handicaps big sports boats fairly needs to focus on that type of boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

well thats at the root of the dissatisfaction with IRC, in that they are deliberately disenfranchising a whole potential bunch of owners and sailors who would much rather sail fast and fun, lighter designs - and conveniently ignore the fact that lighter boats can cost a lot less money! So the IRC world is centered around the boring same old/same old Euroshitter configuration indistinguishable from each other except by the maker's name.

 

Good for the 38's and their ilk for just getting on with it and waving two fingers to the rule - maybe we'll see some real design and build progress once more. And then its goodbye to IRC as it finds itself left behind.

 

Happened with the IOR, IMS went the same way but at least has done a bit to try and resurrect itself, metre boat rules and the rest all tried to protect the clunkers. Materials move on and you don't need a ton of steel frames or whatever to hold something together. So don't have a rule that forces people into carting unnecessary weight around which is what both IRC and ORC would have the masses do.

 

Its time for a new rule in maybe the same way that the CCA and RORC rules managed to get together to create the IOR. History does repeat itself but its also been the case that the politics get in the way of common sense. And here we are again!

 

Sportsboats rule B)

 

a look at my posts will show that i am no big fan of IRC.

 

but your analysis is a bit off the mark...

 

remember that IRC was started as a rule to rate cruising boats , or cruiser racers, not race boats, - it was designed for the kind of boat that 90% of the people own.

 

After the end of IMS, race boat owners were basically unable to agree on a new rule for rating race boats, and they ended up using IRC

 

now, you are basically saying that IRC should have re-written their rule, to accommodate race boats, in a way that is not consistent with the original goal of the rule, and in a way that probably would have made it not as good for the original audience.

 

if anyone has been holding up race boat design, it's the raceboat owners and designers themselves, who failed for so many years to come up with a rule for the boats.

 

now, it seems they have one - the HPR - an we'll see how it works.

 

personally, i's rather race one-design on a slower boat, than under any kind of rating rule.

 

the soto 40 looks fantastic, and the farr 400 looks like it has a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speedwise, how does the F40 OD compare to a DK46 ? They are similar on IRC....

The DK in most condtions, if not all is faster upwind. The Farr 40 in most conditions is faster downwind. On a reach the DK probably has the edge, but both boats are designed for W/L racing so reaching is not eithers strength. The DK costs ALOT more, both on the front and back end. The DK has a very nice interior and cockpit seats. It is also built a bit better, and is much better looking. It weighs a shitload though. That is the best I can do comparing an apple to an orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HPR rewards $$ spent. Simple.. Spend $700k ++++ on a carkeek 40 and be in for the chocolates.

 

Throw some eglass in to dumb down the costs and you are already at a performance handicap with no TCC credit points.

 

That said, if they could find a happy medium for the HPR i would be in for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

I am not any sort of salesman, I just sail on one. If you ever want the actual facts, don't hesitate to contact me through PM. If not, I am not getting into some idiotic internet shitfest here over it.

 

 

I'd like to hear your `facts' too .... and I'm sure a few other posters here do too!

 

Bloody hell, over 10,700 posts here on Anarchy and suddenly you've got nothing to say? That has to be a record.

 

Feel free to drop me a line, sport.

I think his point is why have you all the sudden stopped gloating about the boat you sail on, and from all accounts had a part in the decision for your team to purchase one? Not long ago you were first to respond about anything Farr 400. Now... Not so much. Did the marketing machine "Left Hook" you and ask that you stop talking?

Don't get me wrong. I liked the fact that you were so willing to share your opinion. Especially as one of the few here who have sailed any of the boats mentioned. It added quite a bit to this discussion. It is odd how silent you have become so quickly.

Why do you get so uppety towards that last poster, big guy.

 

I never gloated about anything, but I have said all there is to be said. It's all there to go look at. Do you just want me to repeat it? Nobody has asked me stop talking, if anything, they probably would like me to go on. I have just tired of arguing with idiots and trolls. If anyone has a genuine interest in anything going on, the offer is out there. I would be happy to talk seriously about the boat, class, and any other questions anyone may have.

 

If anyone should stop being uppity, it's you Baldwin. You have something to say about just about everything these days it seems, kiddo.

 

 

Did you really call me kiddo? Thanks! I'll be sure to tell my kids that, they'll think it is pretty funny.

I hope somethng is lost in the context of these posts (yours and mine). You are one of the few here that I like and that actually offers something good to this place once in a while. I even respected your opinion. Sorry this topic has gotten your panties in a bunch.

 

I have something to say about everything these days? Look at your post count! Buckeroo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speedwise, how does the F40 OD compare to a DK46 ? They are similar on IRC....

The DK in most condtions, if not all is faster upwind. The Farr 40 in most conditions is faster downwind. On a reach the DK probably has the edge, but both boats are designed for W/L racing so reaching is not eithers strength. The DK costs ALOT more, both on the front and back end. The DK has a very nice interior and cockpit seats. It is also built a bit better, and is much better looking. It weighs a shitload though. That is the best I can do comparing an apple to an orange.

Thanks Matt - i knew i'd find someone here that could provide some useful feedback.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Did you really call me kiddo? Thanks! I'll be sure to tell my kids that, they'll think it is pretty funny.

I hope somethng is lost in the context of these posts (yours and mine). You are one of the few here that I like and that actually offers something good to this place once in a while. I even respected your opinion. Sorry this topic has gotten your panties in a bunch.

 

I have something to say about everything these days? Look at your post count! Buckeroo.

 

I'm all out of condescending names now. Have we used sport yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HPR rewards $$ spent. Simple.. Spend $700k ++++ on a carkeek 40 and be in for the chocolates.

 

Throw some eglass in to dumb down the costs and you are already at a performance handicap with no TCC credit points.

 

That said, if they could find a happy medium for the HPR i would be in for that.

Half true. You will get a credit, just not a large one, and the credits start to scale down the further out of the box you go. Their goal is to typeform to something similar to a TP52. The 38 should rate well under the new rule from what some of the guys have told me. They are still dialing in the details. But basically yes, you can spend a shit ton of money and design a custom boat and do well. It should thats why you hire a designer and pay him lots of money. Otherwise no one would do it and we would all race Beneteau's.

 

Out of curiosity, what kind of class support does the 38 have? Is there someone managing the class or is it all owner driven right now?

 

I ask because the "Farr Tax" has come up a couple times as to why the cost is so much higher. One of the things you get with Farr and Melges (where you also pay more) is a decent class support. Some will argue how effective that is, and certainly farr/stag has dropped the ball a number of times, but for the most part they run decent regattas and encourage people to keep racing together. Melges does this the best. It can be difficult to get a class especially of big boats to agree on anything, just look at the 52s right now. Getting 5 new boats on the line for a top end event in the first year is pretty impressive and shows owners that they are willing to back them if/when they buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportsboats rule B)

 

a look at my posts will show that i am no big fan of IRC.

 

but your analysis is a bit off the mark...

 

remember that IRC was started as a rule to rate cruising boats , or cruiser racers, not race boats, - it was designed for the kind of boat that 90% of the people own.

 

After the end of IMS, race boat owners were basically unable to agree on a new rule for rating race boats, and they ended up using IRC

 

now, you are basically saying that IRC should have re-written their rule, to accommodate race boats, in a way that is not consistent with the original goal of the rule, and in a way that probably would have made it not as good for the original audience.

 

if anyone has been holding up race boat design, it's the raceboat owners and designers themselves, who failed for so many years to come up with a rule for the boats.

 

now, it seems they have one - the HPR - an we'll see how it works.

 

personally, i's rather race one-design on a slower boat, than under any kind of rating rule.

 

unquote

 

the designers and sailors would be very happy to write their own rules! And in fact that was what happened with IRM. But then the RORC in their wisdom, after starting it all off, got cold feet and retreated from something that now forms the very basis of HPR, and good luck to them and the NYYC! But as ever politics have reared their heads yet again, the Poms won't talk to the Seppos as they are maybe worried of losing their place at the table. ORC trumpets itself as the scientific alternative and loses the plot as its only semi-scientific with a load of fudgefactors to sort of make it work and so is expensive and no better in the long run.

 

But don't forget that the IRC rule has been touted around the world as the saviour for all, has ( politically and we hear mathematically ) done a deal with the TP52s so that they are now the most competitive of IRC types, but try to do the same thing to make for lighter faster fun boats down the size scale and fat chance, ratings in orbit, and don't try and tell me they couldn't have sorted the maths out to at least give the smaller boats some sort of a chance.

Pressure from the Beneslugs possibly to protect their patch, ditto from the myriad IRC Euroclones? It stinks.

 

And if you think racing so-called one-designs is a level playing field then you're in fairyland :ph34r:

Still, if thats where you're happy to plod around then thats fine :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRC isn't the only rule that can't fairly handicap boats with such different performance profiles as an MC38/F400 and say a King 40 or First whatever. PHRF/PHS/ORCi all have the same problem. How does any single number handicap rule make sense of a boat that planes when the wind is up against one that never, ever planes and only surfs under protest in very big waves? How does any such rule handicap those two boat types fairly in a heavy airs race that is mainly reaching and downwind? Or vice versa - Upwind? Impossible task, pointless pontificating over it. Any rule that handicaps big sports boats fairly needs to focus on that type of boat.

 

Some PHRF areas utilize a 3 number system with a rating assigned for courses that are upwind, reaching or downwind. Based on prevailing wind strengths for the area, the 3 rating system can very accurately account for the very issue you describe. The problem comes when actual conditions do not meet the assumed/predicted condition. (assumed downwind in 10-12 turns into upwind at 20)

 

But back to the cost debate - any boat is going to cost you more than you want it to; it's not how much you don't spend but rather how much you do enjoy. Otherwise we'd all buy a nice bike and take up cycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportsboats rule B)

 

a look at my posts will show that i am no big fan of IRC.

 

but your analysis is a bit off the mark...

 

remember that IRC was started as a rule to rate cruising boats , or cruiser racers, not race boats, - it was designed for the kind of boat that 90% of the people own.

 

After the end of IMS, race boat owners were basically unable to agree on a new rule for rating race boats, and they ended up using IRC

 

now, you are basically saying that IRC should have re-written their rule, to accommodate race boats, in a way that is not consistent with the original goal of the rule, and in a way that probably would have made it not as good for the original audience.

 

if anyone has been holding up race boat design, it's the raceboat owners and designers themselves, who failed for so many years to come up with a rule for the boats.

 

now, it seems they have one - the HPR - an we'll see how it works.

 

personally, i's rather race one-design on a slower boat, than under any kind of rating rule.

 

 

the designers and sailors would be very happy to write their own rules! And in fact that was what happened with IRM. But then the RORC in their wisdom, after starting it all off, got cold feet and retreated from something that now forms the very basis of HPR, and good luck to them and the NYYC! But as ever politics have reared their heads yet again, the Poms won't talk to the Seppos as they are maybe worried of losing their place at the table. ORC trumpets itself as the scientific alternative and loses the plot as its only semi-scientific with a load of fudgefactors to sort of make it work and so is expensive and no better in the long run.

 

But don't forget that the IRC rule has been touted around the world as the saviour for all, has ( politically and we hear mathematically ) done a deal with the TP52s so that they are now the most competitive of IRC types, but try to do the same thing to make for lighter faster fun boats down the size scale and fat chance, ratings in orbit, and don't try and tell me they couldn't have sorted the maths out to at least give the smaller boats some sort of a chance.

Pressure from the Beneslugs possibly to protect their patch, ditto from the myriad IRC Euroclones? It stinks.

 

And if you think racing so-called one-designs is a level playing field then you're in fairyland :ph34r:

Still, if thats where you're happy to plod around then thats fine :rolleyes:

 

you clipped my comment in which i said that both the Soto 40, and Farr 400 looked nice..

 

Soto already has OD sailing, and the Farr might, or might not..

 

in any case i don't think either plods around.

 

of course not all OD boats are __exactly the same.., but it's generally pretty good. are there many complaints from the Soto 40 people?

 

but, i would say that if you think you can rely on a rating scheme to provide real racing..., it's you who are in fairy land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you really call me kiddo? Thanks! I'll be sure to tell my kids that, they'll think it is pretty funny.

I hope somethng is lost in the context of these posts (yours and mine). You are one of the few here that I like and that actually offers something good to this place once in a while. I even respected your opinion. Sorry this topic has gotten your panties in a bunch.

 

I have something to say about everything these days? Look at your post count! Buckeroo.

 

I'm all out of condescending names now. Have we used sport yet?

 

Seppo always works.

 

Especially since barf bitch is taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Did you really call me kiddo? Thanks! I'll be sure to tell my kids that, they'll think it is pretty funny.

I hope somethng is lost in the context of these posts (yours and mine). You are one of the few here that I like and that actually offers something good to this place once in a while. I even respected your opinion. Sorry this topic has gotten your panties in a bunch.

 

I have something to say about everything these days? Look at your post count! Buckeroo.

 

I'm all out of condescending names now. Have we used sport yet?

Just use cunt. That's the all purpose greeting and term of endearment down here in 'Straya these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...

 

Quick tutorial for how to quote prior posts

 

  • A quote begins with [quote] and ends with [/quote].
  • If there is a mismatch between begin and end tags, the layout will break.
  • You can "nest" quotes. Please heed your attributions whilst doing so.
  • You can edit the name, timestamp and post attributes if you want to.

    [
    quote name='original noobie poster' timestamp='1332666135' post='3642634']


    By edit, I mean delete the entire attribute. e.g. change it to:

    [
    quote name='original noobie poster']
    for example, or:

    [
    quote name='some falsified name']
    or just simply:

    [
    quote]

 

Here's an example off all four quoting styles:

This here is the entire opening tag as generated automatically when you click the little "Reply" button within an individual post.

In this example we have stripped out the timestamp and post attributes.

Again, no timestamp or post attributes, plus we changed the name attribute.

This is the raw [quote] tag -- no attributes at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...

 

Quick tutorial for how to quote prior posts

 

  • A quote begins with [quote] and ends with [/quote].
  • If there is a mismatch between begin and end tags, the layout will break.
  • You can "nest" quotes. Please heed your attributions whilst doing so.
  • You can edit the name, timestamp and post attributes if you want to.

    [
    quote name='original noobie poster' timestamp='1332666135' post='3642634']


    By edit, I mean delete the entire attribute. e.g. change it to:

    [
    quote name='original noobie poster']
    for example, or:

    [
    quote name='some falsified name']
    or just simply:

    [
    quote]

 

Here's an example off all four quoting styles:

This here is the entire opening tag as generated automatically when you click the little "Reply" button within an individual post.

In this example we have stripped out the timestamp and post attributes.

Again, no timestamp or post attributes, plus we changed the name attribute.

This is the raw [quote] tag -- no attributes at all.

Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

Yes! You got it right!

 

Though you are getting perilously close to exceeding the number of quotes we are allowed in a single post!

 

I posted this, not to be condescending, but to benefit my own selfish person because I can't decipher some of the mash-ups we get here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

Yes! You got it right!

 

Though you are getting perilously close to exceeding the number of quotes we are allowed in a single post!

 

I posted this, not to be condescending, but to benefit my own selfish person because I can't decipher some of the mash-ups we get here.

 

I'm trying to get the hang of this myself...

 

My sleep-deprived parent brain, can't remember the correct buttons to click. Post-it notes are in order...

 

Or sleep. Not to bump the thread. Thanks SE.

 

Back on business of rating rules. New York Yacht Club is working on a High Performance Rule to rate these crazy fast planing boats.

 

Carkeek and others where involved in the "rule type form". Formula was piloted at Key West Race Week. I'm glad about this new rating system the encourages "fast is fun" sailing.

 

If you are using a formula to calculate ratings wouldn't any rule create a type form?

 

Having a rule that changes with wind strength or direction would be harder to administer.

 

Gone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

Yes! You got it right!

 

Though you are getting perilously close to exceeding the number of quotes we are allowed in a single post!

 

I posted this, not to be condescending, but to benefit my own selfish person because I can't decipher some of the mash-ups we get here.

 

I'm trying to get the hang of this myself...

 

My sleep-deprived parent brain, can't remember the correct buttons to click. Post-it notes are in order...

 

Or sleep. Not to bump the thread. Thanks SE.

 

Back on business of rating rules. New York Yacht Club is working on a High Performance Rule to rate these crazy fast planing boats.

 

Carkeek and others where involved in the "rule type form". Formula was piloted at Key West Race Week. I'm glad about this new rating system the encourages "fast is fun" sailing.

 

If you are using a formula to calculate ratings wouldn't any rule create a type form?

 

Having a rule that changes with wind strength or direction would be harder to administer.

 

Gone

 

i seem to remember IMS did something like that...back in the good old days

 

of course that rule created it's share of dogs too...

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

Yes! You got it right!

 

Though you are getting perilously close to exceeding the number of quotes we are allowed in a single post!

 

I posted this, not to be condescending, but to benefit my own selfish person because I can't decipher some of the mash-ups we get here.

 

I'm trying to get the hang of this myself...

 

My sleep-deprived parent brain, can't remember the correct buttons to click. Post-it notes are in order...

 

Or sleep. Not to bump the thread. Thanks SE.

 

Back on business of rating rules. New York Yacht Club is working on a High Performance Rule to rate these crazy fast planing boats.

 

Carkeek and others where involved in the "rule type form". Formula was piloted at Key West Race Week. I'm glad about this new rating system the encourages "fast is fun" sailing.

 

If you are using a formula to calculate ratings wouldn't any rule create a type form?

 

Having a rule that changes with wind strength or direction would be harder to administer.

 

Gone

 

i seem to remember IMS did something like that...back in the good old days

 

of course that rule created it's share of dogs too...

 

cheers,

 

IMS rule created those "fantastic looking" slab sided boats. IOR created boats that rolled over and played dead due to their high center of gravity. Designers found ways to create boats that were "fast" for their rating. My sincere hope is that the rule truly encourages FAST, as opposed to fast for its rating...

 

IMS did have different ratings for various wind strengths and it appears (to the casual observer) that the CSA rule (in the Caribbean) and maybe some rules "down under" take this into account. is this the case?

 

Other than slowing the results process are their any disadvantages to rules that change with wind speeds?

 

gone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CSA has no wind speed adjustment, but when the wind blows its usual 15-25 as it has on the four CSA events I've done, it's pretty damned good at making close results. We tied with a J/80 one race last week, and they beat us by 1 second in another - in both cases, we were 10-15 minutes faster elapsed, with a symmetric vs. assym. Corrected over a J/122 by 3 and 6 seconds, etc.

 

Same thing in CSA 1 last week, where a Hendo 30, Melges 24, the HPR boat, and Farr 400, were all neck and neck on corrected.

 

I'm guessing it wouldn't do a great job in super light air...but what does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Other than slowing the results process are their any disadvantages to rules that change with wind speeds?" (gone)

 

Sure, the results can be 'gamed' by interested parties who would gain by promoting one 'windspeed factor' over another. The typical method was protest after result's posting, claiming 'wrong' factor used, and providing 'windspeed evidence' to make the jury instruct the PRO to re-calculate. Was used effectively at StFYC BBS for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CSA has no wind speed adjustment, but when the wind blows its usual 15-25 as it has on the four CSA events I've done, it's pretty damned good at making close results. We tied with a J/80 one race last week, and they beat us by 1 second in another - in both cases, we were 10-15 minutes faster elapsed, with a symmetric vs. assym. Corrected over a J/122 by 3 and 6 seconds, etc.

 

Same thing in CSA 1 last week, where a Hendo 30, Melges 24, the HPR boat, and Farr 400, were all neck and neck on corrected.

 

I'm guessing it wouldn't do a great job in super light air...but what does?

 

people who defend rating schemes always say things like this...

 

drives me crazy!

 

the rule is good because it produces close finishes????

 

maybe the finishes shouldn't have been close...

 

in order to demonstrate that the rule is good..., you assume the very thing the rule is trying to determine - that is, what the corrected times should be.

 

also, ORR (newport-bermuda etc.) uses different ratings for different wind speeds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CSA has no wind speed adjustment, but when the wind blows its usual 15-25 as it has on the four CSA events I've done, it's pretty damned good at making close results. We tied with a J/80 one race last week, and they beat us by 1 second in another - in both cases, we were 10-15 minutes faster elapsed, with a symmetric vs. assym. Corrected over a J/122 by 3 and 6 seconds, etc.

 

Same thing in CSA 1 last week, where a Hendo 30, Melges 24, the HPR boat, and Farr 400, were all neck and neck on corrected.

 

I'm guessing it wouldn't do a great job in super light air...but what does?

 

people who defend rating schemes always say things like this...

 

drives me crazy!

 

the rule is good because it produces close finishes????

 

maybe the finishes shouldn't have been close...

 

in order to demonstrate that the rule is good..., you assume the very thing the rule is trying to determine - that is, what the corrected times should be.

 

also, ORR (newport-bermuda etc.) uses different ratings for different wind speeds

 

My point is that boats are finishing very close, even tied, to each other on multiple occasions in the same regatta. That means the rule is consistently rating boat-on-boat action, which probably means it's doing a good job. The top three Puerto Rican skippers in our class all know each other for ages, and they all agree that the others sail at a similarly high level to themselves. And after six races, we were on 14, 14.5, and 15 in a 13 boat class - something I've rarely seen under PHRF, IRC, or ORR.

 

Same with the F400, sailed by some very good pros, losing out to the very well sailed and chock-full-of-local-knowledge Budget Marine M24 that just won the Heineken by a ton. Again, sailors who should be at the very top of the performance curve, on boats that are wildly dissimilar, yet the corrected times are seriously close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.

 

Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

 

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.

 

Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

 

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

I've done the same in our Cookson 12. They're surprisingly fast and easier to sail than Farr 40s. Farr 40 Polars here, but I know they sail a couple of tenths fast than these upwind. I'm a bit skeptical about those MC38 numbers upwind - but they will be flat water inshore numbers so that probably counts for something. But, knowing the programs behind those boats well I've no doubt their instruments are calibrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.

 

Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

 

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

 

 

inshore, offshore bump numbers and angles may change a litle, and yeh steam gauge calibration is subjective,good sailors use thier empathy for speed through the water to find thier edge. the chart is a good place to start .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I'm surprised at the difference in speed downhill between the MC38 & F400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I'm surprised at the difference in speed downhill between the MC38 & F400.

 

Designer polars are a baseline to work off and are a great sales tool.

They mean nothing until modified/updated after actual racing with well calibrated instruments.

My RP 36 design polars were easy beats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the far design is optimised toward w/l, rare to get that configuration in a passage race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenie has said that the upwinds on the MC38 are a bit high, but the downwinds are low.

 

As he says, it's a work in progress and what the designer is working off. In the end reality hits, boats get sorted and raced more and smart people work out things that they do.

 

I think the MC is optimised to looking sexy and fun, I said that. Should have asked Greenie that one, but if I'm not drinking, I'm to busy trying to keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenie has said that the upwinds on the MC38 are a bit high, but the downwinds are low

I'd buy that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenie has said that the upwinds on the MC38 are a bit high, but the downwinds are low

I'd buy that

Me too. No way she is that slow downhill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.

 

Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

 

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

I've done the same in our Cookson 12. They're surprisingly fast and easier to sail than Farr 40s. Farr 40 Polars here, but I know they sail a couple of tenths fast than these upwind. I'm a bit skeptical about those MC38 numbers upwind - but they will be flat water inshore numbers so that probably counts for something. But, knowing the programs behind those boats well I've no doubt their instruments are calibrated.

 

Interesting that those Farr 40 upwind numbers are almost identical to ours, maybe .05 higher. Our downwind numbers are approximately the same - again a touch lower - as well since we went to masthead kites with a longer pole. Which is pretty much what we've seen on the race course. Since our ratings have some "across the border" anomalies up here, not much use talking about that.

 

I'd like to line up against a M38 or a Farr 400 Just to see what they really can do. I suspect on a point-to-point they'd be deadly.

 

 

Now...if we only knew what to do with the Melges 32s that we owe time to. Friggen' fast little critters.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC38

MC38.jpg

 

Farr 400

Farr400.jpg

 

GP42

GP42.jpg

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.

 

Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

 

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

I've done the same in our Cookson 12. They're surprisingly fast and easier to sail than Farr 40s. Farr 40 Polars here, but I know they sail a couple of tenths fast than these upwind. I'm a bit skeptical about those MC38 numbers upwind - but they will be flat water inshore numbers so that probably counts for something. But, knowing the programs behind those boats well I've no doubt their instruments are calibrated.

 

Interesting that those Farr 40 upwind numbers are almost identical to ours, maybe .05 higher. Our downwind numbers are approximately the same - again a touch lower - as well since we went to masthead kites with a longer pole. Which is pretty much what we've seen on the race course. Since our ratings have some "across the border" anomalies up here, not much use talking about that.

 

I'd like to line up against a M38 or a Farr 400 Just to see what they really can do. I suspect on a point-to-point they'd be deadly.

 

 

Now...if we only knew what to do with the Melges 32s that we owe time to. Friggen' fast little critters.

there is a melges 32 entered in the first part of the port stephens regatta (in which we hv the Mc38). frankly in the flat water / light air, i'm more worried about the melges than i am about the 2 F40s

 

oh, and the IRC for the Mc38 (well the Cone anyway) is out. it's 1.255. high, but will do it easily on a down hill passage race. W/L course round the cans will be tough, but not out of the question... interested to see how we go !

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC38

MC38.jpg

 

Farr 400

Farr400.jpg

 

GP42

GP42.jpg

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC38

MC38.jpg

 

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

Wouldn't the VB label stand for boat velocity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRW next week...

Division: PHRF PHRF A

USA 60432 Cool Breeze Mills 43 Custom 43 -6.0

ODC 12 Madina Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0

USA ODC10 Predator Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0

CAN 5 Carbonado McConaghy 38 38

USA 406 Spaceman Spiff Farr 400 38.5

USA 404 Meridian X Farr 400 38.5

USA 403 Team Premier Farr400 38

 

Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.

 

+1. Money's on Sled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRW next week...

Division: PHRF PHRF A

USA 60432 Cool Breeze Mills 43 Custom 43 -6.0

ODC 12 Madina Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0

USA ODC10 Predator Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0

CAN 5 Carbonado McConaghy 38 38

USA 406 Spaceman Spiff Farr 400 38.5

USA 404 Meridian X Farr 400 38.5

USA 403 Team Premier Farr400 38

 

Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.

 

Charter boats/crews on the 40's or M38/400's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRW next week...

Division: PHRF PHRF A

USA 60432 Cool Breeze Mills 43 Custom 43 -6.0

ODC 12 Madina Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0

USA ODC10 Predator Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0

CAN 5 Carbonado McConaghy 38 38

USA 406 Spaceman Spiff Farr 400 38.5

USA 404 Meridian X Farr 400 38.5

USA 403 Team Premier Farr400 38

 

Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.

 

Charter boats/crews on the 40's or M38/400's?

 

Oops, I wasn't specific. The Farr 40's are charter boats.

 

Sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.

 

+1. Money's on Sled.

 

 

Ask me who I think will win at the end of the day next Sunday. Until then it's totally up in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC38

MC38.jpg

 

Farr 400

Farr400.jpg

 

GP42

GP42.jpg

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

 

Edake, I think you will find they are boatspeed targets for best upwind/dwonwind VMG. Not target VMG speeds.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.

 

Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

 

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

I've done the same in our Cookson 12. They're surprisingly fast and easier to sail than Farr 40s. Farr 40 Polars here, but I know they sail a couple of tenths fast than these upwind. I'm a bit skeptical about those MC38 numbers upwind - but they will be flat water inshore numbers so that probably counts for something. But, knowing the programs behind those boats well I've no doubt their instruments are calibrated.

 

Interesting that those Farr 40 upwind numbers are almost identical to ours, maybe .05 higher. Our downwind numbers are approximately the same - again a touch lower - as well since we went to masthead kites with a longer pole. Which is pretty much what we've seen on the race course. Since our ratings have some "across the border" anomalies up here, not much use talking about that.

 

I'd like to line up against a M38 or a Farr 400 Just to see what they really can do. I suspect on a point-to-point they'd be deadly.

 

 

Now...if we only knew what to do with the Melges 32s that we owe time to. Friggen' fast little critters.

there is a melges 32 entered in the first part of the port stephens regatta (in which we hv the Mc38). frankly in the flat water / light air, i'm more worried about the melges than i am about the 2 F40s

 

oh, and the IRC for the Mc38 (well the Cone anyway) is out. it's 1.255. high, but will do it easily on a down hill passage race. W/L course round the cans will be tough, but not out of the question... interested to see how we go !

 

cheers,

 

Do it easily on a passage race, nope. Be competitve, yes. But at 1.255 it is no chance of W/L and yes, I have sailed the boat, I like the boat and hope it is successful, so no agenda to push!

 

Good luck up there, shame the 400 is running and hiding again.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windy, you would hardly think a comment needs making.(re:vmg)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

Wouldn't the VB label stand for boat velocity?

 

Clearly stands for Victoria Bitter. MG knows the green can only too well.

 

Mex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC38

MC38.jpg

 

Farr 400

Farr400.jpg

 

GP42

GP42.jpg

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

Perhaps in this instance in means Virtually Meaningless Garbage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC38

MC38.jpg

 

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

Wouldn't the VB label stand for boat velocity?

ooohhh..and here i was thinking it meant Victoria Bitter (a very well known aussie beer)

 

:lol:

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which of the Oz boats is going to change divisions at Sail Port Stephens.

I hear they both have IRC certs, will they choose to go head to head, inshore or offshore.

Current entries have Mc 38 offshore in IRC, Farr 400 inshore PHS.

Who will blink first??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites