• 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.  
pacice

Foiling Monohull - what would it look like?

260 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Slower ?

First ACs were a design contest between fastest US and english hulls

AC 32 was a design contest between the fastest cat and the fastest tri

AC33 was a design contest between an archimedian and a foiler first, and then the two fatest foilers

AC34 was a design contest between types between fastest foils allowing 40 kts in 10 kts of wind

AC35 should have been a contest between bad ass multi foilers

 

And now you want to come back to a last century concept and tell us that slow is good ? What a fucking joke. You don't even believe what you say.

I did not expect such a low.

But you're wrong. It's as simple as that.

The first AC was not about the fastest US hull; America was not the fastest yacht in the USA. The fastest British boat pulled out to help a damaged competitor.

The second AC wasn't about the fastest British hull, but a pretty run-of-the-mill cruiser/racer.

The third AC was about a British cruiser/racer that was known to be a complete flop even before she left England.

The fourth and fifth challengers weren't fast boats, and they weren't British.

The sixth challenger was a pretty quick boat.

The seventh challenger was a cruising boat that was a liveaboard home.

The eight challenger was the quickest hull in Britain.

The ninth, like most of the next few, was pretty much just a good example of the normal big class British boat.

And then, of course, they got into the 12s, which were probably not the fastest hulls in the UK and certainly not the fastest one in the USA; in fact I don't think they were even the fastest class racing hull in the USA. Same with the IACC boats.

 

Simple fact is, you are wrong. The AC has almost never been about boats that were significantly faster than the top hulls, and for decades on end they were much slower. The fact that lots of people believe the PR spin doesn't mean it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Jay said:

Moths and kitefoilers can go faster than multis. If you want the ultimate in modern design and efficiency, go for a kitefoiler or a Moth. If you're not going for the ultimate then a mono is no worse than a cat.

 

Wrong, the AC50 was already faster and more advanced, new generation of foils with flaps will even increase it. While some want to come back to the last century....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Jay said:

But you're wrong. It's as simple as that.

The first AC was not about the fastest US hull; America was not the fastest yacht in the USA. The fastest British boat pulled out to help a damaged competitor.

The second AC wasn't about the fastest British hull, but a pretty run-of-the-mill cruiser/racer.

The third AC was about a British cruiser/racer that was known to be a complete flop even before she left England.

The fourth and fifth challengers weren't fast boats, and they weren't British.

The sixth challenger was a pretty quick boat.

The seventh challenger was a cruising boat that was a liveaboard home.

The eight challenger was the quickest hull in Britain.

The ninth, like most of the next few, was pretty much just a good example of the normal big class British boat.

And then, of course, they got into the 12s, which were probably not the fastest hulls in the UK and certainly not the fastest one in the USA; in fact I don't think they were even the fastest class racing hull in the USA. Same with the IACC boats.

 

Simple fact is, you are wrong. The AC has almost never been about boats that were significantly faster than the top hulls, and for decades on end they were much slower. The fact that lots of people believe the PR spin doesn't mean it's true.

Obviously, at this time, the rule also added that boat had to cross the atlantic at their own bottom, which prevented some boats to participate. You had a double requirement, be fast and cross the altantic.  I never said the AC was fair, but it had never been a slower contest, except for some now.

Amazing how you can, at the same time, use the seaworthiness on one side and the foiling kite on the other, to try to justify the present choice to come back to a mono.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but once again you are wrong.

For a start, there's no record of any faster boats in the UK that couldn't participate because of the "own bottom" rule. There were racing boats that were too big and theoretically too fast to race (Maria, Satanita, Westward, etc) - but no big racing boats that were not seaworthy enough.

Secondly, the AC WAS a slower contest, from 1958 to 2010 - the era when it had the greatest number of entries, and the greatest number of countries. The early 12s were slower than the remaining Ms (which still sometimes raced as a class around that era) and often slower than the CCA maxis. From about 1968, when multis like Manureva and Windward Passage started to come out, the AC boats were clearly slower. Same with the IACC boats. Do you seriously reckon that a 12 Metre could have had the slightest chance against Jet Services V or Lada Poch or even something like Spirit of America? To compare an IACC boat with something like Apricot or Enza is just silly - the AC boat was clearly much slower.

The AC HAS been "a slower contest" for many years - in fact it is much more in the history of the AC to have it a slower contest, or a contest using boats that are practically the same as the normal British regatta boat, than it is to have it in something much faster. If you want to be faithful to the spirit of the AC we'd probably use an Open 60; that was the fastest boat regularly used in normal British yacht racing last season.

It's quite weird that people keep on claiming that the AC boats have always been the fastest thing around, or that the AC started off with the fastest boats. That is simply not true, and anyone who claims it to be true is just showing that they don't know the history of the event. That was fine a while ago, but now that all the information is available on the net there's no excuse for sticking to falsehoods.

Thirdly, we know from what Schuyler wrote that they didn't want the Cup to be raced for by an inshore boat like the AC72, AC50 and IACC boat. That means that these days, the AC boat will not be the fastest boat around an inshore course no matter what.  If we have the fastest boats, we must breach the original Deed in spirit and in letter and go against AC tradition. If we do that, all we have is a cheap and ugly trophy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first i didn't like the idea of multi-hulls, I thought they would be slow to tack and reduce much of the match racing element. But I thought foiling added another dimension and the sheer speed was impressive to watch. By the last cup I thought we'd got to a point where the handling was acceptable, and with another cup I was sure we'd see even further improvement in the match racing. 

I still get why people would like a return to the displacement monohulls though. race-able in a wider variety of weather and more relatable to the sailing many of us do. Wouldn't be my choice now, but I can understand the opinion. I could quite happily sit at a bar and discuss with someone of this persuasion of the relative merits. 

What I can't understand is foiling mono's. You seem to lose all the maneuverability advantages and proximity that monohulls offer, plus the tactical options of downwind cover. But you also lose the performance advantage of a mutlihull and it's extreme leverage upwind without adding weight. 

People on here posting up 'cool' pictures of foiling mono's seem oblivious that none of those pictures show a boat closer to the wind than a reach! Fine if the next AC is a reach across the Atlantic... but you'll likely end up watching 2 minutes of a boat foiling downwind, before 20 minutes of it getting back to the weather mark in displacement mode.

And those posting pictures of foiling dinghies and saying "this but scaled up". I'm not sure I could entertain a conversation with those people. Have they never realised that 'they' are the ballast when sailing a dinghy? And last I checked we couldn't just scale up people. And if we just use  lump of mass instead, how can we even move that mass quick enough with human power alone to make the boat even remotely maneuverable? 

But, hey, what do I know? Maybe, the fact I can't imagine it being possible is a good thing, as it will just make it even more impressive when it works. But personally I think it's just going to be a cluster fuck of tangled foils and plodding boats upwind, which now can't even tack in time to make cover.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Amazing how you can, at the same time, use the seaworthiness on one side and the foiling kite on the other, to try to justify the present choice to come back to a mono.

The mono choice doesn't need justification. It has been made. I suggest you all get used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Jay said:

Sorry, but once again you are wrong.

For a start, there's no record of any faster boats in the UK that couldn't participate because of the "own bottom" rule. There were racing boats that were too big and theoretically too fast to race (Maria, Satanita, Westward, etc) - but no big racing boats that were not seaworthy enough.

Secondly, the AC WAS a slower contest, from 1958 to 2010 - the era when it had the greatest number of entries, and the greatest number of countries. The early 12s were slower than the remaining Ms (which still sometimes raced as a class around that era) and often slower than the CCA maxis. From about 1968, when multis like Manureva and Windward Passage started to come out, the AC boats were clearly slower. Same with the IACC boats. Do you seriously reckon that a 12 Metre could have had the slightest chance against Jet Services V or Lada Poch or even something like Spirit of America? To compare an IACC boat with something like Apricot or Enza is just silly - the AC boat was clearly much slower.

The AC HAS been "a slower contest" for many years - in fact it is much more in the history of the AC to have it a slower contest, or a contest using boats that are practically the same as the normal British regatta boat, than it is to have it in something much faster. If you want to be faithful to the spirit of the AC we'd probably use an Open 60; that was the fastest boat regularly used in normal British yacht racing last season.

It's quite weird that people keep on claiming that the AC boats have always been the fastest thing around, or that the AC started off with the fastest boats. That is simply not true, and anyone who claims it to be true is just showing that they don't know the history of the event. That was fine a while ago, but now that all the information is available on the net there's no excuse for sticking to falsehoods.

Thirdly, we know from what Schuyler wrote that they didn't want the Cup to be raced for by an inshore boat like the AC72, AC50 and IACC boat. That means that these days, the AC boat will not be the fastest boat around an inshore course no matter what.  If we have the fastest boats, we must breach the original Deed in spirit and in letter and go against AC tradition. If we do that, all we have is a cheap and ugly trophy.

 

The America was not the fastest boat at the time, Maria beat her when they trialled before she was accepted from the builder. But, she was faster than what the British threw against her. That is all that mattered, what boat was faster in the particular contest using typical boat types of the era. A TP52 style boat is a lot more 'typical' than a foiling multihull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mozzy656 said:

At first i didn't like the idea of multi-hulls, I thought they would be slow to tack and reduce much of the match racing element. But I thought foiling added another dimension and the sheer speed was impressive to watch. By the last cup I thought we'd got to a point where the handling was acceptable, and with another cup I was sure we'd see even further improvement in the match racing. 

I still get why people would like a return to the displacement monohulls though. race-able in a wider variety of weather and more relatable to the sailing many of us do. Wouldn't be my choice now, but I can understand the opinion. I could quite happily sit at a bar and discuss with someone of this persuasion of the relative merits. 

What I can't understand is foiling mono's. You seem to lose all the maneuverability advantages and proximity that monohulls offer, plus the tactical options of downwind cover. But you also lose the performance advantage of a mutlihull and it's extreme leverage upwind without adding weight. 

People on here posting up 'cool' pictures of foiling mono's seem oblivious that none of those pictures show a boat closer to the wind than a reach! Fine if the next AC is a reach across the Atlantic... but you'll likely end up watching 2 minutes of a boat foiling downwind, before 20 minutes of it getting back to the weather mark in displacement mode.

And those posting pictures of foiling dinghies and saying "this but scaled up". I'm not sure I could entertain a conversation with those people. Have they never realised that 'they' are the ballast when sailing a dinghy? And last I checked we couldn't just scale up people. And if we just use  lump of mass instead, how can we even move that mass quick enough with human power alone to make the boat even remotely maneuverable? 

But, hey, what do I know? Maybe, the fact I can't imagine it being possible is a good thing, as it will just make it even more impressive when it works. But personally I think it's just going to be a cluster fuck of tangled foils and plodding boats upwind, which now can't even tack in time to make cover.

 

Well said.

 I feel the same way at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mozzy656 said:

(Snip)

But, hey, what do I know? Maybe, the fact I can't imagine it being possible is a good thing, as it will just make it even more impressive when it works. But personally I think it's just going to be a cluster fuck of tangled foils and plodding boats upwind, which now can't even tack in time to make cover.

 

Did you ever imagine those ETNZ crash tacks coming from multi-hulls, Mozzy? No. You did not. I certainly didn't.

But that's the thing about imagination. Let it run and who knows where we'll end up. But that's NOT exclusive to multi-hulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

 

Amazing how you can, at the same time, use the seaworthiness on one side and the foiling kite on the other, to try to justify the present choice to come back to a mono.

I'm not using the seaworthiness of a mono and the foiling kite on the other. Nor do I particularly want the next AC to be in a mono. The point about the foiling kite was that it's you can't logically diss one type of sailing craft because they are slower than another type of sailing craft, when ignoring the fact that there's a third type that's faster than both. If it's silly that a 70 footer can be beaten by an inshore racing 32 footer then it's just as silly that the 32 footer can be beaten by an inshore-racing 3 footer. 

To jeer at the mono because it's slower than a cat while ignoring the kitefoiler is a bit like dissing a SUV because your sportscar is faster while ignoring that a Superbike would beat both of you. It's like a 5ft 7inch guy sneering at a dwarf for being short while ignoring the basketballer next to him. 

The seaworthiness issue is totally different and has nothing to do with the mono versus multi issue. If you actually read the post you'd see that I specifically pointed out than the IACC boat also didn't follow the spirit and letter of Schuyler's Deed. I did that to show it wasn't about how many hulls the boat has, it's about where those hull(s) can go.

Whether they choose a mono OR choose a multi, if they want a boat that adheres to the wishes of the donors of the AC and with the history of the event, they have to choose a boat with a hull tough enough to sail an ocean. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mozzy656 said:

At first i didn't like the idea of multi-hulls, I thought they would be slow to tack and reduce much of the match racing element. But I thought foiling added another dimension and the sheer speed was impressive to watch. By the last cup I thought we'd got to a point where the handling was acceptable, and with another cup I was sure we'd see even further improvement in the match racing. 

I still get why people would like a return to the displacement monohulls though. race-able in a wider variety of weather and more relatable to the sailing many of us do. Wouldn't be my choice now, but I can understand the opinion. I could quite happily sit at a bar and discuss with someone of this persuasion of the relative merits. 

What I can't understand is foiling mono's. You seem to lose all the maneuverability advantages and proximity that monohulls offer, plus the tactical options of downwind cover. But you also lose the performance advantage of a mutlihull and it's extreme leverage upwind without adding weight. 

People on here posting up 'cool' pictures of foiling mono's seem oblivious that none of those pictures show a boat closer to the wind than a reach! Fine if the next AC is a reach across the Atlantic... but you'll likely end up watching 2 minutes of a boat foiling downwind, before 20 minutes of it getting back to the weather mark in displacement mode.

And those posting pictures of foiling dinghies and saying "this but scaled up". I'm not sure I could entertain a conversation with those people. Have they never realised that 'they' are the ballast when sailing a dinghy? And last I checked we couldn't just scale up people. And if we just use  lump of mass instead, how can we even move that mass quick enough with human power alone to make the boat even remotely maneuverable? 

But, hey, what do I know? Maybe, the fact I can't imagine it being possible is a good thing, as it will just make it even more impressive when it works. But personally I think it's just going to be a cluster fuck of tangled foils and plodding boats upwind, which now can't even tack in time to make cover.

 

+1, although to me a blown-up TP52 with foils for reaching would seem like an acceptable compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Jay said:

.. if they want a boat that adheres to the wishes of the donors of the AC..

Why do you suppose that in the most recent DoG Match, AC33 in Valencia, both the Challenger and Defender built the fastest Deed-proscribed course racing boats they could design and build? 

As an aside, why did sailor nationality have nothing to do with any of the NYSC court arguments, but CiC including sails did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Why do you suppose that in the most recent DoG Match, AC33 in Valencia, both the Challenger and Defender built the fastest Deed-prescribed course racing boats they could design and build?

As an aside, why did sailor nationality have nothing to do with any of the NYSC court arguments, but CiC including sails did?

Apparently it was because Larry & Co. didn't give a fuck about the wishes of the donors, or the Cup's history. 

The nationality issue is something different. The example of (and allegations including) people like Joseph Busk shows how complicated it was. I'm not sure there is any definitive answer that anyone has ever found. I haven't even had a chance to really nail down the meaning of "constructed" at the time. Certainly we know that the term was used in formal naval architecture to mean "designer" and had been for eons. It seems to have also been used in that way in NY yachting circles, where designers (and modellers, to use the term of the day) were often but not always also builders.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ CiC was a big deal back in the day, especially with regards to sails where the US had a huge edge (from day one - America's cotton sails were lightyears ahead of the flax windbags used by the Brits at the time) - I believe the NYYC opened it in up a bit in the 80s to promote 'fairness', although I may be remembering that wrong. In any case, that ship - a US edge - sailed a long time ago.

But in this age of digital information, where the thing is built is the least of anyone's worries - top build crews can just move to an in-country facility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ CiC was a big deal back in the day, especially with regards to sails where the US had a huge edge (from day one - America's cotton sails were lightyears ahead of the flax windbags used by the Brits at the time) - I believe the NYYC opened it in up a bit in the 80s to promote 'fairness', although I may be remembering that wrong. In any case, that ship - a US edge - sailed a long time ago.

But in this age of digital information, where the thing is built is the least of anyone's worries - top build crews can just move to an in-country facility.

Depends what you call "the day". America used a Ratsey sail unsuccessfully in her race around the Island. I can't find out about who was involved in actually making the sails in the big-boat era.

I don't know who cut the Herbulot spinnakers the Brits used early in the 12 Metre era - perhaps they were copies of the French sails?  We do know that US cloth was also used in the Gretel challenge, and then the NYYC re-interpreted the CinC clause to include sailcloth which forced the Aussies to create KAdron. There's a lot of PR about it in Baverstock's 1967 book, and a brief mention here .  You are of course correct about the NYYC opening the origin of sailcloth up later.

Share this post


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

Apparently it was because Larry & Co. didn't give a fuck about the wishes of the donors, or the Cup's history. 

In a strict DoG Match, exactly as was set down by the donors, the result of the contemplated competition came down to a Constructed in Country 'fastest boats they could design and build' Match.

There is plenty of other great sailing to follow, yes including Olympic Lasers as dogwatch always points out, but the idea that the fundamental point of this particular competition between nations was ~not~ about designing and building the fastest boats possible requires a very convoluted argument given the AC33 evidence.

MC is obviously a different deal but seriously: if the point is still to be fast, then why even try to do it with lead for ballast? To try replicate 18XX 'Tradition'? It feels like just a cheap, modern money-men, fancy-purse-selling, $ell-out. 

There's a J Class already for the Tradition.

 

Share this post


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

The mono choice doesn't need justification. It has been made. I suggest you all get used to it.

The choice has been made you will have to justify it, and you will have to get used to it.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Jay said:

Depends what you call "the day". America used a Ratsey sail unsuccessfully in her race around the Island. I can't find out about who was involved in actually making the sails in the big-boat era.

I don't know who cut the Herbulot spinnakers the Brits used early in the 12 Metre era - perhaps they were copies of the French sails?  We do know that US cloth was also used in the Gretel challenge, and then the NYYC re-interpreted the CinC clause to include sailcloth which forced the Aussies to create KAdron. There's a lot of PR about it in Baverstock's 1967 book, and a brief mention here .  You are of course correct about the NYYC opening the origin of sailcloth up later.

The day goes back to the original cup - reports at the time had America's flatter, cleaner cotton sails being a real advantage. I actually visited the Ratsey loft on City Island many times when I was a kid - my dad used to store his sails there for the winter. There were some amazing photos on the wall.

US cloth in the 70s was way ahead of the game, with Hood and Watts making their own using their own looms and proprietary technology, and North pushing hard with their suppliers to catch up by using resins and yarn tempering. But laminates changed all of that, and 3DL and D4 changed it again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Jay said:

Secondly, the AC WAS a slower contest, from 1958 to 2010 - the era when it had the greatest number of entries, and the greatest number of countries. The early 12s were slower than the remaining Ms (which still sometimes raced as a class around that era) and often slower than the CCA maxis. From about 1968, when multis like Manureva and Windward Passage started to come out, the AC boats were clearly slower. Same with the IACC boats. Do you seriously reckon that a 12 Metre could have had the slightest chance against Jet Services V or Lada Poch or even something like Spirit of America? To compare an IACC boat with something like Apricot or Enza is just silly - the AC boat was clearly much slower.

The AC HAS been "a slower contest" for many years - in fact it is much more in the history of the AC to have it a slower contest, or a contest using boats that are practically the same as the normal British regatta boat, than it is to have it in something much faster. If you want to be faithful to the spirit of the AC we'd probably use an Open 60; that was the fastest boat regularly used in normal British yacht racing last season.

 

Stange that with your knowledge of the AC history you have such a distorted view.

If you want to be faithful to the AC spirit it would not be an AC60, not even a new foiling mono, you would have the fastest boat around Isle of Wight. And that would probably be a MOD70, Gitana, or a foiling catamaran. It would be the fastest boat within the Deed restrictions, which is what GLS wanted.

The AC is not about a slower contest, whatever exception you may find, it confirms the rule. And the exception was with the 12s, but they were not so slow at the beginning, they were later when Jet Service and a few other multi began to be really efficient and fast. But now you want to come back to the old 12 concept while we have an amazing generation of new foilers, nonsense.

I will look with interest 80 ft mono foilers, but perhaps with irony if smaller boats, in the same sea conditions, turn around.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that on any sea conditions, nowadays, a multihull overrides a monohull. If they turn to monohulls, it's only because they like monohulls, Not because of seamanship, match racing or any other excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jorge said:

I guess that on any sea conditions, nowadays, a multihull overrides a monohull. If they turn to monohulls, it's only because they like monohulls, Not because of seamanship, match racing or any other excuse.

P$B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Stange that with your knowledge of the AC history you have such a distorted view.

If you want to be faithful to the AC spirit it would not be an AC60, not even a new foiling mono, you would have the fastest boat around Isle of Wight. And that would probably be a MOD70, Gitana, or a foiling catamaran. It would be the fastest boat within the Deed restrictions, which is what GLS wanted.

The AC is not about a slower contest, whatever exception you may find, it confirms the rule. And the exception was with the 12s, but they were not so slow at the beginning, they were later when Jet Service and a few other multi began to be really efficient and fast. But now you want to come back to the old 12 concept while we have an amazing generation of new foilers, nonsense.

I will look with interest 80 ft mono foilers, but perhaps with irony if smaller boats, in the same sea conditions, turn around.

 

No, my view is not distorted; it's the one that is indicated by facts and figures like class rules and ratings, and by the words and deeds of those who created the AC and made it a legend.

There is no evidence that GLS wanted "the fastest boat within the Deed restrictions". What the authors wanted was a boat that satisfied the mutual consent clause, within those restrictions. The donors did not want to re-play the race around the Isle of Wight. Schuyler made that clear in the letter I noted above. So did the challengers, and (after a delay of one race) the NYYC. That's why they changed it to a match race instead of having one boat against a fleet as in 1851. It's why they changed to a course that was clear of headlands, instead of a course around headlands like in 1851. It's why they brought in measurement rules, unlike in 1851. It's why they had more than one race, unlike in 1851.

They wanted a match racing series in boats that were agreed by mutual consent and even MC matches were to be sailed under the defender's "Rules and Sailing Regulations" which in those days included a rating system, not a reply of 1851. That is very clear from their actions.

We know that the men who actually created the legend that is the AC did NOT think that the boats had to be the fastest boat within the Deed. That is why men like Herreshoff did things like create the Universal Rule, to get rid of fast but radical boats like Reliance. It's why men like Vanderbilt instituted rules like mast weights and accommodation requirements in the Js, and why the NYYC and RYS agreed to bring in 12s. What you are effectively saying is "fuck Vanderbilt, fuck Herreshoff, fuck the NYYC and RYS - I know more about the AC than they do". 

Here's the interior of Galatea, the fourth challenger, and of Ranger. Everyone knew that boats with interiors like this were not "the fastest boat within the Deed" even ignoring the other speed-reducing factors like the sail area limit, the displacement, the end girths and other factors of the rating rules they raced under. 

PS - "the exception that creates the rule" does not mean what you seem to think it does. Google it.

Ranger interior pic.jpg

Galatea interior.jpg

Share this post


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

The day goes back to the original cup - reports at the time had America's flatter, cleaner cotton sails being a real advantage. I actually visited the Ratsey loft on City Island many times when I was a kid - my dad used to store his sails there for the winter. There were some amazing photos on the wall.

US cloth in the 70s was way ahead of the game, with Hood and Watts making their own using their own looms and proprietary technology, and North pushing hard with their suppliers to catch up by using resins and yarn tempering. But laminates changed all of that, and 3DL and D4 changed it again. 

Sorry, I wasn't disputing that America had a sailcloth advantage with her flat cotton sails compared to the baggy British flax sails, and that the USA didn't maintain that for many years (although later in the 1800s Ratseys got close or maybe ahead). I was just saying that I don't know whether sails and sailcloth had to be CiC until after Gretel's challenge. 

The Ratsey loft sounds great. I just found that there's a book on the history of R & L I'll have to buy.

Share this post


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

No, my view is not distorted; it's the one that is indicated by facts and figures like class rules and ratings, and by the words and deeds of those who created the AC and made it a legend.

There is no evidence that GLS wanted "the fastest boat within the Deed restrictions". What the authors wanted was a boat that satisfied the mutual consent clause, within those restrictions. The donors did not want to re-play the race around the Isle of Wight. Schuyler made that clear in the letter I noted above. So did the challengers, and (after a delay of one race) the NYYC. That's why they changed it to a match race instead of having one boat against a fleet as in 1851. It's why they changed to a course that was clear of headlands, instead of a course around headlands like in 1851. It's why they brought in measurement rules, unlike in 1851. It's why they had more than one race, unlike in 1851.

They wanted a match racing series in boats that were agreed by mutual consent and even MC matches were to be sailed under the defender's "Rules and Sailing Regulations" which in those days included a rating system, not a reply of 1851. That is very clear from their actions.

We know that the men who actually created the legend that is the AC did NOT think that the boats had to be the fastest boat within the Deed. That is why men like Herreshoff did things like create the Universal Rule, to get rid of fast but radical boats like Reliance. It's why men like Vanderbilt instituted rules like mast weights and accommodation requirements in the Js, and why the NYYC and RYS agreed to bring in 12s. What you are effectively saying is "fuck Vanderbilt, fuck Herreshoff, fuck the NYYC and RYS - I know more about the AC than they do". 

Here's the interior of Galatea, the fourth challenger, and of Ranger. Everyone knew that boats with interiors like this were not "the fastest boat within the Deed" even ignoring the other speed-reducing factors like the sail area limit, the displacement, the end girths and other factors of the rating rules they raced under. 

PS - "the exception that creates the rule" does not mean what you seem to think it does. Google it.

Ranger interior pic.jpg

Galatea interior.jpg

Ranger weighed 160 tons - a little bit of interior wasn't going to impact the performance. Sure, it wasn't a complete shell, but you'll note that the 'luxury accommodations' don't extend forward of the mast:

 

Screen Shot 2017-09-21 at 4.29.29 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

Ranger weighed 160 tons - a little bit of interior wasn't going to impact the performance. Sure, it wasn't a complete shell, but you'll note that the 'luxury accommodations' don't extend forward of the mast…

Sure, but that's likely because crew didn't deserve any better, not any deference to performance. But WTF does this have to do with the boat for AC 36? They will have SFA accommodation both forward and aft of the mast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the interior of one of NZs most successful racing yachts

3_4.jpg

 

Regarding foiling monos needing a reach: perhaps we can see the return of the great classic course triangle sausage triangle B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surfsailor;

With respect, in this case I'll have to disagree with you and agree with Vanderbilt, who owned and ran the boats. He said that the accommodation that had to go in after the rule change weighed seven tons, or about 5% of the displacement of Enterprise. The more substantial mast that was required by the new rules was only 1/10th as much. At that level of competition, adding 6.5% to the total displacement is enough to destroy a boat's chance. That's why Enterprise was scrapped.

So let's look at the challenges in the 1900s to see what men like Vanderbilt were doing. We get Reliance, and Herreshoff and everyone else says "this is all too silly, the boats are too extreme" and Herreshoff creates the Universal Rule to get back to more conservative designs. Then we get the 1920 Resolute challenge under the Universal Rule, and we see a much more conservative boat. After just one challenge, they change the rules again, bringing in the tighter requirements of the Js and ending the career of Resolute, Vanity and Shamrock IV. Resolute and Vanity rated okay under the rule and raced as trial horses, but they were banned from the Cup because their hulls were not built to Lloyds requirements as required by the new rules which were brought in to make the boats tougher and more useful.

We have one more challenge, and then they tighten the rules again to make the boats still tougher and more useful, ending the career of Enterprise. Two challenges after that, and we move to the 12s.  So in the six challenges from 1901 to 1945, they'd tightened the rules three times, every time to make a more "sensible" boat and every time reducing the potential speed. And then they brought in the 12s, dramatically reducing the speed of the boats and the design envelope. And of course the 12s themselves had the rule tightened on several occasions; cockpit rules, mid-girth mainsail rules, certificate rules etc. 

Time and time again, they tightened the rules, reducing potential boatspeed. That is not the actions of a bunch of people who believe that the goal is to make the fastest possible boat. That is the actions of a bunch of people who followed the tradition of Galatea, Genesta, Valkyrie II and other boats that were just typical big boats of their day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RobG said:

Sure, but that's likely because crew didn't deserve any better, not any deference to performance. But WTF does this have to do with the boat for AC 36? They will have SFA accommodation both forward and aft of the mast.

It's relevant to AC 36 because some people keep on claiming that the AC has always been about having the fastest possible boat within the Deed. The fact that they required the Js to be tough hulls with good accommodation is just one more of many pieces of evidence that proves it's not true.

If we're going to have a boat for AC 36 that follows the tradition of the Cup it would be very different from the ones in AC 33, 34 and 35. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Jay said:

It's relevant to AC 36 because some people keep on claiming that the AC has always been about having the fastest possible boat within the Deed. The fact that they required the Js to be tough hulls with good accommodation is just one more piece of evidence that proves it's not true. 

Sorry, I didn't mean your reply per se, but the discussion of ancient boats.

That the AC has never been about "the fastest boat" is bleeding obvious, otherwise it would be a race between foiling proas like Sailrocket, and certainly not a match race where boat handling, tactics and sailing skill are paramount.

Discussion of whether foiling monos will be faster or slower than the cats is moot. It has already been decided that the next boat will be a foiling mono, so maybe there should be a separate thread about that… it might be called "Foiling Monohull - what would it look like". :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry, some people who have never caught on to the bleeding obvious started complaining that foiling monos were not in the spirit of the Cup 70 posts back and it went on from there.

It could be highly relevant, though, if PB and GD sat down and got someone to work out how to create a boat that followed the tradition of the AC. Arguably if they did that they wouldn't go for a radical full foiler, but something more like a fixed-keel WOXI or Comanche with DSS. So that's one guess at what a foiling mono could look like.

Share this post


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

No, my view is not distorted; it's the one that is indicated by facts and figures like class rules and ratings, and by the words and deeds of those who created the AC and made it a legend.

1) There is no evidence that GLS wanted "the fastest boat within the Deed restrictions". What the authors wanted was a boat that satisfied the mutual consent clause, within those restrictions. The donors did not want to re-play the race around the Isle of Wight. Schuyler made that clear in the letter I noted above. So did the challengers, and (after a delay of one race) the NYYC.

2) That's why they changed it to a match race instead of having one boat against a fleet as in 1851. It's why they changed to a course that was clear of headlands, instead of a course around headlands like in 1851. It's why they brought in measurement rules, unlike in 1851. It's why they had more than one race, unlike in 1851.

3) They wanted a match racing series in boats that were agreed by mutual consent and even MC matches were to be sailed under the defender's "Rules and Sailing Regulations" which in those days included a rating system, not a reply of 1851. That is very clear from their actions.

4) We know that the men who actually created the legend that is the AC did NOT think that the boats had to be the fastest boat within the Deed. That is why men like Herreshoff did things like create the Universal Rule, to get rid of fast but radical boats like Reliance. It's why men like Vanderbilt instituted rules like mast weights and accommodation requirements in the Js, and why the NYYC and RYS agreed to bring in 12s. What you are effectively saying is "fuck Vanderbilt, fuck Herreshoff, fuck the NYYC and RYS - I know more about the AC than they do". 

5) Here's the interior of Galatea, the fourth challenger, and of Ranger. Everyone knew that boats with interiors like this were not "the fastest boat within the Deed" even ignoring the other speed-reducing factors like the sail area limit, the displacement, the end girths and other factors of the rating rules they raced under. 

6) PS - "the exception that creates the rule" does not mean what you seem to think it does. Google it.

 

 

Even more distorted interpretation of facts.

1) GLS DoG match was not about the slower boat but the fastest.

2) They did not change the match race and the course clear of headlands for a slower boat, but to avoid cheating, and you know the case that created the rule.

3) The MC is not about a slower boat but a cheaper yacht. If you want to make the equation, you can, not me.

4) You mix Vanderbilt, the LE equivalent and Herressohff, the Verdier of the time.

5) What was possible at the time without limitng speed is not the case now. Yachts were lead mines, not foilers

6) A exception can only exist with a rule, I know :)

 

At the end, at least these boats were the fastest of their time:

- Stars and Stripes

- USA17 (AC32)

- USA 17 (AC33)

- TNZ (AC34)

Time to cut the BS about the AC being about the slower boat in order to justify a come back to the last century.

And, BTW, who will be interested by an AC with monos in 4 years, knowing that hundreds of other OD mono races exist ? Yawn..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Even more distorted interpretation of facts.

1) GLS DoG match was not about the slower boat but the fastest.

2) They did not change the match race and the course clear of headlands for a slower boat, but to avoid cheating, and you know the case that created the rule.

3) The MC is not about a slower boat but a cheaper yacht. If you want to make the equation, you can, not me.

4) You mix Vanderbilt, the LE equivalent and Herressohff, the Verdier of the time.

5) What was possible at the time without limitng speed is not the case now. Yachts were lead mines, not foilers

6) A exception can only exist with a rule, I know :)

 

At the end, at least these boats were the fastest of their time:

- Stars and Stripes

- USA17 (AC32)

- USA 17 (AC33)

- TNZ (AC34)

Time to cut the BS about the AC being about the slower boat in order to justify a come back to the last century.

And, BTW, who will be interested by an AC with monos in 4 years, knowing that hundreds of other OD mono races exist ? Yawn..

You're an angry little man right now TC. 

I'm assuming it's simply due to your obvious love of cats, although I guess it could be because the change of class just shivved Groupamas chances of entering the next AC.

I have no problem with you hating on the new class. I reserve the right to do the same. But whinging on about how Bertelli somehow owns etnz now is really a level of pathetic that I never thought I would see from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Even more distorted interpretation of facts.

1) GLS DoG match was not about the slower boat but the fastest.

2) They did not change the match race and the course clear of headlands for a slower boat, but to avoid cheating, and you know the case that created the rule.

3) The MC is not about a slower boat but a cheaper yacht. If you want to make the equation, you can, not me.

4) You mix Vanderbilt, the LE equivalent and Herressohff, the Verdier of the time.

5) What was possible at the time without limitng speed is not the case now. Yachts were lead mines, not foilers

6) A exception can only exist with a rule, I know :)

 

At the end, at least these boats were the fastest of their time:

- Stars and Stripes

- USA17 (AC32)

- USA 17 (AC33)

- TNZ (AC34)

Time to cut the BS about the AC being about the slower boat in order to justify a come back to the last century.

And, BTW, who will be interested by an AC with monos in 4 years, knowing that hundreds of other OD mono races exist ? Yawn..

OD monos? Sure. But what makes you think the new ACC will be OD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Even more distorted interpretation of facts.

1) GLS DoG match was not about the slower boat but the fastest.

The "DoG match" was basically unheard of for 120 years. The people who made the Cup into a legend avoided it for good reason. The DoG match is just a fallback IN CASE nothing better like mutual consent can be found and the people who consented almost always chose boats that were NOT the fastest thing they could make. 

2) They did not change the match race and the course clear of headlands for a slower boat, but to avoid cheating, and you know the case that created the rule.

No, please tell me about it.

3) The MC is not about a slower boat but a cheaper yacht. If you want to make the equation, you can, not me.

Sometimes cheaper, often tougher, more useful, more durable and more able to race in normal regattas - which the British challengers normally did 'till the 1980s. The interior and heavier mast didn't make Js cheaper - it made them tougher and safer and more useful and durable. The requirement for self draining cockpits in 12s didn't make them cheaper; it made them safer. The point is again that the legends of the Cup did NOT try to make the boats the fastest thing they could.

4) You mix Vanderbilt, the LE equivalent and Herressohff, the Verdier of the time.

No, I don't mix the owner with the designer. They were in different capacities but working towards the same thing in many ways. Herreshoff was quite explicit about why he made the Universal Rule - it's because he felt that boats like Reliance were bad for the sport. He did not want the AC to be in flimsy, unseaworthy single-purpose boats but to be in tougher boats that were more practical and had a longer lifespan.  

5) What was possible at the time without limitng speed is not the case now. Yachts were lead mines, not foilers

Okay, so you agree that the foilers are very different to the boats that were traditionally in the AC? So in that case you can't claim that the foilers uphold the tradition. You can't have it both ways.

6) A exception can only exist with a rule, I know :)

 

At the end, at least these boats were the fastest of their time:

- Stars and Stripes

- USA17 (AC32)

- USA 17 (AC33)

- TNZ (AC34)

Time to cut the BS about the AC being about the slower boat in order to justify a come back to the last century.

And, BTW, who will be interested by an AC with monos in 4 years, knowing that hundreds of other OD mono races exist ? Yawn..

Other mono races have existed for 170 years. That hasn't changed. Tornadoes are now slower than N20FCS, little N17s and tiny kitefoilers. Does that mean that they bore you? If Tornadoes don't bore a Tornado sailor then why should monos bore mono sailors? 

Yes, four out of 35 winners were the fastest of the time, You could add Reliance and a few more that were marginally quicker than other boats in normal inshore conditions. That means that about 25 out of 35 winners or more were NOT the fastest boats of the time at all or by a significant margin. That means that anyone trying to claim that he AC is all about the fastest boats is talking shit.

For 40 years or so, there were much faster boats. For decades before that, there were boats that were as fast, almost as fast, or faster in some conditions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I won't read this thread any more because I want to stop the hijack that TC and other multi fans started a couple of pages back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11-9-2017 at 10:13 AM, Tornado_ALIVE said:

Anyone who thinks match racing in foiled monos will be easier / better than Multis are a fool.  If it has a canting keel, it will be a lot slower.  The foiling Multis turned bloody quickly.  If Monos are developing high boat speeds, they will also weigh up the cost of doing manoeuvres around the course and minimise manoeuvres to what is only really necessary.  The only way to bring back match racing that will please the purists is to slow the boats down..... So you really want to see that. Some may!

Well said. Especially the foiling tack will be challenging with the new foiling mono's.
How will a matchrace look like..
My guess they can not foil 100 percent like in the last cup.

If so.. the designer and crew from the 100 percent foiler will be the new winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jaysper said:

You're an angry little man right now TC. 

I'm assuming it's simply due to your obvious love of cats, although I guess it could be because the change of class just shivved Groupamas chances of entering the next AC.

I have no problem with you hating on the new class. I reserve the right to do the same. But whinging on about how Bertelli somehow owns etnz now is really a level of pathetic that I never thought I would see from you.

I am not angry but afraid to be bored. It is not about Groupama, or even my love of cats, but my love of bad ass boats. Have you been in SF with 2 AC72 screaming at 40 kts in front of you ? why would I bother travel to watch a "slower is better" mono race ?

I did not say Bertelli owned etnz, but I suspect he is the cause, I don't think a kiwi would have gone that way. I may be wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

OD monos? Sure. But what makes you think the new ACC will be OD?

Sorry, I did not explain. I was referring to the point that some were bringing that closer races with mono would be better. ACC monos won't be OD, but why try to copy mono class races ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

I am not angry but afraid to be bored. It is not about Groupama, or even my love of cats, but my love of bad ass boats. Have you been in SF with 2 AC72 screaming at 40 kts in front of you ? why would I bother travel to watch a "slower is better" mono race ?

I did not say Bertelli owned etnz, but I suspect he is the cause, I don't think a kiwi would have gone that way. I may be wrong though.

Were the AC72s faster than DogZilla? Certainly. Nevertheless, someone claiming that DZ is boring, because there were the faster AC72s in SF asks for serious mental examination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

Were the AC72s faster than DogZilla? Certainly. Nevertheless, someone claiming that DZ is boring, because there were the faster AC72s in SF asks for serious mental examination.

^^ Where did I say that Dz or AC32 was boring ? on the contrary :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tornado-Cat said:

^^ Where did I say that Dz or AC32 was boring ? on the contrary :)

You wrote that you are afraid of being bored. 2 sentences later you ask, why you should watch a slower boat when faster ones exist.
Following that logic, you should be bored by DZ, because you witnessed the AC72s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

You wrote that you are afraid of being bored. 2 sentences later you ask, why you should watch a slower boat when faster ones exist.
Following that logic, you should be bored by DZ, because you witnessed the AC72s.

DZ and AC72s were the fastest badass boats of their time, amazing to watch them racing.

However, following your logic, watch the same boats years or decades later, just sailing, only presents an historical interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

DZ and AC72s were the fastest badass boats of their time, amazing to watch them racing.

However, following your logic, watch the same boats years or decades later, just sailing, only presents an historical interest.

?
I'd love to watch DZ again, there's nothing better - fastest or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Jay said:

Other mono races have existed for 170 years. That hasn't changed. Tornadoes are now slower than N20FCS, little N17s and tiny kitefoilers. Does that mean that they bore you? If Tornadoes don't bore a Tornado sailor then why should monos bore mono sailors? 

Yes, four out of 35 winners were the fastest of the time, You could add Reliance and a few more that were marginally quicker than other boats in normal inshore conditions. That means that about 25 out of 35 winners or more were NOT the fastest boats of the time at all or by a significant margin. That means that anyone trying to claim that he AC is all about the fastest boats is talking shit.

For 40 years or so, there were much faster boats. For decades before that, there were boats that were as fast, almost as fast, or faster in some conditions. 

 

Again, facts but flawed logic.

1) Yes, even for me, new fast foilers are more intesting to watch than Tornado series. But that is an opinion, for what it's worth.

2) You mix AC races with OD class races, the interest of the AC is about the fastest non OD boat

3) AC is about the fastest open boat, as the few I mentioned, or the fastest in an MC box. To take your expression, to say that the AC is about slow boats is talking shit.

We basically have two different views of the AC, what your refer as seemingly to best of the AC, the 12s, are for me worst of it.

You will be please to come back to that time, but w'll have to see if public, sponsors and media follow...

To draw attention a mono will have to be huge, between 80 and 90 ft,and that will require huge budgets too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC has been for the majority of it's history consciously a race between the fastest monohulls  (& eventually only fastest in monohull Class X)

Able Tasman and James Cook reported in 1600's and 1700's respectively, that the various multi-hulled sailing vessels they observed in the Pacific easily out-sailed anything known in the rest of the world.

440px-Tasman-dagboek-a.jpg

(c) Isaack Gilsemans/Team Abel Tasman 1642/43

 

Just the facts Ma'am

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

^^ Where did I say that Dz or AC32 was boring ? on the contrary :)

You always mix up the AC numbers. 

DZ was AC 33

we just had AC 35

Share this post


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

You always mix up the AC numbers. 

DZ was AC 33

we just had AC 35

Not only them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone has a dog in the fight i.e TC who sails and has money, ego etc invested in a particular platform, then the bullshit doeth floweth freely. Fuck foils, Fuck TC and Fuck multihulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

DZ and AC72s were the fastest badass boats of their time, amazing to watch them racing.

However, following your logic, watch the same boats years or decades later, just sailing, only presents an historical interest.

Actual Sail Rocket is the fastest boat of it's time.

I suggest you go try to establish a circuit of those bad boys racing against each other.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Share this post


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

Actual Sail Rocket is the fastest boat of it's time.

I suggest you go try to establish a circuit of those bad boys racing against each other.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Ah ah, take Sail Rocket, I take an Opti, I am faster than you around 3 buoys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Ah ah, take Sail Rocket, I take an Opti, I am faster than you around 3 buoys.

But that's boring man! So slooooow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of talk of something like a super TP52.

So, out of curiosity, what sort of upwind/downwind speeds are we likely to see?

My guess it they they won't be hitting the start line at 35 knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bajakiter said:

(Snip)

My guess it they they won't be hitting the start line at 35 knots.

And you'd be right. What's your point again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That it's gonna be 'the worlds best sailors in slower boats out in the (admittedly beautiful) middle of nowhere'.

Duh.

:P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ That it's gonna be 'the worlds best sailors in slower boats out in the (admittedly beautiful) middle of nowhere'.

Duh.

:P

 

We can call it the "slower boat AC:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ That it's gonna be 'the worlds best sailors in slower boats out in the (admittedly beautiful) middle of nowhere'.

Duh.

:P

 

Ah well. At least you guys are coming around, slowly. "admittedly beautiful" is much better than "God-foresaken". 

By 2021 you'll probably all be on board again. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Ah well. At least you guys are coming around, slowly. "admittedly beautiful" is much better than "God-foresaken". 

By 2021 you'll probably all be on board again. ;)

#SometimesPrincessesJustNeedTimeToUnbunchTheirPanties

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me you won't have the RM you need to foil upwind w/o a canting keel and big racks, plus "Q" foils. But if anyone can find a motorless solution ,Verdier can.....

picture sent to me from Michi--

Worlds first foiling keelboat:

 

Quant 23 flying - Copy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upwind foiling probably depends on heeling to windward (like the moths and foiling kiteboards). That gives you more righting moment and some lift from the airfoil (sail or wing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if the Welbourn "Q" foils are used-the center of lift of the lee foil is way outboard and allows tremendous RM. The AC version could have racks that stick out further than the Q foils which would tend to eliminate foil to hull contact between raceboats. Might be able to get away with the min ballast to allow self-righting with a very deep keel, a canting mast*, no canting keel and still have enough RM from the Q foils to fly upwind and down with no motor running. The crews probably wouldn't have to run any further than they did on the cats.

* crew powered

The Quant-the first foiling keelboat- takes off in 5 knots wind and flys upwind in 7-8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now