dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2016

Recommended Posts

 

 

Jake don't think you will see BG80 in a S2H...she would get spat out the back.

Jack not like you to make a mistake like that? WTF? BG is going for sure. She will be snapping at the heals and could surprise

terrafirma...you are always quick to criticize the old Nicorette as not being a world beater yet you always hype up the 80' Beau Geste. The Volvo 70's were faster than Beau Geste last time around. Nicorette actually won the Hobart. What's BG done besides crack in half in her first iteration

and be wildly overhyped last time around? She's no match for R88. Not a chance.

 

I am talking about the Botin 80 BG not the Farr design. the current BG will be in Hobart before the Volvo's. And I am not quick to criticise the original Nicorette just stating the facts. R88 is not doing the race this year, you have gone off on a tangent Jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you realise that this is an old 90 footer turbo charged? Obviously they didn't build a new hull. It is what it always was, forget the new boat concept. The extra 8 feet was added to the front of the boat. They have simply turbo charged an old boat by adding 8 feet. The designer said the original boat looked like a DSS boat without DSS, hence the addition of the DSS. Unlike Ragamuffin who built a new hull for the rest of the existing boat this has been extended 8 feet, DSS added, wing shrouds for the mast and the back of the boat has been flared for sheeting angles and crew position. The original boat was a very narrow Simonis Voogd design that never set the world on fire IMO.

yes -- but they could have cut and shut the stern sections. They didn't, so I'm guessing they're happy with what's there. Can't imagine they're spending the money they are on something that's predicted to be a pig, so someone thinks its fast.

 

But as I said - doesn't look fast to my (untrained) eyes.

 

Spending as much as they can afford I guess Duncan? Changing the stern would have been significant, they are re-inventing this boat as a DSS design which don't have powerful stern sections anyhow. Look at the Infinity boats for example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A summary of the CQS / Ludde boat changes in my inaugural "Adventures Weekly", or the return of 'Sailing News in 60-seconds-ish' which used to lead my radio show. Will be a weekly thing :)

Video (below)

Podcast

You can sign up to either, or get the newsletter too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people can sit at one time on the end of the spreader stubs?

need to have hiking boards extend from inside of them, international canoe style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Jake don't think you will see BG80 in a S2H...she would get spat out the back.

Jack not like you to make a mistake like that? WTF? BG is going for sure. She will be snapping at the heals and could surprise

terrafirma...you are always quick to criticize the old Nicorette as not being a world beater yet you always hype up the 80' Beau Geste. The Volvo 70's were faster than Beau Geste last time around. Nicorette actually won the Hobart. What's BG done besides crack in half in her first iteration

and be wildly overhyped last time around? She's no match for R88. Not a chance.

I am talking about the Botin 80 BG not the Farr design. the current BG will be in Hobart before the Volvo's. And I am not quick to criticise the original Nicorette just stating the facts. R88 is not doing the race this year, you have gone off on a tangent Jack.

In 2013 BG was beaten by black jack (VO70?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good write up on that site, confirms most of the speculation in this thread: https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

 

So the dramatic bow is a way of re-using the old deck without having to extend it - budget management cleverness I guess.

 

Well that's new. haven't see a flap on "DSS" foil before.

Might have tip flaps too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Jake don't think you will see BG80 in a S2H...she would get spat out the back.

Jack not like you to make a mistake like that? WTF? BG is going for sure. She will be snapping at the heals and could surprise

terrafirma...you are always quick to criticize the old Nicorette as not being a world beater yet you always hype up the 80' Beau Geste. The Volvo 70's were faster than Beau Geste last time around. Nicorette actually won the Hobart. What's BG done besides crack in half in her first iteration

and be wildly overhyped last time around? She's no match for R88. Not a chance.

I am talking about the Botin 80 BG not the Farr design. the current BG will be in Hobart before the Volvo's. And I am not quick to criticise the original Nicorette just stating the facts. R88 is not doing the race this year, you have gone off on a tangent Jack.
In 2013 BG was beaten by black jack (VO70?)

By a minute in her first major race with a spinnaker shortage. Though it did look they went running scared & other results ain't that flash compared to Giacomo. Be good to see it back again. They certainly know how to race a boat so if it doesn't perform this time - refund??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the plate on the water line at the bow?

SZO15823.JPG?format=1000w

 

access to the bobstay termination point? don't imagine there's much room in that bow to crawl up from inside.

 

EDITED - maybe not.. the two of them seem to terminate at the plate bolted onto the stem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the plate on the water line at the bow?

 

 

 

Bow thruster in case it's doing charters at Airlie next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gone is the hard chine, no? I mean, I guess they didn't think it necessary to cut and apply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The more I look at the stump thing for the shrouds the more I hate it. Super mega fugly. Hope it works though.

I might be wrong, but I think it's to spread the shroud base to eliminate spreaders, so the mast can rotate.

 

Edit: Apparently not. They're reusing the existing mast section, adding carbon reinforcement.

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The more I look at the stump thing for the shrouds the more I hate it. Super mega fugly. Hope it works though.

I might be wrong, but I think it's to spread the shroud base to eliminate spreaders, so the mast can rotate.

 

Edit: Apparently not. They're reusing the existing mast section, adding carbon reinforcement.

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

 

Those 'stump things' are part of the hull as opposed to deck spreaders (outriggers), would this mean that they can be used for outboard sheeting for downwind sails?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the plate on the water line at the bow?

SZO15823.JPG?format=1000w

It's a magnetohydrodynamic drive propulsion system (silent caterpillar drive). It has no moving parts and uses stored energy ( battery power).

 

 

Utube has a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7_ADEQSv0

 

After all they are thinking outside the square with this boat.

 

Pulpit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I thought it was the secret horizontal sonar array for fish farm detection.

There you go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The more I look at the stump thing for the shrouds the more I hate it. Super mega fugly. Hope it works though.

I might be wrong, but I think it's to spread the shroud base to eliminate spreaders, so the mast can rotate.

 

Edit: Apparently not. They're reusing the existing mast section, adding carbon reinforcement.

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

Those 'stump things' are part of the hull as opposed to deck spreaders (outriggers), would this mean that they can be used for outboard sheeting for downwind sails?
Legally, I believe so. Practically, I think they're too far forward to be of much use. A big flare was added to the stern sections to widen deck and open up the sheeting angle, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The more I look at the stump thing for the shrouds the more I hate it. Super mega fugly. Hope it works though.

 

I might be wrong, but I think it's to spread the shroud base to eliminate spreaders, so the mast can rotate.

 

Edit: Apparently not. They're reusing the existing mast section, adding carbon reinforcement.

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

 

Those 'stump things' are part of the hull as opposed to deck spreaders (outriggers), would this mean that they can be used for outboard sheeting for downwind sails?

 

 

Equipment rules F1.4 would suggest its a deck spreader (spar).

" c) (iii) DECK SPREADER A hull spar extending transversely to attach standing rigging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

straight off an orange cessna

Yep, ailerons to control lift when leaping off large waves.

 

The whole thing is Luddecrous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to the specs CQS' rig is tiny in comparison to comanche and WOXI.

It has about the same upwind sail area as RIO 100.

 

Also there is a heap of rocker in comparison to WOXI and Comanche.

(see photos)

http://chevaliertaglang.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/the-100-footers-in-sydney-hobart-race.html

 

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

 

Sorry I don't know how to upload photos to the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There doesn't appear to be much difference in height between the foil and stump. They are going to want to keep it in a pretty tight range of heel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to the specs CQS' rig is tiny in comparison to comanche and WOXI.

It has about the same upwind sail area as RIO 100.

 

Also there is a heap of rocker in comparison to WOXI and Comanche.

(see photos)

http://chevaliertaglang.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/the-100-footers-in-sydney-hobart-race.html

 

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

 

Sorry I don't know how to upload photos to the thread.

Is the rig from 99 or 04? Either way things have moved on so no surprises it's a little short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to the specs CQS' rig is tiny in comparison to comanche and WOXI.

It has about the same upwind sail area as RIO 100.

 

Also there is a heap of rocker in comparison to WOXI and Comanche.

(see photos)

http://chevaliertaglang.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/the-100-footers-in-sydney-hobart-race.html

 

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

 

Sorry I don't know how to upload photos to the thread.

04 I Believe. Note the claimed displacement is about 2.5 tonnes lighter than Scallywag, 4 tonnes lighter than WOXI, 6 lighter than Comanche and 12 lighter than Loyal. Other comments on their site suggest the actual displacement may be lighter still. Displacement for the 90 foot donor boat back in 2009 was around 21 tonnes ORCi Cert Here Downwind SA was around 860sqm back then, now claiming 1110. WOXI ORCi certificate claims 1320sqm as their downwind SA.

 

Looks as if the re-use of the old rig has limited sail area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

according to the specs CQS' rig is tiny in comparison to comanche and WOXI.

It has about the same upwind sail area as RIO 100.

 

Also there is a heap of rocker in comparison to WOXI and Comanche.

(see photos)

http://chevaliertaglang.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/the-100-footers-in-sydney-hobart-race.html

 

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

 

Sorry I don't know how to upload photos to the thread.

04 I Believe. Note the claimed displacement is about 2.5 tonnes lighter than Scallywag, 4 tonnes lighter than WOXI, 6 lighter than Comanche and 12 lighter than Loyal. Other comments on their site suggest the actual displacement may be lighter still. Displacement for the 90 foot donor boat back in 2009 was around 21 tonnes ORCi Cert Here Downwind SA was around 860sqm back then, now claiming 1110. WOXI ORCi certificate claims 1320sqm as their downwind SA.

 

Looks as if the re-use of the old rig has limited sail area.

 

 

The rig is what it is so the designers have moved the rig back by extending the boat 8 foot forward of the mast and have now what looks to be a massive fore triangle to work with. She will increase sail area this way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

according to the specs CQS' rig is tiny in comparison to comanche and WOXI.

It has about the same upwind sail area as RIO 100.

 

Also there is a heap of rocker in comparison to WOXI and Comanche.

(see photos)

http://chevaliertaglang.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/the-100-footers-in-sydney-hobart-race.html

 

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

 

Sorry I don't know how to upload photos to the thread.

04 I Believe. Note the claimed displacement is about 2.5 tonnes lighter than Scallywag, 4 tonnes lighter than WOXI, 6 lighter than Comanche and 12 lighter than Loyal. Other comments on their site suggest the actual displacement may be lighter still. Displacement for the 90 foot donor boat back in 2009 was around 21 tonnes ORCi Cert Here Downwind SA was around 860sqm back then, now claiming 1110. WOXI ORCi certificate claims 1320sqm as their downwind SA.

 

Looks as if the re-use of the old rig has limited sail area.

 

 

The rig is what it is so the designers have moved the rig back by extending the boat 8 foot forward of the mast and have now what looks to be a massive fore triangle to work with. She will increase sail area this way

 

Still doesnt compare to WOXI and Skalliwag. Therefore, won't be a contender. I expect BG and the Volvos to beat it. (If it finishes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obviously got some serious HP if they moved the chainplates so far out & widened the deck so much. So the rig is a little short, LWL makes up for a lot + they might be able to carry their sails longer as the wind increases. BBW did a great job of the RIO100 makeover. BJ70 did give RIO100 a serious scare & BJ70 should be quicker again but I can't see the top 3 being anything but 100's if they dont break it & the routing is reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

according to the specs CQS' rig is tiny in comparison to comanche and WOXI.

It has about the same upwind sail area as RIO 100.

 

Also there is a heap of rocker in comparison to WOXI and Comanche.

(see photos)

http://chevaliertaglang.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/the-100-footers-in-sydney-hobart-race.html

 

https://www.bigboatracing.com/about-boat

 

Sorry I don't know how to upload photos to the thread.

04 I Believe. Note the claimed displacement is about 2.5 tonnes lighter than Scallywag, 4 tonnes lighter than WOXI, 6 lighter than Comanche and 12 lighter than Loyal. Other comments on their site suggest the actual displacement may be lighter still. Displacement for the 90 foot donor boat back in 2009 was around 21 tonnes ORCi Cert Here Downwind SA was around 860sqm back then, now claiming 1110. WOXI ORCi certificate claims 1320sqm as their downwind SA.

 

Looks as if the re-use of the old rig has limited sail area.

 

 

The rig is what it is so the designers have moved the rig back by extending the boat 8 foot forward of the mast and have now what looks to be a massive fore triangle to work with. She will increase sail area this way

 

Still doesnt compare to WOXI and Skalliwag. Therefore, won't be a contender. I expect BG and the Volvos to beat it. (If it finishes)

 

 

Irrespective of the boats performance I can't see them getting near Oats purely on how each boat will be sailed. One is almost professional and this is late so far. But I still like the concept because if it's somewhat of a success it opens doors for older boats in improving their performance if required. With the big fore triangle they will have some sail area up front and looking at the size of the DSS and the sheeting angles they will be able to utilise it must be of benefit. Lets wait and see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a spar though.

 

say's who?

 

The ERS has the word spar in bold - meaning the ERS defines what it is (ie: it is not the common-usage definition)

Section F - Rig Definitions

 

F.1.3 Spar

The main structural part(s) of the rig, to, or from which sails are attached and/or supported. It includes its fittings and any corrector weights

 

Unless we argue that the stumps are part of the hull shell .. which seems to be stretching things.

 

WOXI still calls their prod a bowsprit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on that I still say it's not a spar. It is not part of the rig. It is part of the hull. But hey like the mainstream media today I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14925649_1520415247975105_76359890720589

 

Isn't it amusing, someone brings something new to the maxi game and all you fuckers shit on it with your extensive design and build experience. I hope these guys shake it up along with Scallywag. How long before we see a IMCO 60 scaled to 100ft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Isn't it amusing, someone brings something new to the maxi game and all you fuckers shit on it with your extensive design and build experience. I hope these guys shake it up along with Scallywag. How long before we see a IMCO 60 scaled to 100ft?

 

D'oh... it's called Comanche...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on that I still say it's not a spar. It is not part of the rig. It is part of the hull. But hey like the mainstream media today I could be wrong.

So how does the rule (IRC) measure a bump or distortion like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Based on that I still say it's not a spar. It is not part of the rig. It is part of the hull. But hey like the mainstream media today I could be wrong.

So how does the rule (IRC) measure a bump or distortion like that?

Mate, no idea - I'm a club hack, these things are well above my pay grade. You would assume it's part of the hull & not a spar & therefore part of the maximum beam. But that's just my 2cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

think you are all missing the point, whatever they are they are brilliant outriggers for the headsails/downwind sails which as I understand recent changes are rating free thanks to big boat lobbying of the rating office

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that mate, just trying to establish what the rule book says about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, lift producing devices the size of a car and DL hasn't given us the lowdown on his contribution to this design.

 

Maybe the flaps were a secret even he didn't know about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible the wings will be used to carry water ballast? .. They have a lot more leverage out there than in the bilge and they have an engine to move the swing keel so that could handle a large pump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Isn't it amusing, someone brings something new to the maxi game and all you fuckers shit on it with your extensive design and build experience. I hope these guys shake it up along with Scallywag. How long before we see a IMCO 60 scaled to 100ft?

 

D'oh... it's called Comanche...

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Isn't it amusing, someone brings something new to the maxi game and all you fuckers shit on it with your extensive design and build experience. I hope these guys shake it up along with Scallywag. How long before we see a IMCO 60 scaled to 100ft?

D'oh... it's called Comanche...

+1

An IMOCA 60 is around 8 tonne. A scaled up version to 100' should sit around 16 tonne. Comanche is I recall around 32 tonne or twice that so she is no IMOCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Isn't it amusing, someone brings something new to the maxi game and all you fuckers shit on it with your extensive design and build experience. I hope these guys shake it up along with Scallywag. How long before we see a IMCO 60 scaled to 100ft?

 

D'oh... it's called Comanche...

 

 

+1

 

 

Side foils generating lift? Doh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it amusing, someone brings something new to the maxi game and all you fuckers shit on it with your extensive design and build experience. I hope these guys shake it up along with Scallywag. How long before we see a IMCO 60 scaled to 100ft?

D'oh... it's called Comanche...

+1

An IMOCA 60 is around 8 tonne. A scaled up version to 100' should sit around 16 tonne. Comanche is I recall around 32 tonne or twice that so she is no IMOC

 

Believe it or not Comanche's dagger boards do generate lift. And she has been likened to an IMOCA 60 by many industry pundits. Comanche's DB's have small bulbs on the bottom and the aerofoil shape does generate lift obviously not like the foils on the latest IMOCA boats. Where VPLP have done a great job with Comanche is that she sails with her bow out of the water most of the time. It's exciting to see the DSS design on this boat with the wing tips, looking forward to seeing her in the water sailing soon and hopefully they make he Hobart start in some sort of shape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it amusing, someone brings something new to the maxi game and all you fuckers shit on it with your extensive design and build experience. I hope these guys shake it up along with Scallywag. How long before we see a IMCO 60 scaled to 100ft?

D'oh... it's called Comanche...

+1

An IMOCA 60 is around 8 tonne. A scaled up version to 100' should sit around 16 tonne. Comanche is I recall around 32 tonne or twice that so she is no IMOCA.

 

The volume of any solid, and hence displacement goes up with the cube of length. For example, the volume of a cube that's 2 inches long on each side is 8 times as much as a 1 inch cube. The formula for an equivalent Displacement for a 100 footer would be (100/60)^3 x IMOCA Displacement - the multiplier is 1.67 cubed, which is 4.63. Hence at an equivalent DLR to the 8 tonne IMOCA, Comanche would weigh around 37 Tonnes. Indeed Comanche does actually weigh around 32 so it's actually quite a bit lighter for its length than an IMOCA 60 is.

 

I've seen Comanche sailing at speed several times close up and there's no doubt the dagger boards generate plenty of lift. Like a last-generation IMOCA 60, or VOR 65, it sails at big heel angles to reduce form drag, enhance righting moment by moving the centre of buoyancy to leeward and to get the dagger boards closer to horizontal so they generate greater lift. Current generation IMOCO 60s with the Dali foils sail flatter, more like a DSS boat and that suggests that the optimal hull form would be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible the wings will be used to carry water ballast? .. They have a lot more leverage out there than in the bilge and they have an engine to move the swing keel so that could handle a large pump.

Nice idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it amusing, someone brings something new to the maxi game and all you fuckers shit on it with your extensive design and build experience. I hope these guys shake it up along with Scallywag. How long before we see a IMCO 60 scaled to 100ft?

D'oh... it's called Comanche...

+1

An IMOCA 60 is around 8 tonne. A scaled up version to 100' should sit around 16 tonne. Comanche is I recall around 32 tonne or twice that so she is no IMOCA.

 

The volume of any solid, and hence displacement goes up with the cube of length. For example, the volume of a cube that's 2 inches long on each side is 8 times as much as a 1 inch cube. The formula for an equivalent Displacement for a 100 footer would be (100/60)^3 x IMOCA Displacement - the multiplier is 1.67 cubed, which is 4.63. Hence at an equivalent DLR to the 8 tonne IMOCA, Comanche would weigh around 37 Tonnes. Indeed Comanche does actually weigh around 32 so it's actually quite a bit lighter for its length than an IMOCA 60 is.

 

I've seen Comanche sailing at speed several times close up and there's no doubt the dagger boards generate plenty of lift. Like a last-generation IMOCA 60, or VOR 65, it sails at big heel angles to reduce form drag, enhance righting moment by moving the centre of buoyancy to leeward and to get the dagger boards closer to horizontal so they generate greater lift. Current generation IMOCO 60s with the Dali foils sail flatter, more like a DSS boat and that suggests that the optimal hull form would be different.

 

Yes but nothing approaching the current foiling IMOCA 60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is it possible the wings will be used to carry water ballast? .. They have a lot more leverage out there than in the bilge and they have an engine to move the swing keel so that could handle a large pump.

Nice idea
Not sure you'd get enough RM out of that size volume for that size boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't this discussed elsewhere, the reason Comanche doesn't have IMOCA style foils is she does more windward leeward type racing where the arrangement she has is considered optimal? The IMOCA 60s aren't optimised for windward work. Having said that, Comanche doesn't have any restrictions on the number of foils she can use, or the way in which they're used - as technology progresses I'd guess there's a chance she could be retrofitted in a similar manner to Maitre Coq, but without the drawbacks associated with IMOCA rules... The new generation IMOCAs are also pushing the boundaries of bow design, but that's another discussion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah looks odd but obviously as planned if you look at the antifoul / waterline underneath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are running the engine so they must be happy with how much she's immersed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in she goes..! Floating high?

 

 

No shortage of beer storage if that's an Eski/Chilly bin/Ice box on the aft deck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And in she goes..! Floating high?

 

 

No shortage of beer storage if that's an Eski/Chilly bin/Ice box on the aft deck!

 

I think that is the MEGA fender for under the wing and the dock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And in she goes..! Floating high?

 

 

No shortage of beer storage if that's an Eski/Chilly bin/Ice box on the aft deck!

 

I think that is the MEGA fender for under the wing and the dock

 

I didn't think of that - probably didn't think too much - yeah, similar to the ones on the IMOCAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit overcooked with the number and size of spreaders, surely. Lot's of windage up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this boat owned by:

 

Sir Michael Hintze in 1999, CQS is a global multi strategy asset management firm. Our investment process is based on fundamental bottom-up research and we have experienced portfolio management teams located in key financial centres. Our robust operational platform provides a strong liquidity management and risk monitoring capability.

 

Same logo???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, it's Ludde's Cousin.

 

Ludde Ingvall unveiled major modifications to his former 90 foot yacht when it emerged from the boatbuilders shed in Tauranga, New Zealand today. The work has been undertaken with backing from Sir Michael Hintze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice displacement numbers Dick but if you apply them say to a Class 40 being stretched to 60' like an IMOCA 60....then something doesn't add up. Sorry but a stretched IMOCA, or better as you suggest, Comanche is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit overcooked with the number and size of spreaders, surely. Lot's of windage up there.

Yeah, given the effort with the deck-spreaders (or whatever they are going to be called) you would have imagined a much cleaner rig was a goal. Maybe the mast/rig is an interim measure, and they intend a second upgrade in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the purpose of the "deck spreaders" is to widen the shroud base to decrease shroud tension and remove compression from the rig. That should allow increased RM without requiring a new rig, no?

 

With 46 days to go to the start, hard to imagine this being a competitive effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the purpose of the "deck spreaders" is to widen the shroud base to decrease shroud tension and remove compression from the rig. That should allow increased RM without requiring a new rig, no?

 

With 46 days to go to the start, hard to imagine this being a competitive effort.

Correct on both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice displacement numbers Dick but if you apply them say to a Class 40 being stretched to 60' like an IMOCA 60....then something doesn't add up. Sorry but a stretched IMOCA, or better as you suggest, Comanche is not.

Yes, the numbers do add up. You have to correct for materials (class 40s are limited to glass) and the canting keel. Also class 40s are restricted in width which means an IMOCA can be compareably wider requiring even less bulb weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites