oioi

New imoca boats

Recommended Posts

I think Sailing is taking more from F1 at the moment.

 

 

Have you seen a F1 GP now ? You find it interesting ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.gitana-team.com/fr/event.page.aspx?eventid=92&category=events&page=2015_season.html

 

• Jusqu’à fin juin 2015 : chantier de construction chez Multiplast (Vannes)
• Fin juin 2015 : Mise à l’eau du Mono60 Edmond de Rothschild suivie des premiers tests et premières navigations
• Du 1er juillet au 20 août : entraînements intensifs en équipage puis en double
• Du 16 au 18 août 2015 : Rolex Fastnet Race
• Septembre 2015 : navigations à Lorient et stages d’entraînements
• A partir du 10 octobre : convoyage vers Le Havre
• 25 octobre 2015 : Départ de la Transat Jacques Vabre (Le Havre)

 

Gitana are a bit late on their scheduling. They originally had planned to launch in June, to train in July and August, and then participate in the Fastnet (not sure if still relevant any more, will they be ready on time… ?), the Jacques Vabre and of course the Vendée in 2016.

 

I hope we finally get some videos of the Gitana - and the others - using their foils one of these days. (I know, foils not designed to lift the hull clear of the water). I am curious to see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CGI of Gitana from another thread. Thanks Scipion.

 

epic machine. can't help but think it's ironic that as trash in the oceans is at an all-time high, so are the number of foils that are part of these new boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CGI of Gitana from another thread. Thanks Scipion.

 

epic machine. can't help but think it's ironic that as trash in the oceans is at an all-time high, so are the number of foils that are part of these new boats.

 

Suggests they might need to be selectively deployed doesn't it - avoid coastal for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree about the foil shapes and ocean rubbish risk. They already have enough dramas keeping their carbon hydro legs in one piece and they sit inboard out the back!! A decent foil collision is going to be pretty catastrophic.

 

The additional performance must be such to warrant the risk of having more horizontal stuff in the water. Maybe that's why we aren't seeing any action videos....that performance jump hasn't materialised and they are busy undergoing foil surgery???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone tell me what the purpose of the 90 degree test is. I get the rollover test but this one leaves me confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone tell me what the purpose of the 90 degree test is. I get the rollover test but this one leaves me confused.

 

It's to obtain by calculation the precise position of the boat's center of gravity. It's required in the imoca gauge with the 180° rollover test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can someone tell me what the purpose of the 90 degree test is. I get the rollover test but this one leaves me confused.

 

It's to obtain by calculation the precise position of the boat's center of gravity. It's required in the imoca gauge with the 180° rollover test.

 

 

Could not find it in 2015 Class rules, but found it in the 2004 one :

 

F.4:TESTS OF STABILITY (90°) :

Boat trim: like described in B.4.1.

With mast(s) and keel held in their vertical axes, the boat is pulled over her side at

90°, and held in this position by a strop around the mast. The measurements taken

shall then be repeated by undertaking the same manoeuvre on the other side. The

averages of the measured data will be recorded.

 

F.4.1:inclining force :

The load on the strop is recorded by use of a load cell. The place of the strop is also

measured. These data are used to establish the vertical position of the boat’s centre

of gravity under this condition.

The load cell used by the measurer shall carry a valid certificate of calibration.

 

F.4.2: measurement of freeboards :

Forward and aft freeboards are recorded with the boat heeled at 90° to establish the

longitudinal position of the boat’s centre of gravity under this condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CGI of Gitana from another thread. Thanks Scipion.

 

Nice lines....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was on holiday in Bretagne and went to visit Lorient - what a great setup that is. I was lucky enough to come across BP as it was being put back in the shed. Hope you like the pics! I sure liked the boat!


DSC 1591


DSC 1590


DSC 1589


DSC 1588


DSC 1587


DSC 1586


DSC 1585


DSC 1584


DSC 1583


DSC 1582

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great pics, thanks! Drooling on my PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can someone tell me what the purpose of the 90 degree test is. I get the rollover test but this one leaves me confused.

It's to obtain by calculation the precise position of the boat's center of gravity. It's required in the imoca gauge with the 180° rollover test.

 

Thanks, that makes a ton of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was on holiday in Bretagne and went to visit Lorient - what a great setup that is. I was lucky enough to come across BP as it was being put back in the shed. Hope you like the pics! I sure liked the boat!

 

Thanks, tomtom. Great pics.

 

BP's stern quarter bottom shape is real interesting. There's almost a turned-down chine which then hollows before the bottom flattens. I've seen something similar on large planing power boat hulls.

post-76289-0-73773700-1438636895_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hollow/turn down....The first was Dixie IV world speed record holder 1911. Length governed by 40' limit.

 

http://www.seabuddyonboats.com/motors-and-power/worlds-record-holder-and-fastest-speedboat-for-1911-smoke-on-the-water/

As they say, Jack. There's no such thing as a new idea. Just different combinations of old stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Awesome looking machine. Boy, these new Verdier/VPLP IMOCA 60 bows are beefed-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was on holiday in Bretagne and went to visit Lorient - what a great setup that is. I was lucky enough to come across BP as it was being put back in the shed. Hope you like the pics! I sure liked the boat!

 

Thanks, tomtom. Great pics.

 

BP's stern quarter bottom shape is real interesting. There's almost a turned-down chine which then hollows before the bottom flattens. I've seen something similar on large planing power boat hulls.

Talking to a guy this weekend who said the French are adding hollows aft to help the bow stay up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any details Bruno on which boats this is occurring?

 

Is anyone still running interceptors or trim tabs to achieve the same end (but have the ability to turn it off)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any details Bruno on which boats this is occurring?

 

Is anyone still running interceptors or trim tabs to achieve the same end (but have the ability to turn it off)?

Only 5 foils allowed now, essentially ruling out the interceptor.

I am pretty sure that hollows in the hull are not allowed either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the athwartships dagger/foils are connected inside the boat to act as one unit (sliding back & forth on tacks), would that count as one foil or two? Hmmm.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the athwartships dagger/foils are connected inside the boat to act as one unit (sliding back & forth on tacks), would that count as one foil or two? Hmmm.....

That question was asked with respect to DSS, I can't remember the outcome, but I think they said it would be counted as two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the hollow/turn down fair to say this sort of design is seen on speed boats and is a development due to the increased speeds off the wind these things are expected to see. The whole development phase is interesting especially the different foils. Given VPLP are doing all the new boats (Correct me if I am wrong on this) it seems the teams are given a choice of foils?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A foil is a foil when it leaves the boat. If there are five bits sticking through the hull there are five foils.

 

Otherwise you could just attach your fws canard to your keel inside the boat and claim it was the same Item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I use a single daggerboard with a choice of positions, such as two bilge slots, is that one or two foils?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I use a single daggerboard with a choice of positions, such as two bilge slots, is that one or two foils?

Two. Some of these boats have removable/replacable rudders, which would be the same as two bilge slots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder what the go fast contribution ratio with these appendages is between their contribution as a DSS to dynamic righting moment versus countering going sideways????

 

While latest 3 boats are all designed by Verdier/VPLP they each have subtle differences and in this appendage department they are all keeping very quiet about exact design detail and any results from initial on water testing. I suspect we will see them shuffling in and out of the shop making changes to these moustaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder what the go fast contribution ratio with these appendages is between their contribution as a DSS to dynamic righting moment versus countering going sideways????

 

While latest 3 boats are all designed by Verdier/VPLP they each have subtle differences and in this appendage department they are all keeping very quiet about exact design detail and any results from initial on water testing. I suspect we will see them shuffling in and out of the shop making changes to these moustaches.

 

Yeah that was my point, 3 x VPLP Boats, 3 x different foils? There has to be some different thinking and I'm sure VPLP are behind it, could the variations be weather dependent? One foil may give substantial lift upwind but be a little slower downwind? Interesting times..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wonder what the go fast contribution ratio with these appendages is between their contribution as a DSS to dynamic righting moment versus countering going sideways????

 

While latest 3 boats are all designed by Verdier/VPLP they each have subtle differences and in this appendage department they are all keeping very quiet about exact design detail and any results from initial on water testing. I suspect we will see them shuffling in and out of the shop making changes to these moustaches.

 

Yeah that was my point, 3 x VPLP Boats, 3 x different foils? There has to be some different thinking and I'm sure VPLP are behind it, could the variations be weather dependent? One foil may give substantial lift upwind but be a little slower downwind? Interesting times..

 

 

 

There is a 4th new VPLP, that of Andrea Mura, currently crossing France by truck to be launched in Lorient.

see pic 2 days ago, from SeaSailSurf.

 

Then there is a 5th one in build at Green Marine for Alex Thomson, who, if I understand well, had the original idea to fit DSS type foils.

 

So, you are right, lots of interesting variations to watch.

post-6361-0-64885900-1439472589_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

Hug Welbourn actually got to the final two in the tender for the design of the original Kingfisher IMOCA boat with his original idea for DSS. Apparently it was very close to happening but considered too big a risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well PRB, the ex MAcif and the old Hugo Boss (ex BT) are beating all the new IMOCA in the Artemis CHallenge, so there is still a lot to do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

Hug Welbourn actually got to the final two in the tender for the design of the original Kingfisher IMOCA boat with his original idea for DSS. Apparently it was very close to happening but considered too big a risk.

 

I was meaning this round ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neuronz,

 

good point. FP article is a pretty big log roll IMHO. AFAIK, Hugh and DSS were not involved in the IMOCA development, so tenuous link. Also no mention was made of Quant project, curiously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, Hugh was involved on some IMOCA 60 work-one I remember was fitting a foil to an older boat and there may be more.

post-30-0-41811700-1439559123_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Skippy. I would not want to be seperated from my head lamp during a rollover.

 

Neither would I ! When I see videos of 180° righting tests, I think of Le Cam in 2009 when he capsized near Cape Horn, surviving in the bow of his sinking imoca, half flooded with ice cold water, in the dark, hoping for rescue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

contrary to Brian Hancock's description on the front page today the shaft of the IMOCA foils are designed to carry as little load as possible as was explained by the guys from VPLP during their foiling week presentation. The interesting bit starts at 24:00min.

 

That doesn't add up as they are clearly using cambered sections on the shaft section, and I reckon there is a fair amount of misinformation and BS coming out from that office. Still from the Artemis results it wouldn't seem that they are getting the sideforce that they need by the way the old boats knocked off the foiled versions as soon as they had a few miles of upwind work. Interesting that you'ds have to reckon that the round the island sailing angles/proportions were not too disimialr to getting around the planet. Back to the drawing board chaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neuronz,

 

good point. FP article is a pretty big log roll IMHO. AFAIK, Hugh and DSS were not involved in the IMOCA development, so tenuous link. Also no mention was made of Quant project, curiously.

 

If DSS and Hugh Welbourn weren't involved in the New Imoca fleet, can you explain Alex Thomson and Quentin Lucet (VPLP bloke from the foiling week seminars) sat on a Quant 30 15 months ago?

11108944_1062819320411337_21663850379376

 

(Source - Dynamic stability Systems facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/108260099200602/photos/pb.108260099200602.-2207520000.1439614856./1062819320411337/?type=3&permPage=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMOCA j-boards are not DSS by the terms of the DSS Patent, not sure what hancock is on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

contrary to Brian Hancock's description on the front page today the shaft of the IMOCA foils are designed to carry as little load as possible as was explained by the guys from VPLP during their foiling week presentation. The interesting bit starts at 24:00min.

That doesn't add up as they are clearly using cambered sections on the shaft section, and I reckon there is a fair amount of misinformation and BS coming out from that office. Still from the Artemis results it wouldn't seem that they are getting the sideforce that they need by the way the old boats knocked off the foiled versions as soon as they had a few miles of upwind work. Interesting that you'ds have to reckon that the round the island sailing angles/proportions were not too disimialr to getting around the planet. Back to the drawing board chaps?

Forgive my ignorance but which Verdier/VPLP foiled IMOCA 60's participated in the recent Round Isle of Wight Race????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

contrary to Brian Hancock's description on the front page today the shaft of the IMOCA foils are designed to carry as little load as possible as was explained by the guys from VPLP during their foiling week presentation. The interesting bit starts at 24:00min.

That doesn't add up as they are clearly using cambered sections on the shaft section, and I reckon there is a fair amount of misinformation and BS coming out from that office. Still from the Artemis results it wouldn't seem that they are getting the sideforce that they need by the way the old boats knocked off the foiled versions as soon as they had a few miles of upwind work. Interesting that you'ds have to reckon that the round the island sailing angles/proportions were not too disimialr to getting around the planet. Back to the drawing board chaps?

Forgive my ignorance but which Verdier/VPLP foiled IMOCA 60's participated in the recent Round Isle of Wight Race????

 

# 5 & 6.

 

1. PRB - IMOCA 60 - VINCENT RIOU
2. Quéguiner GROUPS - IMOCA 60 - Yann Elies
3. SMA - IMOCA 60 - PAUL Meilhat
4. HUGO BOSS - IMOCA 60 - ALEX THOMSON
5. POPULAR BANK - IMOCA 60 - ARMEL THE CLEAC'H
6. SAFRAN - IMOCA 60 - MORGAN LAGRAVIÈRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well PRB, the ex MAcif and the old Hugo Boss (ex BT) are beating all the new IMOCA in the Artemis CHallenge, so there is still a lot to do...

 

There's an interview with Seb Josse in Voiles et Voiliers where he addresses this issue:

 

V&V: "What is the expected gain?"

SJ: "There are uncertainties: we know that there are gains on paper that are quite substantial at certain points of sail and there are losses, again on paper, to others. This was confirmed on the water in the first trainings in Port-la-Forêt. There are points of sail where the foil "does not work", when close-hauled sailing it is a little less powerful. However, when the foil works it's pretty impressive. (…) The differential is 2 knots when sailing downwind and about a knot less when sailing under lower angles. But it is all a question of compromise. Which makes these boats really suited for the Vendée Globe; they are optimized for races with about 80-90% of downwind sailing and very little upwind sailing. So a race like the Fastnet, or the Transat Jacques Vabre, with the amount of time it takes to get out of the Bay of Biscay, may not be indicative of the potential of the boat for the Vendée Globe."

 

Full interview (in French) here: http://www.voilesetvoiliers.com/course-regate/interview-sebastien-josse/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what Morgan Lagavrière has to say about the race :

 

[...] One team not looking forward to the forecast is the brand new IMOCA Ocean Masters 60 footer Safran, sailed by Morgan Lagraviere and Nicolas Lunven. She and Armel le Cleac’h’s Banque Populaire feature radical new L-shaped side foils, designed both to prevent leeward and provide vertical lift, reducing wetted surface area. Lagraviere admits that the foils have been effective, but only reaching in moderate to strong winds: “ I’m not sure this year’s Fastnet will be for us. We will try to do our best. It will be very interesting learning how to use this new boat with the foils and to race with other IMOCA boats, especially Banque Populaire.

 

From an article on the Fastenet Race site : http://www.rolexfastnetrace.com/Press-Releases-2015/going-backwards-is-slow.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMOCA j-boards are not DSS by the terms of the DSS Patent, not sure what hancock is on about.

 

Clean,

 

What is your source to make that statement, or is it simply your opinion? [rest assured I have read the patent]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are J foils on the dynamic stability Facebook page. Are they outside the patent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preexisting art, used in another way, but you can not patent that, youre free to use a pen like you want, cleaning your ear etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are indeed correct you can't patent art.

 

Thanks,

 

In the world of intellectual property rights however...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preexisting art, used in another way, but you can not patent that, youre free to use a pen like you want, cleaning your ear etc.

LeoV,

 

there is a patent, here link to EU version. I am told the US is the same, and perhaps there is something like this south of the equator. The patent was awarded. Neither you nor I are patent lawyers nor judges, so saying that you cannot patent a foil used in a different way is ... I guess up to somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ST yacht, in Europe it counts, in the US it is bit different though.

With the history of foiling in France, they while find enough history to dazzle any judge is my opinion, to be tested in reality.

 

The real DSS was a nice find, patent worthy.

 

But now you have this horizontal foil combined with the j endshape.

Is the Dss in infringement on the jfoil, or is the J foil part an infringement of the Dss patent.

Its funny stuff and hangs on the skills of hte lawyers, not at what is right or wrong.

 

I think the floppy tailfins tried out on surfboards had the same function, and if you take it really wide, a trimaran with foils like Ricard had is the same concept, only with a float attached...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Preexisting art, used in another way, but you can not patent that, youre free to use a pen like you want, cleaning your ear etc.

LeoV,

 

there is a patent, here link to EU version. I am told the US is the same, and perhaps there is something like this south of the equator. The patent was awarded. Neither you nor I are patent lawyers nor judges, so saying that you cannot patent a foil used in a different way is ... I guess up to somebody else.

 

 

Doug, please point out what you see or read in the patent that is embodied by the VPLP/Verdier foils. I don't see it.

 

that said, I am told Hugh is getting a royalty from VPLP, so maybe it was just easier, or maybe my info is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Preexisting art, used in another way, but you can not patent that, youre free to use a pen like you want, cleaning your ear etc.

LeoV,

 

there is a patent, here link to EU version. I am told the US is the same, and perhaps there is something like this south of the equator. The patent was awarded. Neither you nor I are patent lawyers nor judges, so saying that you cannot patent a foil used in a different way is ... I guess up to somebody else.

Doug, please point out what you see or read in the patent that is embodied by the VPLP/Verdier foils. I don't see it.

 

that said, I am told Hugh is getting a royalty from VPLP, so maybe it was just easier, or maybe my info is wrong.

0032 0057

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Preexisting art, used in another way, but you can not patent that, youre free to use a pen like you want, cleaning your ear etc.

LeoV,

 

there is a patent, here link to EU version. I am told the US is the same, and perhaps there is something like this south of the equator. The patent was awarded. Neither you nor I are patent lawyers nor judges, so saying that you cannot patent a foil used in a different way is ... I guess up to somebody else.

 

 

Doug, please point out what you see or read in the patent that is embodied by the VPLP/Verdier foils. I don't see it.

 

that said, I am told Hugh is getting a royalty from VPLP, so maybe it was just easier, or maybe my info is wrong.

 

 

I never said the patent is related to the current crop of IMOCA foils at all. Nor the Quant 23 foils. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I said to Leo there exists a patent for the product DSS markets, and I linked to the EU version. This in response to his claim that it is "prior art" and not patentable.

 

Here is also the US version (which I also read). I did state it is for somebody else to determine if the patent should apply to what Leo termed "prior art". For now I have withheld my own opinion on the validity of the DSS patent on anything other than a nearly horizontal RM /lift inducing foil.

 

Further, I will hint that there IS a patent used (without or without license) in the Quant 23 and that patent is not the linked DSS patent at all. Think of it as an easter egg and see if you can find it...

 

I asked you for the source of your statement that the two things are unrelated. Now you seem to contradict that by stating that VPLP is licensing the use of the patented technology. Again, source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree Doug, I did read it like that too.
Proofing prior art is a science on its own, depends on the judge and the "experts".

Did read the EU one, and its focused on the horizontal lift part.

 

prior art, remember the Defline yachts two canting keels, the mentioned Palmquist, the whole shebang at the speedweeks, the foiling tri of the French, the foiling tri (King Foil) of that Letvian designer etc.

 

It is more a combination the imocas have. Should pay a little fee to the DSS patent holder. If the Palmquist patent was not prior.

That wing maran looks damn close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 60's are hanging are still hanging on well to the 100/88 footers in the Fasnet with PRB leading but Pop Bank probably the best placed further north. They should still hang on the bigger boats for a while yet with another day of light stuff still to get through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

contrary to Brian Hancock's description on the front page today the shaft of the IMOCA foils are designed to carry as little load as possible as was explained by the guys from VPLP during their foiling week presentation. The interesting bit starts at 24:00min.

 

That doesn't add up as they are clearly using cambered sections on the shaft section, and I reckon there is a fair amount of misinformation and BS coming out from that office. Still from the Artemis results it wouldn't seem that they are getting the sideforce that they need by the way the old boats knocked off the foiled versions as soon as they had a few miles of upwind work. Interesting that you'ds have to reckon that the round the island sailing angles/proportions were not too disimialr to getting around the planet. Back to the drawing board chaps?

 

 

All foil sections - cambered or not - have a neutral angle of attack where they only produce drag. Could be the shaft has a cambered section as they wanted to use one for the tip and the bend and this way it was easier to model.

I don't see any reason why they should give false information. Maybe not the full truth (i.e. maybe more load on the end of the shaft in reality), but any designer with a reasonable VPP would find out about this very quickly.

 

 

Neuronz,

 

good point. FP article is a pretty big log roll IMHO. AFAIK, Hugh and DSS were not involved in the IMOCA development, so tenuous link. Also no mention was made of Quant project, curiously.

 

If DSS and Hugh Welbourn weren't involved in the New Imoca fleet, can you explain Alex Thomson and Quentin Lucet (VPLP bloke from the foiling week seminars) sat on a Quant 30 15 months ago?

11108944_1062819320411337_21663850379376

 

(Source - Dynamic stability Systems facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/108260099200602/photos/pb.108260099200602.-2207520000.1439614856./1062819320411337/?type=3&permPage=1

 

 

I don't see a lot of parallels between the DSS boats and an IMOCA. They are both using wings to generate some vertical lift, but the foils are totally different. IMO the Quant 23 would be more relevant than the 30 in this regard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I asked you for the source of your statement that the two things are unrelated. Now you seem to contradict that by stating that VPLP is licensing the use of the patented technology. Again, source?

 

 

Wish I could tell you my source, but I can't. And I'm not contradicting anyone - my reading of the DSS patent tells me that it is not infringed by the IMOCA solution, but that's just an opinion. Whether it does, and whether my source about the royalty is accurate, it is fairly common for folks to pay a royalty without admitting anything rather than deal with potential litigation. And some guys are just good people, and pay because they feel they should even if the lawyers tell them they don't have to. The lawyers might be angling for expensive litigation work after all.

 

Jesus fucking christ I am one cynical bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long before DSS, there is the Palmquist's patent.

attachicon.gif243pic9_crop.jpg

 

Now that's a really interesting image. Any chance of a link? Too lazy to search today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one word spells the difference though and Hydroplaning is not hydrofoiling. Does show though how much 'new' stuff out there has been thought about before but the real difference is that a very very few guys actually get off their ass and do something and they are the ones that move the game along. Lots of armchair warriors out there and more than a few on these pages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youd give false information if it meant it wasn't a copy surely?

 

No, you would not give a presentation at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one word spells the difference though and Hydroplaning is not hydrofoiling. Does show though how much 'new' stuff out there has been thought about before but the real difference is that a very very few guys actually get off their ass and do something and they are the ones that move the game along. Lots of armchair warriors out there and more than a few on these pages!

Was that aimed at me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time laps of construction of Mono60’ Edmond de Rothschild Gitana team

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The horizontal hull/hull join certainly opens up a wider choice of hull design shapes than the traditional hull/deck mould split. Not sure whether it easier or harder installing bulkheads, though vid shows the join was opened and closed a lot as they no doubt trimmed things up internally to fit. I suspect this easier than the vertical split method along the centreline.

 

The weird bow to increase the volume up front makes it look like their building a large black killer whale pre-join. Bulbous bow might open up scope for some crazy graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no tumblehome, it looks easier. The lamsched of the void must be serious, do they taper the core ? etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lack the energy to work out what people are arguing about here but the patents are interesting. (by the way the Quant website has a copy of the published US Application for the Welbourn patent but US 7,644,672 issued in 2010 so they need to update the site!) Reading the US claims (the only part of the patent which describes things you get to protect), '672 seems slightly narrow, particularly claim 1f, which has the foil "substantially parallel to the water when the boat is optimally healed". That's where it perhaps diverges the most from the moustache foils. Having said that there are some specific claims about the distal ends of the foils being higher than the proximal ends which does anticipate the latter. It would take a lot to into it in detail but I'm not sure it matters. I wouldn't be surprised some licensing had been done but I wouldn't be surprised either if there hadn't.

 

​By the way I think someone above didn't catch on that "art" in patents isn't the same as "art" as is popularly understood. "Art" in patents means anything that has been made by people that has some function and which can be described. So "Prior Art" is anything that's been described publicly that anticipates whatever the new art is someone is trying to protect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah its fun stuff patents, EU judges tend to dislike a to wide of a description.

Got the Prior Art skills a bit because we got angry emails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time laps of construction of Mono60’ Edmond de Rothschild Gitana team

 

 

I dunno if I've ever seen a hull deck join like that, which is cool.

 

Also, at about 2:05 the boat looks like a large angry alligator chomping at the bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fabulous insight into the build process - wish it could be slower & extended.

 

Are there any implications, consequences or risks with having the Hull/Deck join down at an "equatorial" location ? Rather than the traditional centreline or toe rail loaction - it occurred to me that it puts the join in the direct path of any boat on boat collision - thinking PRB in the last Vendee, Hugo Boss 2 editions ago and was it Cheminee Poujoulat also in the last vendee.

 

Having a complex join in the impact zone would lead to a longer and more complex repair - No?

 

I know that the join is there for build purposes and no boat is conceived with the aim to collide with anything - but mis-haps do occur - and if it meant the boat missed the big event......

 

I also wondered what the tolerances are with those hinging rudder cassettes and how the paint surfaces do not appear to cover the two mating surfaces - how is the step edge painted and treated to keep what is assumed to be a seriously smooth finish - if it is not than the opportunity to create ventilation around the rudder blade must be a concern. Would love to know some insight into all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lack the energy to work out what people are arguing about here but the patents are interesting. (by the way the Quant website has a copy of the published US Application for the Welbourn patent but US 7,644,672 issued in 2010 so they need to update the site!) Reading the US claims (the only part of the patent which describes things you get to protect), '672 seems slightly narrow, particularly claim 1f, which has the foil "substantially parallel to the water when the boat is optimally healed". That's where it perhaps diverges the most from the moustache foils. Having said that there are some specific claims about the distal ends of the foils being higher than the proximal ends which does anticipate the latter. It would take a lot to into it in detail but I'm not sure it matters. I wouldn't be surprised some licensing had been done but I wouldn't be surprised either if there hadn't.

 

​By the way I think someone above didn't catch on that "art" in patents isn't the same as "art" as is popularly understood. "Art" in patents means anything that has been made by people that has some function and which can be described. So "Prior Art" is anything that's been described publicly that anticipates whatever the new art is someone is trying to protect.

 

I also don't think the Welbourne patent covers much. To be infringing, a foil has to fall within all the angles mentioned in the claims and fully retract. I don't think any of the IMOCA foils fully retract.

 

Angle of attack between 2-6 degrees AND foil is "5 and 20 degrees to a horizontal plane when the vessel is in a non-heeled state" AND "having a stowed position in which the lifting hydrofoil is disposed inward of the hull"

 

http://www.google.com/patents/US7644672

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I lack the energy to work out what people are arguing about here but the patents are interesting. (by the way the Quant website has a copy of the published US Application for the Welbourn patent but US 7,644,672 issued in 2010 so they need to update the site!) Reading the US claims (the only part of the patent which describes things you get to protect), '672 seems slightly narrow, particularly claim 1f, which has the foil "substantially parallel to the water when the boat is optimally healed". That's where it perhaps diverges the most from the moustache foils. Having said that there are some specific claims about the distal ends of the foils being higher than the proximal ends which does anticipate the latter. It would take a lot to into it in detail but I'm not sure it matters. I wouldn't be surprised some licensing had been done but I wouldn't be surprised either if there hadn't.

 

​By the way I think someone above didn't catch on that "art" in patents isn't the same as "art" as is popularly understood. "Art" in patents means anything that has been made by people that has some function and which can be described. So "Prior Art" is anything that's been described publicly that anticipates whatever the new art is someone is trying to protect.

 

I also don't think the Welbourne patent covers much. To be infringing, a foil has to fall within all the angles mentioned in the claims and fully retract. I don't think any of the IMOCA foils fully retract.

 

Angle of attack between 2-6 degrees AND foil is "5 and 20 degrees to a horizontal plane when the vessel is in a non-heeled state" AND "having a stowed position in which the lifting hydrofoil is disposed inward of the hull"

 

http://www.google.com/patents/US7644672

 

The following is cut and paste, plus highlighting. No commentary included ...

 

The above described lifting hydrofoil derived dynamic effects may be employed in sailing vessels with fixed keels with no other form of stability modification, or in sailing vessels employing moveable or variable ballast systems of either canting keel, water ballast or combinations of any or all of these features. The foil or foils may be fixed, fully or partially retractable by any of, or a combination of, the following means:

1. Swinging retraction into case or cases within the hull equipped with suitable sealing devices to minimize drag when either extended or retracted;

2. Sliding retraction into or through case or cases within the hull where the foil itself acts as the closure;

3. Combined sliding and swinging retraction into case or cases within the hull; and

4. Folding retraction into recesses within the hull.

The foil or foils may be of straight, cranked, or curved configuration in any plane. The foil or foils may be suitably angled in any plane to match the designed sailing heel angles of the vessel in question.

The lift coefficient of the foil or foils may be adjusted by means of variable camber devices. Thus leading edge flap, trailing edge flap or other multiple camber inducing configurations are within the spirit and scope of the present invention. This camber adjustment is not essential to the normal operational conditions but is envisaged more as an aid to fine tuning of the lift/drag ratios for best performance of the vessel in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool video of the Gitana build. I know that Green Marine are really kean on this same process of joining at the chine. I don't get it myself and would rather go for a split mounld if there is tumblehome. The reason being that you cannot avoid having secondary bonding along the chine in this method. Doing that you can't avoid havign to fair the chine. Going the split mould approach you avoid the secondary bond on the topsides and thus get a nich sharp chine without any fairing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the two sections overlapped at the chine / join?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are the outside skins built with a rebate to allow the butt joint tapes to be added - yet leave a fair suface??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are the outside skins built with a rebate to allow the butt joint tapes to be added - yet leave a fair suface??

No horizontal or vertical rebate...it is a normal butt joint with skins at joint tapered to take reinforcement and remain fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that approach, if you want a hard chine you are still going to have to do a lot more fairing than with a split mould. No way of avoiding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites