• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Presuming Ed

Is this the Figaro III?

Recommended Posts

 

 

They claim to be " the first one-design production foiling monohull ever devised." That is 100% false!! The Q23 beat them by a couple of years and the Flo1 by about 6 months. Amazing BS! [/size]

Fuck off DL, read it properly, they offer- NOT They claim to be, its probably a bad translation from that site, not Beneteau.

Read it as : The One Design Class Figaro Is Going to foiL on New prOduced Beneteaus .

Your so stupid. I know you UnderssTAND uSELESS cAPITOls BEtter.

Sorry, but that's fucking funny. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15326190_1467951789885063_40132487662658

I do like this version with only 2 pieces of string. Much simpler to sail.

 

Why did nobody else ever think of building an offshore raceboat which dispenses with halyards, spinnaker controls, windward jib sheets, reefing lines, adjustable backstays, mainsheet traveller controls, adjustable vang, jib lead adjustments etc?

That's funny.

 

So at what angle heal til the submerged bit starts to provide lift? Theory I guess is by reversing the shaft it doesn't contribute to drag especially at low speeds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 or more

prove it

 

 

 

Why there's a great pic of ten boats on their website, who cares if they are all photoshop clones of one boat.

 

It's not as if that's the sort of thing that could be characterized as 100% false or amazing BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polars are showing highest speeds of around 14 knots. Not exactly ripping it so the foils seem of limited value. By comparison, the classe 950 has shown that it is capable of well in excess of 20 knots with old fashioned water ballast..

 

Seems to me a case of style over substance to be using foils.

Averaging 14 knots would be impressive for a 30 something foot fixed keel boat. I would be surprised if the 950 could average much better,and 20 knots for hours on end is highly unlikely. Happy to be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that top speed, but consider Phil Sharp's recent record :

 

http://philsharpracing.com/sharp-smashes-world-speed-record-for-english-channel/

 

These are still pretty heavy boats, and they have high peaks and slow lows. If I could see a link where a Classe 950 went 40 miles in 2 hours I'd be a believer. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a crew say we were doing 15 knots, while I've plotted us only traveling 9 miles during that period, or where competitors reported top speeds several knots faster than what we saw, yet were never ahead of us at any point.

 

I'm guessing to average 14 kts on the new Figaro, you'd need peaks in the low 20s. Makes me appreciate whats happening at the front of the Vendee Globe even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever. I still think the Figaro foils are not going to be that effective. Their effectiveness is proportional to the square of the boats speed and the polars don;t seem to demonstrate the speed capability for therm to make a big difference, particularly given their relatively small size.

We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CywVokiWQAENc1b.jpg

 

What's the reason for the big bump in the Figaro II's polar at 130 degs?

 

Change of sail configuration... point to hoist the spi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the keel doesn't cant why are they messing around with a complicated bent foil? Surely they don't need it for lateral resistance? Is that really just to get round the DSS patent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will race in 2019 for the first time, so would not be surprised if they will refine foil.

Its an OD with a lifespan of 12 years or so, so an extreme canting foiler was not to be expected.

 

Peaks of FIG2, around 24 knots, but its peak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever. I still think the Figaro foils are not going to be that effective. Their effectiveness is proportional to the square of the boats speed and the polars don;t seem to demonstrate the speed capability for therm to make a big difference, particularly given their relatively small size.

We shall see.

this plus factoring in the weight, if they really are going to keep these boats under 200,000 euros ready to sail I highly doubt that we'll be seeing full carbon construction, which will mean a heavier hull and thus even more boat speed needed to produce the necessary lift for the boat to get any real benefit from the foils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

CywVokiWQAENc1b.jpg

 

What's the reason for the big bump in the Figaro II's polar at 130 degs?

 

Change of sail configuration... point to hoist the spi.

 

 

Why no bump for 20kts and below, then?

 

My guess would be that the boat actually breaks out under kite at those windspeeds, and not before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the keel doesn't cant why are they messing around with a complicated bent foil? Surely they don't need it for lateral resistance? Is that really just to get round the DSS patent?

if it looks like a duck.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little surprised that the projected target speeds are not that much different than the Figaro2. Only major change appears to be 25 knots and above around 120-130 TWA

 

CywVokiWQAENc1b.jpg

Yeah - that VPP is really not impressive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Polars are showing highest speeds of around 14 knots. Not exactly ripping it so the foils seem of limited value. By comparison, the classe 950 has shown that it is capable of well in excess of 20 knots with old fashioned water ballast..

 

Seems to me a case of style over substance to be using foils.

Averaging 14 knots would be impressive for a 30 something foot fixed keel boat. I would be surprised if the 950 could average much better,and 20 knots for hours on end is highly unlikely. Happy to be proven wrong.

 

Sure - But the VPP is not talking about average speed but top speed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sure - But the VPP is not talking about average speed but top speed

 

 

 

In flat water.

 

yep but 13 in 30 is still kinda piggish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And good to see that they did not publish vapor numbers, so easy to do.

Damn, average figaro leg is so short, speed is not needed, exciting boats they need.

Fleet surrounding of a mark seriously gets more exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sure - But the VPP is not talking about average speed but top speed

 

 

 

In flat water.

 

yep but 13 in 30 is still kinda piggish

 

 

yeah, big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Sure - But the VPP is not talking about average speed but top speed

 

 

 

In flat water.

 

yep but 13 in 30 is still kinda piggish

 

 

yeah, big time.

 

I was being kind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Sure - But the VPP is not talking about average speed but top speed

 

 

 

In flat water.

 

yep but 13 in 30 is still kinda piggish

 

 

yeah, big time.

 

I was being kind

 

There must be something wrong with those polars.

 

A Melges 32 in 30 knots could do 15-18 knots in flatwater.

 

13knots... Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Melges 32 targets from APS

 

https://pull01-apsltd.netdna-ssl.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/580x400/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/t/st103.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure - But the VPP is not talking about average speed but top speed

 

 

 

In flat water.

yep but 13 in 30 is still kinda piggish

 

yeah, big time.

I was being kind

There must be something wrong with those polars.

 

A Melges 32 in 30 knots could do 15-18 knots in flatwater.

 

13knots... Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the keel doesn't cant why are they messing around with a complicated bent foil? Surely they don't need it for lateral resistance? Is that really just to get round the DSS patent?

 

Collision mitigation for coastal racers. Can't have a hole in the hull that low down when you know they're going to hit all kinds of shit. Was in my podcast with VPLP i think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it gets around the DSS patent. Any hole in the hull, whether near the static waterline or higher up is an issue, so I don't buy that one myself.

It seems that many designers are trying to avoid paying the patent at any cost. Everyone wants to have thought of it first!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it gets around the DSS patent. Any hole in the hull, whether near the static waterline or higher up is an issue, so I don't buy that one myself.

It seems that many designers are trying to avoid paying the patent at any cost. Everyone wants to have thought of it first!

 

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vplp want to avoid putting holes in the hull near the waterline from hitting things......

 

dont tell the vendee boys they have been keeping this one up their sleeves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be something wrong with those polars.

 

A Melges 32 in 30 knots could do 15-18 knots in flatwater.

 

13knots... Really?

 

 

One is designed to be raced 'round the bay with a crew of 6 or more. The other is designed to be raced solo in the ocean. An 18 foot skiff can go faster again, and it's only half the length...

 

Frankly, it's a lot of complexity for not really a lot of extra performance though. I'm just hoping it will mean there will be a lot of extra cheap figaro 2's appear on the market

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.yachtingworld.com/yachts-and-gear/102174-102174

 

"These novel looking foils are designed to replace the traditional weighty ballast tanks used on past Figaro models. Described as ‘asymmetric tip foils’ they work by creating side force to supplement the skinny keel and reduce leeway while causing minimal drag. An important factor is also that they are able to retract within the boat’s maximum beam."

 

"The foils are not designed to lift the boat out of the water,"

 

"It is reliability that comes first for this class however. Crucial to the design is that the foils retract to within the max beam of the boat and that they do so well above the waterline to maintain structural and watertight integrity in the case of impact"

"The first prototype will be trialled in summer 2017. A first batch of 50 Figaro 3s will then be produced for the end of 2018.
"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that 200kg weight delta will be much larger when you take into account the water ballast? It does sound interesting. Will they use changed foils rondo a design refresh halfway through the cycle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the keel doesn't cant why are they messing around with a complicated bent foil? Surely they don't need it for lateral resistance? Is that really just to get round the DSS patent?

 

For one thing, it looks like these foils could be replaced at sea. From the deck too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Overload has sold. Anyone know if it staying in NZ or going elsewhere? Would be a sweet TransPac/Pac Cup boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Normal" DSS would be so much better including being fully retractable . This doesn't make a lot of sense..... Docking would be the same problem it is with an IMOCA but with only part of the advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claiming something that is 100% false is not "a little leeway"-it is blatant misrepresentation! The first foiling keelboat in the history of the world was the Quant 23 and that was/is a big deal. To try to revise history with an outright fabrication is disgusting-especially for a major manufacturer.

 

Much like many of your posts. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Claiming something that is 100% false is not "a little leeway"-it is blatant misrepresentation! The first foiling keelboat in the history of the world was the Quant 23 and that was/is a big deal. To try to revise history with an outright fabrication is disgusting-especially for a major manufacturer.

Much like many of your posts. :)

Please don't quote that MuPpeT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Claiming something that is 100% false is not "a little leeway"-it is blatant misrepresentation! The first foiling keelboat in the history of the world was the Quant 23 and that was/is a big deal. To try to revise history with an outright fabrication is disgusting-especially for a major manufacturer.

Much like many of your posts. :)

Please don't quote that MuPpeT.

Sometimes his ultimate foiling Lord needs to be quoted for posterity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Claiming something that is 100% false is not "a little leeway"-it is blatant misrepresentation! The first foiling keelboat in the history of the world was the Quant 23 and that was/is a big deal. To try to revise history with an outright fabrication is disgusting-especially for a major manufacturer.

Much like many of your posts. :)

Please don't quote that MuPpeT.
Sometimes his ultimate foiling Lord needs to be quoted for posterity.
No. No he doesn't. "Maybe," and I truly mean maybe, he might have some redeeming value if I ever want my Roomba to foil acrossed my bathtub, but I haven't found that need just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Claiming something that is 100% false is not "a little leeway"-it is blatant misrepresentation! The first foiling keelboat in the history of the world was the Quant 23 and that was/is a big deal. To try to revise history with an outright fabrication is disgusting-especially for a major manufacturer.

Much like many of your posts. :)

Please don't quote that MuPpeT.
Sometimes his ultimate foiling Lord needs to be quoted for posterity.
No. No he doesn't. "Maybe," and I truly mean maybe, he might have some redeeming value if I ever want my Roomba to foil acrossed my bathtub, but I haven't found that need just yet.

Easiest way is just to scroll past it all then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Claiming something that is 100% false is not "a little leeway"-it is blatant misrepresentation! The first foiling keelboat in the history of the world was the Quant 23 and that was/is a big deal. To try to revise history with an outright fabrication is disgusting-especially for a major manufacturer.

Much like many of your posts. :)

Please don't quote that MuPpeT.
Sometimes his ultimate foiling Lord needs to be quoted for posterity.
No. No he doesn't. "Maybe," and I truly mean maybe, he might have some redeeming value if I ever want my Roomba to foil acrossed my bathtub, but I haven't found that need just yet.

Easiest way is just to scroll past it all then.

I only wish. I'm not trying to be rude to you in any way, but 90% of any thread that involves foils has become unreadable because of the lawn ornament commando. Any reply to him only encourages him. I fought with this for years. Don't feed his addiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ like all the rest, I thought DL was just chiming in, it's an open 'forum', don't pretend you have anything more to offer, give the guy a f'n' break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard to tell anything substantial from a polar diagram, if you look at the polar from a foiling imoca and a daggerboader they look mighty close. Improvement in design is in small step. It will be faster for sure but like many have said before foils are not a silver bullet.

 

A standard DSS foil is not the way to go because it creates excessive leeway.

 

It does make sense to add foils to a non canting keel boat because they add RM. It is a bit of a miss conception that foiling boats are flying on their keel. It is more that they are pivoting on the foil. Just like foiling catamarans don't need a lift on the windward side, that wouldn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard to tell anything substantial from a polar diagram, if you look at the polar from a foiling imoca and a daggerboader they look mighty close. Improvement in design is in small step. It will be faster for sure but like many have said before foils are not a silver bullet.

 

A standard DSS foil is not the way to go because it creates excessive leeway.

 

It does make sense to add foils to a non canting keel boat because they add RM. It is a bit of a miss conception that foiling boats are flying on their keel. It is more that they are pivoting on the foil. Just like foiling catamarans don't need a lift on the windward side, that wouldn't make sense.

 

Excessive leeway?? Let me correct you, DSS foil has the lift vector arranged to be approx vertical at normal sailing angles, so has no effect on leeway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIGARO 3 Construction of the new one-design for the Solitaire Urgo Le Figaro – designed by VPLP – will be starting in the coming days, the hull moulds having just arrived at Jeanneau Techniques Avancées’s old premises in Cheviré, near Nantes. Expect the first trials of the prototype in the summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen Figaro sailors bringing their boats into harbour on a windy day and parking up all single handed without a shore crew? Just imagine the carnage with those foils!

But it looks a real sweet design.

When you have to singlehand a boat, you find ways. Probably put both foils out/down fully, reduce power, center the keel. It would probably be efficient enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have you seen Figaro sailors bringing their boats into harbour on a windy day and parking up all single handed without a shore crew? Just imagine the carnage with those foils!

But it looks a real sweet design.

When you have to singlehand a boat, you find ways. Probably put both foils out/down fully, reduce power, center the keel. It would probably be efficient enough.

 

"Centre the keel?" ... all the photos and diagrams I have seen so far show a fixed keel.

 

I have no doubt the guys will be able to manoeuvre the boats OK. The remark I made was about how they will manage to deploy big enough fenders and come alongside a hard quayside and other boats single handed with that thing sticking out of the side of the boat. Figaros don't usually carry massive thick fenders like those which the foiling Imocas use, and don't get accompanied into port by a big rib clearing the way and passing over big fenders which have been stored shoreside. Also at some race venues Figaros often have to lie alongside each other and don't always get a dedicated pontoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Model at boot Düsseldorf. Photos from YM.

 

16194988_10154737203810700_4832524840136

 

16298535_10154737203985700_7173703772822

 

16195426_10154737203805700_1078398512060

It will be interesting to see the final version (the diagrams keep changing!) but putting one alongside another one of these, singlehanded in a blow and a cross tide still looks as if it could get a bit fraught, even for the most experienced of skippers.

 

Maximum beam looks to be at the transom, but where the foil comes out the boat looks as if it has much less beam. The place where the foil comes out looks like the first place to come up against the neighbour!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Thing looks pretty badass.

 

Not even close to the advantages of DSS from a RM standpoint--or from a docking standpoint......Lot of trouble to go through to avoid paying a patent royalty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it gets around the DSS patent. Any hole in the hull, whether near the static waterline or higher up is an issue, so I don't buy that one myself.

It seems that many designers are trying to avoid paying the patent at any cost. Everyone wants to have thought of it first!

Can you really patent something as obvious as a horizontal stabiliser? especially when so many man-made examples already exist. e.g. the first one I found when I googled!

https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/stabilisers-cruise.pdf

Pretty much every possible effective kind of foil already exist in nature.

Birds and insects invented wings and fish invented fins. Humans copied both!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And it gets around the DSS patent. Any hole in the hull, whether near the static waterline or higher up is an issue, so I don't buy that one myself.

It seems that many designers are trying to avoid paying the patent at any cost. Everyone wants to have thought of it first!

Can you really patent something as obvious as a horizontal stabiliser? especially when so many man-made examples already exist. e.g. the first one I found when I googled!

https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/stabilisers-cruise.pdf

Pretty much every possible effective kind of foil already exist in nature.

Birds and insects invented wings and fish invented fins. Humans copied both!

 

 

DSS is not a "horizontal stabilizer"-it is a retractable lifting foil designed to add to the righting moment of the boat its used on and to reduce the drag of the hull by reducing the displacement of the boat. The "horizontal stabiliser" you linked to works entirely differently than DSS though both may have some elements in common, the differences are greater than the similarities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats for sure-you can't be fooled! But then again.......

 

------

The "stabilizer" you referred to lifts both up and down in order to counteract roll which is its designed function. DSS only lifts up and in so doing lifts part of the weight of the boat while adding to the total righting moment..... Not even close to the same function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking News....Anti gravity genius Doug Lord has commissioned the ignomatic Brent Swain, the man who invented rust, to build the worlds first all-steel monster foiling Octimaran.

 

Doug says "this 150' 8 hulled 16x foiling fucker will fly like no other with its patented 16/8XDLRM+ system that I derived by gazing at gecko's masturbating and porpoises porpoising" ...

 

Brent says "look if she don't happen to fly and leap over tall buildings as Doug says..well don't you worry..she will just bowl them buildings over with the dead weight of the left over stick welder rods I didn't pick out of the...ummm..what do you call the roundy pointy bit at the bottom....yeah bilge...yep that's what they call it".

 

When asked about timing Brent said "he would have it knocked by next Thursday".

 

"A technological marriage made in Heaven" the North Dakota Times is quoted as reporting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have just uncovered the one best reason why Benteau shouldn't have put foils on the Figaro, and it has nothing to do with sailing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is there really a need for a new Figaro design? The present one seems to deliver excitement in spades!

 

http://www.maryrook.com/splashy-crashy/#.WNlN3EFt7WZ.facebook

 

Go for it Mary!

 

I think it's more a case of keeping the Figaro class relevant to the competitive ocean racing ladder.

 

 

I think that originally the main thing was the current boats hulls are on the verge of being dead. That model is 14 years old, most of the fleet must have had at least 10 hard full racing seasons. Owners have probably re-couped their cost too.

Figaro 1 was deemed dead wit soft hulls after 13 years.

 

Once they needed to get a new batch, they revised their options for a new more trendy design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the DSS patent, does anyone know the number? I think I've asked this before and maybe even seen it though I've forgotten the details. At any rate, if you are interested in the validity of a patent, you have to look at the claims and see if there is anything there that is really novel and not in the prior art. If you think there is prior art or, and this tricker, the claims could be negated due to obviousness, then you could challenge in court. in my experience though in mature industries people are good about licensing IP back and forth as otherwise nothing good gets done.

 

I for one don't believe Beneteau would have gone to so much trouble just to get around the patent. I'll bet this design has overall advantages with hull ports above the waterline being a big one.

 

Edit: I just read Welbourn's patent claims and it does seem pretty comprehensive within a certain set of angles of the foil, but I have no idea about the prior art landscape. I wouldn't be surprised if these are different from fold out stabilizers in that the foil aspect ratios are different, which is another area the claims seem a bit narrow. This isn't really my area though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing people generally forget is that for inventions like DSS, the patent is only part of the story. there is a lot of know-how surrounding the patent and as much as anything, this is what the licence fee is for.

Challenging patents is also a very expensive exercise. The decision becomes a commercial one. You either pay the patent holder or take your chances and develop your own solution and see if you get sued or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be amazed if you weren't able to license the DSS at a reasonable rate. And ColinG is right, you'll save more in not making mistakes than you'll spend on fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached Thumbnails

 

Attack Thumbnails! :D:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the DSS patent, does anyone know the number? I think I've asked this before and maybe even seen it though I've forgotten the details. At any rate, if you are interested in the validity of a patent, you have to look at the claims and see if there is anything there that is really novel and not in the prior art. If you think there is prior art or, and this tricker, the claims could be negated due to obviousness, then you could challenge in court. in my experience though in mature industries people are good about licensing IP back and forth as otherwise nothing good gets done.

 

I for one don't believe Beneteau would have gone to so much trouble just to get around the patent. I'll bet this design has overall advantages with hull ports above the waterline being a big one.

 

Edit: I just read Welbourn's patent claims and it does seem pretty comprehensive within a certain set of angles of the foil, but I have no idea about the prior art landscape. I wouldn't be surprised if these are different from fold out stabilizers in that the foil aspect ratios are different, which is another area the claims seem a bit narrow. This isn't really my area though....

 

Being "comprehensive" means the patent covers less. A foil with a length equal to 6.5% of the height of the mast is not covered regardless of anything else. A foil exiting the hull with less than 5 degrees upward orientation (e.g. Dali foils) is not covered regardless of anything else.

 

Every single one of these things must be true for a design to infringe:

 

© a lifting hydrofoil having a stowed position in which the lifting hydrofoil is disposed inward of the hull and a deployed position in which the lifting hydrofoil is adapted to extend outward of a leeward side of the hull and in the water supporting the vessel;
(d) wherein the lifting hydrofoil has an aspect ratio that is greater than about 2:1;
(e) wherein the lifting hydrofoil when in the deployed position is oriented at a predetermined angle of attack to a fore and aft plane of the vessel, the predetermined angle of attack being between about 2 and 6 degrees;
(f) wherein the lifting hydrofoil when in the deployed position is oriented at a mean angle of between about 5 and 20 degrees to a horizontal plane when the vessel is in a non-heeled state so that the lifting hydrofoil is substantially parallel with a water plane when the vessel is heeled to a normal optimum sailing heel angle;
(g) wherein the lifting hydrofoil when in the deployed position has a projected area adapted provide a righting moment tending to counteract a heeling moment applied by the sail of the vessel and a lifting force for partially but not fully lifting the vessel out of the water;
(h) wherein the lifting hydrofoil has an exposed span that is greater than about 7% of a height of the tallest mast of the vessel, the height measured from the water plane; and
(i) an actuation assembly for moving the lifting hydrofoil between the stowed position and the deployed position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/03/2017 at 3:48 AM, Kevin said:

 

I think it's more a case of keeping the Figaro class relevant to the competitive ocean racing ladder.

Deleted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that sure ain't a thing of beauty!   Better hope it works, but I don't give that foil configuration much chance of surviving any impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 7:57 AM, GBH said:

well that sure ain't a thing of beauty!   Better hope it works, but I don't give that foil configuration much chance of surviving any impact.

What, like any other foil on a boat? Come on, you can do better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites