• 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.  

Recommended Posts

Won't that just make it a J122 with two wheels, kinda kills the whole "less crew" thing, which features prominently in their advertising / design brief.

 

i don't think that water ballast will work for round the cans racing, so you will need the full crew for that

 

and also i think there will be plenty of potential buyers who don't want the put up with the compromises to the interior that water ballast entails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and also i think there will be plenty of potential buyers who don't want the put up with the compromises to the interior that water ballast entails

We'll see. The J/brothers have a good track record with market research. Not perfect, they have a lot of market successes behind them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and also i think there will be plenty of potential buyers who don't want the put up with the compromises to the interior that water ballast entails

We'll see. The J/brothers have a good track record with market research. Not perfect, they have a lot of market successes behind them

 

 

i'm not saying they got anything wrong - just that the boat will probably be offered in more than one configuration

 

if someone comes along and says "I love it.., but I don't want the water ballast".., do you think they will say "take a walk"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another j one design with five versions.

that we all know you'll take the first opportunity to sail on, should one arise.

 

 

 

realistically.., one-design is hard to sustain at this size

 

how much one-design 122 racing was there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Another j one design with five versions.

that we all know you'll take the first opportunity to sail on, should one arise.

 

 

realistically.., one-design is hard to sustain at this size

 

how much one-design 122 racing was there?

 

there were a few less than several boats on LIS for a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

and also i think there will be plenty of potential buyers who don't want the put up with the compromises to the interior that water ballast entails

We'll see. The J/brothers have a good track record with market research. Not perfect, they have a lot of market successes behind them

 

 

i'm not saying they got anything wrong - just that the boat will probably be offered in more than one configuration

 

if someone comes along and says "I love it.., but I don't want the water ballast".., do you think they will say "take a walk"?

 

 

We'll see.

 

How feasible would it be to omit the water ballast without adding some keel ballast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

and also i think there will be plenty of potential buyers who don't want the put up with the compromises to the interior that water ballast entails

We'll see. The J/brothers have a good track record with market research. Not perfect, they have a lot of market successes behind them

 

 

i'm not saying they got anything wrong - just that the boat will probably be offered in more than one configuration

 

if someone comes along and says "I love it.., but I don't want the water ballast".., do you think they will say "take a walk"?

 

 

We'll see.

 

How feasible would it be to omit the water ballast without adding some keel ballast?

 

 

the water ballast replaces the crew, not the keel bulb

 

or at least that's the way they should be thinking of it

 

the boat should be designed with an acceptable stability, even with the ballast tanks empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how long until we here about the first asshole who takes a crew weight credit on account of the water ballast but still sails with eight fat dudes on the rail on windy days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how long until we here about the first asshole who takes a crew weight credit on account of the water ballast but still sails with eight fat dudes on the rail on windy days.

 

Bring it on.

 

If somebody who doesn't use water ballast is willing to boost the viability of series production of a water-ballasted boat ... then please encourage them to sign the cheque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuzziness comes when the water weight is accounted in the ballast ratio or when the water weight is not part of the ballast ratio.

Schrodinger's ballast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fuzziness comes when the water weight is accounted in the ballast ratio or when the water weight is not part of the ballast ratio.

Schrodinger's ballast?

 

 

 

Haha, brilliant.

 

BTW, the rating rules I've encountered are perfectly capable of rating water ballast as a separate entity (vs normal ballast vs crew). If its rated fair or not will naturally be part of the usual debate :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

J121*/Pogo12.50

Base price $385k (USA built) / $235k (French built)**

The pogo is 254000 Eur.

 

 

I recently sourced several numbers on various class legal production boats for consideration. The U.S built boat is about 20% more expensive than the offshore built boat with extensive U.S dealer network and the most consistent world championship winning streak. The U.S built boat is 50% more expensive than one built in Europe (the only one AFAIK) without extensive dealer network. Right now the Euro is at least 30% devalued from its more normal pre-2015 high. Maybe it won't get back there, but this makes purchasing boats from Europe fairly attractive even with the shipping and import tariff problems; they know how to build a quality boat generally and support any problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for some specs since they're not listed. Was told these are subject to change...

 

She's only 0.4' wider than the 122. Considering the modern ocean racer premise, I figured that she'd be wider.

 

LOA - 40' LWL - 35.78' Beam - 12.3' DISP - 11.500lbs DRAFT - 7.8'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J 121 Vs J 105



Here's a quick and dirty scaling of the J/121 to a J/105. J/105 in the bottom right of the picture. As you can see, max beam is farther aft on the 121, and more beam is carried to the stern. But not a huge amount more, and 121 is actually (relatively) no beamer or less beamy than the 105...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for some specs since they're not listed. Was told these are subject to change...

 

She's only 0.4' wider than the 122. Considering the modern ocean racer premise, I figured that she'd be wider.

 

LOA - 40' LWL - 35.78' Beam - 12.3' DISP - 11.500lbs DRAFT - 7.8'

 

A bit disappointing, for a short hander more form stability would be nice. Disp is pretty amazing though, thats pretty much the disp of an all carbon Andrews 39.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I asked for some specs since they're not listed. Was told these are subject to change...

 

She's only 0.4' wider than the 122. Considering the modern ocean racer premise, I figured that she'd be wider.

 

LOA - 40' LWL - 35.78' Beam - 12.3' DISP - 11.500lbs DRAFT - 7.8'

A bit disappointing, for a short hander more form stability would be nice. Disp is pretty amazing though, thats pretty much the disp of an all carbon Andrews 39.

3K heavier than a J125. Hmmmm

 

And pretty much the same weight as an Aerodyne 38.. I'm not hyper impressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key missing spec is ballast. Is it just light because the keel is lighter, or?

 

Regarding beam, J Boats have always been on the narrow side of average and they have a philosophy that seems to work for a little of people. Can't see them changing it for this boat.

 

Will be very interesting to see how the performance compares to the Aerodyne 38. My suspicion is that it will sail circles around it, given the relative performance of the J/122 and the displacement of the J/122.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I asked for some specs since they're not listed. Was told these are subject to change...

 

She's only 0.4' wider than the 122. Considering the modern ocean racer premise, I figured that she'd be wider.

 

LOA - 40' LWL - 35.78' Beam - 12.3' DISP - 11.500lbs DRAFT - 7.8'

A bit disappointing, for a short hander more form stability would be nice. Disp is pretty amazing though, thats pretty much the disp of an all carbon Andrews 39.

3K heavier than a J125. Hmmmm

 

And pretty much the same weight as an Aerodyne 38.. I'm not hyper impressed.

 

J125 is not a fair comparison. Its completely stripped out and much lower freeboard and zero amenities. Aerodyne, is fair, still impressive with 2 ft longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I asked for some specs since they're not listed. Was told these are subject to change...

 

She's only 0.4' wider than the 122. Considering the modern ocean racer premise, I figured that she'd be wider.

 

LOA - 40' LWL - 35.78' Beam - 12.3' DISP - 11.500lbs DRAFT - 7.8'

A bit disappointing, for a short hander more form stability would be nice. Disp is pretty amazing though, thats pretty much the disp of an all carbon Andrews 39.

3K heavier than a J125. Hmmmm

 

And pretty much the same weight as an Aerodyne 38.. I'm not hyper impressed.

J125 is not a fair comparison. Its completely stripped out and much lower freeboard and zero amenities. Aerodyne, is fair, still impressive with 2 ft longer.

I mean when we're comparing fast J boats then the 125 has to come into the conversation. I assume it will be faster than the Aerodyne as well(especially upwind) but I don't think it will be revolutionary. We sail boat for boat with the 122 on the Aerodyne. They're a little quicker upwind, we have them downwind.

 

 

 

I asked for some specs since they're not listed. Was told these are subject to change...

 

She's only 0.4' wider than the 122. Considering the modern ocean racer premise, I figured that she'd be wider.

 

LOA - 40' LWL - 35.78' Beam - 12.3' DISP - 11.500lbs DRAFT - 7.8'

A bit disappointing, for a short hander more form stability would be nice. Disp is pretty amazing though, thats pretty much the disp of an all carbon Andrews 39.

3K heavier than a J125. Hmmmm

 

And pretty much the same weight as an Aerodyne 38.. I'm not hyper impressed.

J125 is not a fair comparison. Its completely stripped out and much lower freeboard and zero amenities. Aerodyne, is fair, still impressive with 2 ft longer.

I mean when we're comparing fast J boats then the 125 has to come into the conversation. I assume it will be faster than the Aerodyne as well(especially upwind) but I don't think it will be revolutionary. We sail boat for boat with the 122 on the Aerodyne. They're a little quicker upwind, we have them downwind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only revolution J Boats is trying to introduce here is needing fewer crew on a big boat. Not a performance revolution. Personally, my feeling is that is where the revolution needs to happen. If you want a faster boat, buy a faster boat. Simple. If you want to race at J/121 speeds with 4 or 5 crew, what are your options, particularly offshore? If you want to cruise at J/121 speeds at this price limit, what are your options? To me, this boat fits into a gap in the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be very interesting to see how the performance compares to the Aerodyne 38. My suspicion is that it will sail circles around it, given the relative performance of the J/122 and the displacement of the J/122.

 

Unless I'm missing something a J/111, J/122 and Aerodyne 38 are pretty similar on the water (1.090ish in IRC).

 

The J/121 will probably be 5-7% faster than that trio.

 

This will be Ker 11.3, Landmark/Mills 43 and ClubSwan 42 territory :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only revolution J Boats is trying to introduce here is needing fewer crew on a big boat. Not a performance revolution. Personally, my feeling is that is where the revolution needs to happen. If you want a faster boat, buy a faster boat. Simple. If you want to race at J/121 speeds with 4 or 5 crew, what are your options, particularly offshore? If you want to cruise at J/121 speeds at this price limit, what are your options? To me, this boat fits into a gap in the market.

Fair point, curious to see how many they sell over the next 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only revolution J Boats is trying to introduce here is needing fewer crew on a big boat. Not a performance revolution. Personally, my feeling is that is where the revolution needs to happen. If you want a faster boat, buy a faster boat. Simple. If you want to race at J/121 speeds with 4 or 5 crew, what are your options, particularly offshore? If you want to cruise at J/121 speeds at this price limit, what are your options? To me, this boat fits into a gap in the market.

Fair point, curious to see how many they sell over the next 5 years.

I'll bet 150 over 5 years globally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only revolution J Boats is trying to introduce here is needing fewer crew on a big boat. Not a performance revolution. Personally, my feeling is that is where the revolution needs to happen. If you want a faster boat, buy a faster boat. Simple. If you want to race at J/121 speeds with 4 or 5 crew, what are your options, particularly offshore? If you want to cruise at J/121 speeds at this price limit, what are your options? To me, this boat fits into a gap in the market.

 

i sailed on a boat 20 years ago with water ballast - so i'm not sure it's very revolutionary...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure anything J/Boats does is revolutionary...what they are really good at is taking things that were revolutionary, and making them easily usable by the average performance oriented sailor...

 

Right now there is no production 40 footer that is easily raced with a small crew...I ran a 12 or 15 person crew list to try to make sure I had 6 or 7 folks to race my 30 ft PHRF boat. If they can make all the systems work in an integrated way to let 4 or 5 crew race a 40 footer, well, that's revolution enough in my mind....And lets me dream of racing a 30 footer with 3 or 4. That would be huge, and make crew management/recruiting a lot less distasteful/brdensome than it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it would be easy to race a 92, 92s or 88 with 3 or 4, (I used to race my 109 with 6 on occasion and I did a frostbite series on my S2 9.1 with 4...took 3rd overall in a 5 race series too) without a set of class rules limiting crew to that number, and then having a PHRF OD rating, means some other guy is out there on his 92 on a breezy day with a PRHF max of 8 holding the rail down, and he goes upwind with his genoa, while us guys with on 4 aboard would have to switch down to the 3...

 

I know, minor complaint...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...And lets me dream of racing a 30 footer with 3 or 4. T

 

Like a J92! :rolleyes:

 

Or J/88 :rolleyes:

 

j92 is a fair point....j88 thats more an inshore toy imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't all these comments about 30 footers with 3-4 people missing crash's point? His point, as I understand it, is that if there were a 30 footer with a design brief like a J/121 (i.e. efficient water ballast and furlers) that you COULD sail the 30 footer effectively with 3-4 people. Obviously, you can't do that with a J/92 or J/88 as they don't have the design features of the J/121.

 

We have a 28 footer. 4 people needed to sail it around the buoys, 3 long-course, and 6 to go upwind effectively. 2 people are nothing but ballast and in the way going downwind. If we have effective water ballast we would never sail with more than 4 and be faster overall both upwind and downwind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...And lets me dream of racing a 30 footer with 3 or 4. T

 

Like a J92! :rolleyes:

Or J/88 :rolleyes:

j92 is a fair point....j88 thats more an inshore toy imo

Of course the whole exchange was clearly tongue in cheek, but go for it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't all these comments about 30 footers with 3-4 people missing crash's point? His point, as I understand it, is that if there were a 30 footer with a design brief like a J/121 (i.e. efficient water ballast and furlers) that you COULD sail the 30 footer effectively with 3-4 people. Obviously, you can't do that with a J/92 or J/88 as they don't have the design features of the J/121.

 

We have a 28 footer. 4 people needed to sail it around the buoys, 3 long-course, and 6 to go upwind effectively. 2 people are nothing but ballast and in the way going downwind. If we have effective water ballast we would never sail with more than 4 and be faster overall both upwind and downwind.

This...I needed 5 to race the 9.1 effectively around the bouys...but PHRF allows you 8. So 3 are there to be ballast upwind...and while they all can "have" a job, it's mostly to give them one to have them be involved, rather then needing them to do it...

 

but I got that Mid's and BTL's points were a meant tongue-in-cheek..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't all these comments about 30 footers with 3-4 people missing crash's point? His point, as I understand it, is that if there were a 30 footer with a design brief like a J/121 (i.e. efficient water ballast and furlers) that you COULD sail the 30 footer effectively with 3-4 people. Obviously, you can't do that with a J/92 or J/88 as they don't have the design features of the J/121.

 

We have a 28 footer. 4 people needed to sail it around the buoys, 3 long-course, and 6 to go upwind effectively. 2 people are nothing but ballast and in the way going downwind. If we have effective water ballast we would never sail with more than 4 and be faster overall both upwind and downwind.

3-4 people missing? While a J/92 or a J/88 might not be optimal with 4 people, there's no reason you couldn't sail race either effectively with 4 in any reasonable condition (LT 25 knots). The J/88 only allows 6 OD, and many of the best owners consistently sail with 5 in all conditions.

 

But again, you missed the :rolleyes: 's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what I missed. The original comment was sailing with 3-4. The J/88's, it sounds like, sail with 5 or 6. The point is that a waterballasted boat like a J/88 could sail competitively with 3 or 4 and be faster both upwind and downwind. That would be a much better boat, in my opinion, but then I don't like people.

 

Also, I didn't say 3-4 people missing. I said the the comments about 3-4 people are missing crash's point. Totally different meaning. Missing people, missing point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 2 1 a cool boat ....or at least i think it will be.

but for half a million....better be.

 

i was saying 92 is closer to the purpose than 88.... all three of them and every other boat ever built r all toys so iron

any panties that might have become bunched.

 

oh ok emojis .....sorry here's one

^_^ i dont know wtf it means either.

 

 

also i think 4 is optimal in a 92 with 3 my next choice. Then 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest J/Newsletter shows the boat popped out of the mold. Looks like quit the departure from standard J/Boat design language. Very wide in back for a J/Boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest J/Newsletter shows the boat popped out of the mold. Looks like quit the departure from standard J/Boat design language. Very wide in back for a J/Boat.

The marketing copy seemed a little over the top, even for a confessed J/Boats fanboy!

(Newport, RI)- Air space, that is, at CCF Composites in Bristol, RI! It is an exciting development in the new J/121 offshore speedster project. She looks sleek and very fast!

 

Elon Musk’s Space-X or Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin projects have nothing on the hypersonic capabilities of the latest sailing machine evolving off the drawing boards from the J/Design Team. Optimized for short-handed sailing, you can see from these photos the J/121 has a knife-like bow to cut through the seas with minimal resistance and powerful stern-quarters that will permit her to race down the waves at 20+ kt speeds all day long offshore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I asked for some specs since they're not listed. Was told these are subject to change...

 

She's only 0.4' wider than the 122. Considering the modern ocean racer premise, I figured that she'd be wider.

 

LOA - 40' LWL - 35.78' Beam - 12.3' DISP - 11.500lbs DRAFT - 7.8'[/size]

 

A bit disappointing, for a short hander more form stability would be nice. Disp is pretty amazing though, thats pretty much the disp of an all carbon Andrews 39.

For some reason I hadn't realized the 112e was a different hull than a j111....it's a foot more stability....I have owned a couple j boats and really like them...I have been disappointed in their short handed offerings and the 121 is really cool in that direction but too much boat for me. If they gave the 112e some of the 11s treatment and added water ballast...I'd sorta get uncomfortable....

 

It seems like it would be easy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 3:55 PM, JL92S said:

It's awfully quiet over here...

Yes, but there has not been any news on it lately. Isn't the launch of hull no 1 was projected for this August? Im really looking forward to see it already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 5:24 PM, vikram said:

1 2 1 a cool boat ....or at least i think it will be.

but for half a million....better be.

 

pretty sure i'd rather have a Pogo 12.50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, us7070 said:

pretty sure i'd rather have a Pogo 12.50

Its a really tough choice. If for cruising, then Pogo has so much more boat to offer without a doubt, but if racing,  its so beamy with so much wetted surface and a punishing rating. Just last weekend it came in about 1 hr before a well-sailed Hanse 375 after 190 nm. Phrf 6 vs. 114. Im sure 121 would have kicked ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Spin Echo said:

Its a really tough choice. If for cruising, then Pogo has so much more boat to offer without a doubt, but if racing,  its so beamy with so much wetted surface and a punishing rating. Just last weekend it came in about 1 hr before a well-sailed Hanse 375 after 190 nm. Phrf 6 vs. 114. Im sure 121 would have kicked ass.

 

mostly what that observation proves, is that single number rating schemes don't work very well

if the race is in light wind.., and/or has a lot of beating, then a boat like the 12.50 will probably not sail to its rating.., and that's more of an indictment of the rating system than of the boat generally.

if i was going to sail across an ocean short handed.., i think i'd rather have the pogo than than the hanse

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, us7070 said:

 

mostly what that observation proves, is that single number rating schemes don't work very well

if the race is in light wind.., and/or has a lot of beating, then a boat like the 12.50 will probably not sail to its rating.., and that's more of an indictment of the rating system than of the boat generally.

if i was going to sail across an ocean short handed.., i think i'd rather have the pogo than than the hanse

 

I agree with you 100%. Horses for courses. Handicap rules suck. Across oceans shorthanded and cruising, Pogo no question. Racing in any handicap system, i'll have to pick the 121.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bshores said:

Any insider information on when this thing is launching?  Looking forward to seeing the finished product.

Test sails with customers in September, so I guess we'll see a splash soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2016 at 3:32 PM, CrushDigital said:

Won't that just make it a J122 with two wheels, kinda kills the whole "less crew" thing, which features prominently in their advertising / design brief.

122 like 109 is an IRC optimized design. 121 seems more in the lighter, faster, damn the rating family like 111 & 88 to a certain extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody at J-Boats has sailed a well tuned and sailed 125 in the ocean, so I don't think they realize how quick they are.

At least that's my assumption when I read the silly advertisement for this new boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Trevor B said:

Nobody at J-Boats has sailed a well tuned and sailed 125 in the ocean, so I don't think they realize how quick they are.

At least that's my assumption when I read the silly advertisement for this new boat.

the 121 will cruise too - a big factor for about 90% of people buying 40ft sailboats.., and they will sell 10X as many 121's as they sold 125's

so, it's not "silly", if you are making boats as a business.

and, if the 125 molds are still around, and usable, you could probably get a new 125 built

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, us7070 said:

the 121 will cruise too - a big factor for about 90% of people buying 40ft sailboats.., and they will sell 10X as many 121's as they sold 125's

so, it's not "silly", if you are making boats as a business.

and, if the 125 molds are still around, and usable, you could probably get a new 125 built

Yup, also 125 built in carbon would be a few hundred grand more. Tough sell in a tough market. How many production (non-custom) builders of sailboats are left in US? Even Sabre is building motorboats now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it have active water ballast (as in you can pump leeward tanks into windward tanks for extra rail meat)?   Is that even legal in PHRF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks nice

i hope they sell a lot of them. from what i know it probably wouldn't be what i would buy at that price, but i guess it will be just right for some people. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spin Echo said:

 

20994337_10155769015624558_3394761754856998226_n.jpg

The bobstay is I think a new idea for a stock J (I've seen attachments bobstayed half-ish way along the sprit). Is this for increased luff tensions on Code Zeros and the like, or is it a way of reducing the layup (and thus weight) of the sprit itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those not really paying attention, the idea wasn't to build a boat faster than any previous J in its size range.  The idea was to build one that only needs half the crew of any J in its size range...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crash said:

For those not really paying attention, the idea wasn't to build a boat faster than any previous J in its size range.  The idea was to build one that only needs half the crew of any J in its size range...

I hope this isn't a classic jboat case where they have a great recipe with all the best ingredients and then slightly undercook it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boat is a lot lighter than the 122, not sure about sail area but it has the advantage of using full crew + water ballast upwind and dumping the water downwind in PHRF.

I thought with lighter weight and more movable (and removable) ballast the rating would be much lower?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, given that it's a "PHRF" rating.., and that the P in PHRF stands for "performance"..., and that nobody has had a chance to observe the performance of the boat yet.., the rating has to be viewed as provisional - a best guess...

anyway.., they didn't set out to build the fastest 40ft boat they could

they know that their buyers are looking at the total package, and that speed is only one part of that package.

there are already 40ft boats for people who rank speed at the top of the list - say the melges 40 - and i haven't heard that they are selling very many of them.

the aim for this boat seems to be more like that of the  pogo 12.50 - and i understand there is a pretty long wait for one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, woodpecker said:

The boat is a lot lighter than the 122, not sure about sail area but it has the advantage of using full crew + water ballast upwind and dumping the water downwind in PHRF.

I thought with lighter weight and more movable (and removable) ballast the rating would be much lower?

Does the 30 rating allow for water ballast use?  I didn't think phrf Narragansett bay allowed water ballast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crashtestdummy said:

Does the 30 rating allow for water ballast use?  I didn't think phrf Narragansett bay allowed water ballast. 

I asked that earlier and got no response.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the comments of the cert it says that it is for fully crewed.  PHRF-NB does allow for water ballast but that is not reflected on that cert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2017 at 5:45 PM, Geronimo said:

Yikes on the main flake job...although probably not easy on brand new 3di's

roll the damn sail  ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious what PHRF-NE is going to give it as I guess they are doing the Figawi next year

Not sure why the big discrepancy in ratings between the 120 and the 122, 9 sec a mile.

            NB      NE

120      45        51

122      36        33

121      30         ?

125       -3        -3

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites