Sign in to follow this  
Doug Lord

Volvo Inshore Foiler-Technical Design Info(Schickler and team)

Recommended Posts

Fair amount of detail included. Most recent cat to be designed to have the foils develop the majority of RM which has been well proven in the past. 

NOTE: too big a file for this forum.

Go here to see the pdf:       https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/volvo-inshore-foiler-technical-design-information.59460/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really is one of the worst concepts I have seen in sailing for a long time. The idea of placing the sailors in a cockpit with a lid on it is contrary to everything sailing should be about. Removing the sailors from the elements is fundamentally wrong. They might as well be in a warm room ashore using remote controls. Sailing without exposure to elements is destroys one of the basics of our sport.

I also don't know which is worse, positioning the crew up front or having them sitting in a fixed position. One of the things we learnt from AC was that 'static" crew do not make for a good spectator spectacle but just as big a problem is the sail trimmer not being able to see the sail, or maybe needing to rely on cameras. I admit this isn't my original thoughts, because I read it on a facebook thread where Doug Schickler is taken to task over both things. Doug even claims that you don't need to see the sail because you simply pull it in and leave it. He clearly has never sailed a foiler. Even the AC sailors with their wing needed to adjust the wing sail all the time.

Overall, this might look good in renders but the reality is that it is a truly terrible sailing boat which is deeply flawed. The day that becomes the future of our sport is the day I give the sport up.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is fantastic. Hell, they could turn the trimmers seat around and take the canopy off.... It has a lot of stuff extraordinarily right-like using the foils to develop RM...I think its probably one step too far but I hope not. It would probably make an extraordinary RC model, though.

Schickler and partners render:

Volvo cat -VORInsshoreSchicklerTagliapietra_01.jpg

Share this post


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

This really is one of the worst concepts I have seen in sailing for a long time. The idea of placing the sailors in a cockpit with a lid on it is contrary to everything sailing should be about. Removing the sailors from the elements is fundamentally wrong. They might as well be in a warm room ashore using remote controls. Sailing without exposure to elements is destroys one of the basics of our sport.

I also don't know which is worse, positioning the crew up front or having them sitting in a fixed position. One of the things we learnt from AC was that 'static" crew do not make for a good spectator spectacle but just as big a problem is the sail trimmer not being able to see the sail, or maybe needing to rely on cameras. I admit this isn't my original thoughts, because I read it on a facebook thread where Doug Schickler is taken to task over both things. Doug even claims that you don't need to see the sail because you simply pull it in and leave it. He clearly has never sailed a foiler. Even the AC sailors with their wing needed to adjust the wing sail all the time.

Overall, this might look good in renders but the reality is that it is a truly terrible sailing boat which is deeply flawed. The day that becomes the future of our sport is the day I give the sport up.

"They might as well be in a warm room ashore using remote controls." - Why else do you think Doug's frothing over it?

Things that are absolutely stupid about this design:

Weight distribution, you want to be able to shift crew from side to side, forward and aft, it also looks like shit, ever watched fighter pilots fly? It's seriously boring. This would be worse.

View of the rig. More important than on any other boat I have been on, a foiler needs the BEST view of the sails, literally the exact opposite of this!

The rig its-self, not enough options for sails, also enjoy seeing to leeward when the code zero is deployed!

T-Foils on multihulls have always been slower, name a multihull running T-foils on daggerboards that has been successful. Oh wait you can't, they're too draggy and have only really been successful in the moth class.

Forward mounted rudder is just fucking ew. Sorry guys but when that thing goes bow up in a huge puff I hope you like the ridiculously heavy landing! Instead with it at the rear the rudder goes deeper increasing heave stability.

Forward mounted hull canards have literally never worked in a boat ever, to create the lift, they create drag, in the worst possible place. They only make "tripping" worst.

Even the crazy way this thing is supposed to be disassembled and packed into a container is beyond ridiculous.

I could go on here, but this is clearly the worst submission of all of them. I would way earlier vote for the Foiling Proa over this thing. 

Obviously the right choice is the Perisco Design. Far more simple dismounting (simple folding). Normal Deck layout. Better Foils and Foil Layout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Team_GBR said:

Great mind's think alike ay? That was the one I meant, apologies I caught the wrong name from a title and assumed they were calling themselves "Perisco marine", but that was a sponsor of sorts I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, darth reapius said:

Great mind's think alike ay? Those guys call themselves "Perisco Design" :)

I don't think so. Perisco Marine are the boatbuilders of the new Volvo offshore boat. The link I posted was a design group who say 

Quote

Our design group consists of Gonzalo Redondo and his d3 Applied Technologies team, Adam May, Luc du Bois, Marc Menec from IS3D Engineering, Ocke and Ted Mannerfelt from Mannerfelt Design Team, Giovanni Belgrano from Pure Design & Engineering and Bob Graham

It's a great design by a team who have a pretty good track record for producing real boats, rather than fancy renders (although their graphics are pretty slick!)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Team_GBR said:

I don't think so. Perisco Marine are the boatbuilders of the new Volvo offshore boat. The link I posted was a design group who say 

It's a great design by a team who have a pretty good track record for producing real boats, rather than fancy renders (although their graphics are pretty slick!)

Damn, you quoted me before I edited my comment ;)

I felt like I might have it wrong and went back and checked!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, darth reapius said:

Obviously the right choice is the Perisco Design. Far more simple dismounting (simple folding). Normal Deck layout. Better Foils and Foil Layout. 

Maybe, but as far as I am aware, they were not shortlisted.  Nor was the closed in cat or the proa.    

There were  many more criteria (see list below) than simply flat out speed, folding, deck layout and foil layout.    In fact, none of these were specifically mentioned.  

There was no weighting given to any of the  criteria, ie they were all equal, apart perhaps from 'first and foremost it will be a test of sailing ability'. Or something similar, the Tender Document seems to have been removed?  

Test of sailing ability   

Looks fast and cutting edge

Weight

Total cost

Maintenance cost

Capsize recovery

Simplicity

Ease of build

Ease of assembly

Land storage, boats and containers

Floating storage

Boats per container

Ease of use

Sustainability

Completeness of  Package

Sail in 30 knots

Foil in 6 knots

Foiling tacks and gybes

Lake rig

VIP enjoyment

VIP ease of boarding

Expansion potential

I could not agree more about the Perisco guys.  Great team indeed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, harryproa said:

Maybe, but as far as I am aware, they were not shortlisted.  Nor was the closed in cat or the proa.    

 

I could not agree more about the Perisco guys.  Great team indeed.  

The design team that was mistakenly called Perisco (see above) was shortlisted. I hope we aren't all getting confused. To be clear, the boat we were referring to was this

VolvoVS40AD3_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the real cost of running a say 40 ft cruising foiler. What costs could be expected from breaking a foil on a 40 ft cat? looks great but what are the purchase and running costs of a foiler? "Yes its a revolution but for how many sailors"?

Share this post


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

"They might as well be in a warm room ashore using remote controls." - Why else do you think Doug's frothing over it?

Things that are absolutely stupid about this design:

Weight distribution, you want to be able to shift crew from side to side, forward and aft, it also looks like shit, ever watched fighter pilots fly? It's seriously boring. This would be worse.Not required on a boat that uses the foils for RM which have been proven on record holding boats like Long Shot.

View of the rig. More important than on any other boat I have been on, a foiler needs the BEST view of the sails, literally the exact opposite of this! Easily rectified on this boat!

T-Foils on multihulls have always been slower, name a multihull running T-foils on daggerboards that has been successful. Oh wait you can't, they're too draggy and have only really been successful in the moth class. Uninformed bullshit: the Vampire cat uses a single, canted, wand controlled T -foil (with the other one retracted) and is very fast. In addition the Whisper and S9 both use wand controlled t-foils......Then ,of course, there are the rudder T-foils used with differential lift  on the AC 50. And the main and rudder T-foils on Mirabaud and on the R class and more.

Forward mounted rudder is just fucking ew. Sorry guys but when that thing goes bow up in a huge puff I hope you like the ridiculously heavy landing! Instead with it at the rear the rudder goes deeper increasing heave stability. Not true!

Forward mounted hull canards have literally never worked in a boat ever, to create the lift, they create drag, in the worst possible place. They only make "tripping" worst. Again, just uninformed nonsense.....

 

You just don't know what you're talking about!!!

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you screaming and ranting like a spoilt little child? ........ oh yeah, never mind. 

Share this post


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

You just don't know what you're talking about!!!

Oh really? Find me results where an equally sized T foil boat has beaten an L foil boat? Whats that, the Vampire is consistently beaten by the Phantom and the Nacra F20C? Seriously every boat you brought up there is slower than L foil boats.

How would one rectify the lack of rig view? Literally re-designing the boat/cockpits? Well then it'll be a pretty different boat.

Ahh Doug, long shot was a one direction speed machine, fast on a beam reach, dunno what the upwind/downwind vmg was, also completely different size machine.

Oh, forward rudders are a good idea? Show me one single production boat with a forward mounted rudder.

Fuck you're an idiot, give an explanation as to why people are "WRONG AND UNINFORMED" because if you don't, you look like a spastic child.

Share this post


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

Oh really? Find me results where an equally sized T foil boat has beaten an L foil boat? Whats that, the Vampire is consistently beaten by the Phantom and the Nacra F20C? Seriously every boat you brought up there is slower than L foil boats. "L" foil??-man you are nuts! UptiP  foil boats like the Super Foiler are very fast. An "L" foil boat couldn't get out of its own way unless it had electronic foil control like AC 50's. You should read more. Vampire has just won another major regatta against production boats with UptiP main foils!

How would one rectify the lack of rig view? Literally re-designing the boat/cockpits? Well then it'll be a pretty different boat.

Ahh Doug, long shot was a one direction speed machine, fast on a beam reach, dunno what the upwind/downwind vmg was, also completely different size machine.

Oh, forward rudders are a good idea? Show me one single production boat with a forward mounted rudder. The Schickler foiler is not a production boat and it will have electronic foil control. There have been several fast foilers using a canard configuration-but you wouldn't know about them because you don't read.

Fuck you're an idiot, give an explanation as to why people are "WRONG AND UNINFORMED" because if you don't, you look like a spastic child.

"People" aren't-YOU are!

canard configuration catamaran:

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ours was better.

Maverick and Goose in front of wing for visibility,

3 crew move from one hull to the other,. Positions and orientation permit excellent conning. Six to eight boats racing at 30 knots in confined water demands that there are no blind spots.

Surface sensing foils on bow rudders can be withdrawn so only the foil is below the keel.  Main foils flipped up like gull wing doors. so boat could be dolly launched or tied up to a conventional Marina slip.

Freestanding wing can rotate 360 and also cants. Canting and main foils driven by aft crew member who is also peddling.

Flap surface area was variable by hoisting different tails.

We weren't shortlisted. Good thing, saved us the trouble of preparing a design for a contest that was canceled.

But the boat would have been wicked cool.

SHC

5a14a002d71df_VolvoInshoreFoiler.thumb.jpg.9ed57189a624da35e3adba7ab8f091fd.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks terrific, Steve -thanks for posting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Steve. Interesting concept. While I understand your comment about visibility, we already have fleets of 6-8 foilers doing 30 knots with conventional rigs and crew positions without crashes, so i wonder if this is an over reaction. The issues with high speed foilers has always been about understanding where boats can come at you from so that you look at the right places. I also have a concern about the helm not being able to see what the crew are doing. Sometimes the helm has to react to crew mistakes, or gear failure or just general SNAFU's. Or am i just being too conventional!

I also wonder about the lack of headsails. I remember past comments of yours about headsails with the AC, but surely there is a role for a code o for those lighter wind days.

Overall, it looks like a far better prospect than most of the efforts I have seen, but I guess the wing sail was the biggest problem they would have had with the design. I think you were right to stick with what you are known for, but I see that as the biggest challenge for acceptance, even if that might be a bit unfair.

Finally, you did well not getting to the shortlist! Saved a lot of work and time.

Share this post


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

"People" aren't-YOU are!

canard configuration catamaran:

 

 

Again you post zero evidence other than a video of a boat which has no race wins.

"Oh really? Find me results where an equally sized T foil boat has beaten an L foil boat?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2017 at 3:07 PM, Team_GBR said:

This really is one of the worst concepts I have seen in sailing for a long time. The idea of placing the sailors in a cockpit with a lid on it is contrary to everything sailing should be about. Removing the sailors from the elements is fundamentally wrong. They might as well be in a warm room ashore using remote controls. Sailing without exposure to elements is destroys one of the basics of our sport.

I also don't know which is worse, positioning the crew up front or having them sitting in a fixed position. One of the things we learnt from AC was that 'static" crew do not make for a good spectator spectacle but just as big a problem is the sail trimmer not being able to see the sail, or maybe needing to rely on cameras. I admit this isn't my original thoughts, because I read it on a facebook thread where Doug Schickler is taken to task over both things. Doug even claims that you don't need to see the sail because you simply pull it in and leave it. He clearly has never sailed a foiler. Even the AC sailors with their wing needed to adjust the wing sail all the time.

Overall, this might look good in renders but the reality is that it is a truly terrible sailing boat which is deeply flawed. The day that becomes the future of our sport is the day I give the sport up.

If I may quote Robert Perry: “my Helly Hansen is my dodger.”

One of the J designers is quoted as saying (and I paraphrase) if you order a dodger with the (fill in the blank) J boat, you probably don’t like to sail, and you probably won’t go sailing.

I’ll say no more.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Anarchists,

the timing of the VOR tendering project, the short list decision, and the Foiling Week awards have made for a less than ideal rollout of this design.  There have been a lot of comments made about the design, and I would like to address both negative and positive feedback, though I lack the time to answer each and every critique.

I will start with the direct response received from VOR, in response to our proposal, which came with a boiler plate letter stating that this canard layout project was not on the short list - 

Doug - I should add that I thought your design was just amazing - and looks like the future! I think in our limited timeframe, and One Design build setup (i.e. we can’t do a development programme) it just seemed too many steps for us this time around. 

M.
Mark Turner
<and>
To reiterate what Mark has said, whilst the letter sent did not reflect it properly, there was a clear favourite amongst the selection committee and given a bit more development time, we would have to love to have pulled this off.
Nick
 
Next a version of what was posted on catsailingnews, which was the first public exposure, because it discusses also the background to how this project started -

"The ST Foiler project was originated back in mid 2015, with some our of the box thinking. we asked ourselves: “forsee the evolution of foiling sailing multihull design will have a parallel track to aircraft design?” & “what can be learned from the evolution of powered hydrofoil boats?”  As a partnership between a naval architect and an aerospace engineer, it was a fruitful thought experiment. We knew that a containerized short course racing machine which could exploit the full potential of hydrodynamics to foil early and often, would be attractive. Both the economics and safety of existing and proposed cat designs left room for improvement.  ...  http://www.catsailingnews.com/2017/11/vor-inshore-foiler-proposal-by.html

So, the first thing to understand about the project as you see it, is that it was a concept that was developed for a very specific type of event.  Inshore, short course, 99-100% foiling fleet racing. ST does not for a moment think that this kind of craft is there to erase all other forms of sailing.  Those who say that if this is the future of sailing, why sail?  Well, sail what you like.  I like small skiffs / dinghies and large cats. I am infatuated with minis.  Davide loves the moth. Davide and I have not done as much foiling as maybe half of the readers of this forum, but that does not negate what we bring to the table as designers and engineers very much in the thick of foiling design work e.g. dna G4, Luna Rossa, Team France and many other projects in between.
 
Does anyone dispute that the development from AC45, GC32, AC72, AC50 and others that the current layout, with crew crossing the boat and a foil layout that, when things go very wrong, too often ends in a nosedive, does not provide a platform where VIP sailors and/or non-sailors can be safety foiled around the race course by a professional team?  That is the goal of the design, at its heart.  If not going from side to side, Frank Cammas does not nearly lose his leg falling overboard.  If not positioned in the hull cockpit, Team Softbank Japan sailors do not get narrowly saved by the shroud of their boat in a pre-start.  Foiling racing with just 2 boats is a fair bit more dangerous than most sailors have experienced.  Just as racing an ultimate tri trans ocean is more dangerous than foiling an A class.
 
The canopy was a very difficult choice for me personally.  We debated a lot about the problem of blocking out the environment.  But, it is the decision we made for this boat.  I had discussed the same with Paul Larsen at the little cup in Falmouth.  It was a close call for SR2 IIRC. You may hate it and think it is ridiculous.  It is a reality on this boat for reasons of safety of the crew and the VIP.  Not just for crashes, but also for ease of communication between the crew, and the guest.  Additionally there is windage to consider, which is a huge portion of the total drag at these speeds.
 
The sail trim position has been criticized in other forums (fora?) and I have been perhaps too cavalier in answering the comments.  Yes it is a rotating mast, yes the main twist will be crucial in the sail trim of the boat.  But there is a really substantial difference in this craft that essentially only a handful of boats have utilized.  The co-pilot, the second person in the cockpit, has a primary job of controlling flight height and RM, through the use of differential lift of the port and starboard main foil flaps.  All of the boats foiling RM is developed through hydrodynamics, and it has to ultimately be capped by monitoring rig tension.  We had a simulator made to test this craft, just as they have done in the Cup teams.  The outcome is that RM will be directly adjusted before most sail trim changes are made.  Foils will be actively trimmed even more frequently than sails, because weight is not moving and its more responsive than changing the sails. 
 
Looking at it another way, on e.g. a moth or an A-class, your position on the boat is crucial for the stability and limited in range.  You cannot move more outboard (or aft or fwd) than you are able to do with rack or trapeze.  You put your weight there for stability, not to get the best view of the sail trim.  You go to max stability when you can because it is fast.  To stay there you trim a lot.  On this foiler, the crew needs to be forward.  Putting them in the hulls was rejected for safety and weight reasons.  Again, they are positioned not for sail trim, but because the force balance dictates where they need to be.  So, they have to adapt to the sail trim view they have.  In a high tech boat such as this, expect there to be electronic means of seeing/feeling/sensing the sail trim many times a second.
 
I will go ahead and post this much, expecting some replies.  I hope a few positives and not only what can happen here on Anarchy.  Future topics to elaborate on are the decision to use flapped T foils, the canard configuration including forward rudder (which I am pleased to see Steve shares) and the decision not to use a wing (or a boom).  (edit - don't expect much comment on the packing in a container or non beach launching the boat, please read the tender doc before you throw stones)
 
In the mean time, if you think this project merits your vote for innovation, please link through to the foiling week and do just that.  http://www.foilingweek.com/pages/season-2017/foiling-week-awards-2017/fw-awards-2017-vote/
 
Cheers
 
Doug Schickler
STYACHT
 
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Hi Anarchists,

the timing of the VOR tendering project, the short list decision, and the Foiling Week awards have made for a less than ideal rollout of this design.  There have been a lot of comments made about the design, and I would like to address both negative and positive feedback, though I lack the time to answer each and every critique.

I will start with the direct response received from VOR, in response to our proposal, which came with a boiler plate letter stating that this canard layout project was not on the short list - 

Doug - I should add that I thought your design was just amazing - and looks like the future! I think in our limited timeframe, and One Design build setup (i.e. we can’t do a development programme) it just seemed too many steps for us this time around. 

M.
Mark Turner
<and>
To reiterate what Mark has said, whilst the letter sent did not reflect it properly, there was a clear favourite amongst the selection committee and given a bit more development time, we would have to love to have pulled this off.
Nick
 
Next a version of what was posted on catsailingnews, which was the first public exposure, because it discusses also the background to how this project started -

"The ST Foiler project was originated back in mid 2015, with some our of the box thinking. we asked ourselves: “forsee the evolution of foiling sailing multihull design will have a parallel track to aircraft design?” & “what can be learned from the evolution of powered hydrofoil boats?”  As a partnership between a naval architect and an aerospace engineer, it was a fruitful thought experiment. We knew that a containerized short course racing machine which could exploit the full potential of hydrodynamics to foil early and often, would be attractive. Both the economics and safety of existing and proposed cat designs left room for improvement.  ...  http://www.catsailingnews.com/2017/11/vor-inshore-foiler-proposal-by.html

So, the first thing to understand about the project as you see it, is that it was a concept that was developed for a very specific type of event.  Inshore, short course, 99-100% foiling fleet racing. ST does not for a moment think that this kind of craft is there to erase all other forms of sailing.  Those who say that if this is the future of sailing, why sail?  Well, sail what you like.  I like small skiffs / dinghies and large cats. I am infatuated with minis.  Davide loves the moth. Davide and I have not done as much foiling as maybe half of the readers of this forum, but that does not negate what we bring to the table as designers and engineers very much in the thick of foiling design work e.g. dna G4, Luna Rossa, Team France and many other projects in between.
 
Great to hear a little more on the justification here (as really the concept is discussed but not so much the reasoning being some of those choices), after sailing on the weekend on a 'T' foiler, I can see the use in that style of foil, being as you said for 99-100% flight time, and that being in my opinion a worthy reason to take a slight drag penalty for that absolute maximum flight time. Personally, I have two interests in sailing  (as a sailor) one design smaller inshore boats (<30'), and in watching unstable maximum performance boats (I find watching leadmines mine numbing, but watching the moth, GC, AC multi's exhilarating as it appears to be permanently challenging the sailors to handle and gives you loads of crew work to watch on deck).
 
Does anyone dispute that the development from AC45, GC32, AC72, AC50 and others that the current layout, with crew crossing the boat and a foil layout that, when things go very wrong, too often ends in a nosedive, does not provide a platform where VIP sailors and/or non-sailors can be safety foiled around the race course by a professional team?  That is the goal of the design, at its heart.  If not going from side to side, Frank Cammas does not nearly lose his leg falling overboard.  If not positioned in the hull cockpit, Team Softbank Japan sailors do not get narrowly saved by the shroud of their boat in a pre-start.  Foiling racing with just 2 boats is a fair bit more dangerous than most sailors have experienced.  Just as racing an ultimate tri trans ocean is more dangerous than foiling an A class.
 
I'll definitely jump in here and say I'm not so bothered by the safety aspect of the designs, meaning it's something that I would overlook. I played a lot of high contact sport and have just always assumed that the constant bruising and occasional broken bone were just a part of life (this year alone, a broken hip and 20+ stitches and I've played the least sport this year of my life). I also never thought of being a "VIP" and only ever think of being a trimmer, on tactics or (the lesser of the 3) on helm. So there's a good point with safety there. I will admit I like the running across the boat both in being the sailor myself, running across a flying boat I feel less challenged than dodging 3 defenders in a lacrosse game swinging 6' steel pipes at you, and I worry that visually the physical inactivity of crew would lose my interest as a viewer, again both very personal opinions. I will admit I have a problem with probably all the foiling systems selected in safety aspect for crew hitting them (a-la-Frank Cammas' accident) in which I think foils shouldn't be close to the extreme beam of the boat, so slightly in-board set "L" rudders) would get a big tick of approval for me (I find it interesting that the proa would be the safest of the boats with open crew layouts which were submitted).
 
The canopy was a very difficult choice for me personally.  We debated a lot about the problem of blocking out the environment.  But, it is the decision we made for this boat.  I had discussed the same with Paul Larsen at the little cup in Falmouth.  It was a close call for SR2 IIRC. You may hate it and think it is ridiculous.  It is a reality on this boat for reasons of safety of the crew and the VIP.  Not just for crashes, but also for ease of communication between the crew, and the guest.  Additionally there is windage to consider, which is a huge portion of the total drag at these speeds.
 
I actually think this is a good idea, communication is tough in 20 knots of wind on a boat doing 20 knots already, let alone 20 knots of wind speed and 40 knots of boat speed. I personally really like how the bit tri's like the MOD 70's etc deal with this by having a high side gunwale and a small screen in-front of the skippers and think that would be a great addition in-front of the crews on the AC boats or a design like the one TEAM GBR shared above. This would also provide a great safety buffer to assist in protecting the guys in a collision like the Team Japan crash in the AC.
 
The sail trim position has been criticized in other forums (fora?) and I have been perhaps too cavalier in answering the comments.  Yes it is a rotating mast, yes the main twist will be crucial in the sail trim of the boat.  But there is a really substantial difference in this craft that essentially only a handful of boats have utilized.  The co-pilot, the second person in the cockpit, has a primary job of controlling flight height and RM, through the use of differential lift of the port and starboard main foil flaps.  All of the boats foiling RM is developed through hydrodynamics, and it has to ultimately be capped by monitoring rig tension.  We had a simulator made to test this craft, just as they have done in the Cup teams.  The outcome is that RM will be directly adjusted before most sail trim changes are made.  Foils will be actively trimmed even more frequently than sails, because weight is not moving and its more responsive than changing the sails. 
 
Cheers for the little run down in systems controls. I'll admit I always wondered on out big cat what it would be like to have the main controls run next to the helm and having a set of cameras at the beam on each side and on the center-line looking up at the main how that would work, but nothing has ever equated to how awesome it feels trimming while trapping on a beach cat with both the cunning-ham and sheet at the ready, the control of the sail and the uninterrupted view of both the rig and the wind in-front.
 
Looking at it another way, on e.g. a moth or an A-class, your position on the boat is crucial for the stability and limited in range.  You cannot move more outboard (or aft or fwd) than you are able to do with rack or trapeze.  You put your weight there for stability, not to get the best view of the sail trim.  You go to max stability when you can because it is fast.  To stay there you trim a lot.  On this foiler, the crew needs to be forward.  Putting them in the hulls was rejected for safety and weight reasons.  Again, they are positioned not for sail trim, but because the force balance dictates where they need to be.  So, they have to adapt to the sail trim view they have.  In a high tech boat such as this, expect there to be electronic means of seeing/feeling/sensing the sail trim many times a second.
 
I will go ahead and post this much, expecting some replies.  I hope a few positives and not only what can happen here on Anarchy.  Future topics to elaborate on are the decision to use flapped T foils, the canard configuration including forward rudder (which I am pleased to see Steve shares) and the decision not to use a wing (or a boom).  (edit - don't expect much comment on the packing in a container or non beach launching the boat, please read the tender doc before you throw stones)
 
Apologies if my response came off a little harsh in the comments, I really meant my comments to by my own regard, not so much to comply with the tender docs, following the tender documents exactly would mean going against anything I supported, I would truly like to see this thing sail, I think it's a pretty awesome piece of work, I will add the same for ever other suggestion that I have seen, they all exceeded my expectations. They're all far better than anything I could have produced. Pretty much every boat I have seen ticked different boxes for me, every boat had plenty of FUCK YES points and NOPES. The biggest plus' for me (for my dream boat to see the VOR inshore being but realistically may be not a fitting boat for the actual VOR inshore) - big open crew movement area, high sides to lean against kind of like the AC72's and with screens up front somewhat shielding the crew from the elements and adding forward protection for collisions from the back of the daggerboard and with the stay at the rear to work for protection from other boats, rigs like the Marstom 32's but with 2 different size furling sails and a deck sweeping main which can be double reefed, rudders without tips at extreme beam (so falling crew can't collide as easily). Some of the boats were kind-of close to what I wanted, missing some things though.
 
In the mean time, if you think this project merits your vote for innovation, please link through to the foiling week and do just that.  http://www.foilingweek.com/pages/season-2017/foiling-week-awards-2017/fw-awards-2017-vote/
 
I definitely think the boat takes the vote in that category though, it is clearly the most alternative approach, the others all being a lot more like existing designs and lacking any true innovation compared to it. They're all different foils added onto an existing boat by comparison to yours. It's a great project and I do wish it well. 
 
Cheers
 
Doug Schickler
STYACHT
 

Thank you for taking the time to jump in here Doug, it's much appreciated.

In the end I'd rather see the right boat for sailing than the right boat for me, I know my dreams aren't what lines up with the suitable reality. The same way I want to watch loads of crew work on deck, DL wants a bloke with an RC controller, or the next guy who wants little crew pods like the AC or my uncle who likes the boats on big seas high winds doing 8 knots,  or my dad who wants it sailed in F22's.

Cheers Harryproa, yeah I hadn't read through them recently enough to remember everything, but I personally didn't like many of the points that they bring up, and those things did have loads of of input onto the design, things like the "ease of use" stuff or the VIP or the lake rigs and foiling in 6 knots. Those things probably do matter more that I think they do, hopefully whatever is chosen works out great for the event and sailing.

PS. Harryproa, I gotta hear more on the foiling shunt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GBR:

In watching the coverage and videos of the last AC cycle there were numerous near misses and at least one capsize ( Oracle in Chicago)  when a boat gybed right into an oncoming vessels path.  Sailing A cats has always been pretty risky ( at least since the wild thing) because two boats on a collision course don't see each other. Usually on the same tack but one going upwind and the other down wind. Same thing is true of asymmetric skiffs.  If this is a problem at 15 knots, it will be more than twice as bad at 30.  So I think visibility and lines of sight are a very big deal when  racing boats go this fast in close quarters.  We almost need coms between boats, but that would negate the dogfight nature of the spectacle. 

I also thought the guest experience, sitting right behind a great helmsman in the middle of the action was a highly marketable ride and one sponsors would line up to take. There was a possibility to have the VIP involved in the racing, like calling speed and heading or helping maintain a look out.   It also gave a good place for coaches.....

This is entertainment after all.

Distinct from Doug,  I wanted the crew to be visibly executing acts of seamanship to demonstrate that the sporting aspect was not just driving the boat.  I wanted the crew running across the platform, visibly adjusting sails and not just pumping oil or rising along.  I secured them in cockpits instead of just sitting on the edge for safety reasons, and I reasoned that with the L shaped foil configuration and the crew crossing behind the wing the risk to life and limb was relatively small. Having the aft foils articulate from tack to tack to create righting moment as well as lift is part of this.  Canting the wing is fast, but also is part of the maneuvering package as well as the two wing trimmers cranking handles and getting occasionally hit with fast moving water.

Further the Gull wing arrangement meant that the effective sailing beam of the boat was greater than the at rest beam of the platform,  Making the whole package more easily managed ashore and along side.  Further the boat could be ramp launched.

We were even trying to eliminate the need for a crane when standing up wings.

I can argue that a properly sorted one design wing is easier to manage than any mast and sails combination.  The C Class and ACs should not be the only frame of reference because both go to the extreme top gain an iota of performance.  The controls of a basic wing are very simple and reliable. Wings can be assembled and broken down faster than a 3 sail sloop rig.  This wing also was capable of rotating 360.  So you could disregard wind direction as long as the platform was tied down or soundly secured.  Unlike the AC45s which had to be moored out, these boats could be tied up in conventional marina like slips for the week.  The branding on the wings would therefore be visible 24 hours a day, delivering signage value that soft sails will not.

The fastest Iceboats now have the helmsman sitting under a canopy in front of the rig.  If they don't have a problem, i cant imagine a hydrofoil  would have a problem either.  I wanted to have some ballast moving across the boat because stability rules and you should get what you can.  Getting 100% o the stability from the foils has been done before and is well proven, but by my reckoning, requires quite a bit of beam to work effectively.

All good fun. Wish some of the billionaires would use their tax cut to build this stuff. 

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a lot to like in the Schickler Tagliapietra concept. It reminds me of the Skeeter ice boat (I typed that just before Steve replied, honest). I like that it needs very little energy to operate and that it can maneuver quickly without having to move massive levers up and down.  Not having people running from side to side makes it more practical to tack or gybe quickly, which could make the racing more exciting.  I also think it makes a lot of sense to have the helm forward so they get the best view all around.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked the concept when Doug gave me a sneak peak well before the VOR tender even happened. Its clearly where we could end up in the future and I think the biggest issue in it becoming reality is the willingness of the customers to step this far from their comfort zone...

 

The VOR concepts have been awesome to see as they get revealed, I hope we can let ours out of the bag soon. Ill be happy to post it here once its appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to continue on my earlier post, and will speak to points made by Steve, GBR, etc at another time.

The decision to use flapped T foils is based on a couple of factors.  The project brief asked for the ability to have a lake version, capable of sailing and possibly even foiling in pretty light winds.  At the same time, it had to be used far up the wind range too.  So, different sets of foils with different area were more or less imposed.  At the same time, there is a reliability and build budget aspect that cannot be ignored.  Trust me, I know that it seems ridiculous to complain about budget when the idea is to build a 40 foot racer for 700k, with the benefits of the economy of scale.  That said, it can take up to 3 months of work to build a daggerboard for the AC50.  Based on experience of the G4, a forty footer, could we really commit 100k Euro to a pair of foils, have two sets, prepare to build a few spares for the fleet AND still have a budget for the systems, spars, sails etc?  In addition, positioning foils that would weigh up to 70 or 75 kg in an accurate quick raking system to get the kind of reaction times necessary is expensive.  Raising and lowering foils as in the AC really takes up a ton of energy apart from the rake and yaw.  Hydraulics and control systems require a budget and juice.  The accumulator needs to be topped up to have ample pressure and flow of oil.

The answer is to unload the maneuvering system, so that it requires the minimum amount of energy for the maximum benefit.  Lessen the build cost of the foils, and chose a means to swap out parts or entire foils that is simple and robust.   Letterbox insertion of struts, that remain lowered, with the possibility given a couple of screws to swap lift foils.  Flaps are chosen specifically because the weight of the boat is carried by the fixed strut, flow across the leading edge remains attached despite changes in lift force, and the energy required to articulate the flap is a lot less than raking rams.

The canard configuration serves a couple of purposes.  It requires the crew to be forward.  So the sail and the crew no longer have to be in the same position longitudinally.  That may be more of a happy outcome, and extra benefit, than a goal, but it is there nonetheless.  The first reason was the direct action of the changes in pitch.  If you want to create upward angle to the main foil you use the canard foil to lift the bow, not push down the stern and wait for the lift force of the main foil in front to lift the bow.  This is a fundamentally more direct way to alter pitch and of course comes from aircraft design, it cannot be denied.  The canard layout has another meaning too.  The main lift foils carry the majority of the mass.  As speed increases and the need for RM goes up, the leeward foil lifts more and more, while the windward pulls down.  They will therefore be much more loaded in terms of pressure distribution as well.  If the main foil ventilates or cavitates due to this pressure field, flow is lost and lift is lost.  The weight of the boat is aft of the remaining lifting foil at the bow, so the stern drops.  The current AC45/50 layout does the opposite, and if downforce is used for stability (which it is on the windward rudder) it become even more critical.  Loss of the flow and lift of the leeward L foil leads to a nose dive.  As does ventilation of the windward rudder stabilizer which  up to then was adding RM, if it does not lead to capsize first.  So the canard layout is seen to have a more acceptable crash mode.

OK, time to go, more to follow

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hi Anarchists,

the timing of the VOR tendering project, the short list decision, and the Foiling Week awards have made for a less than ideal rollout of this design.  There have been a lot of comments made about the design, and I would like to address both negative and positive feedback, though I lack the time to answer each and every critique.

I will start with the direct response received from VOR, in response to our proposal, which came with a boiler plate letter stating that this canard layout project was not on the short list - 

Doug - I should add that I thought your design was just amazing - and looks like the future! I think in our limited timeframe, and One Design build setup (i.e. we can’t do a development programme) it just seemed too many steps for us this time around. 

M.
Mark Turner
<and>
To reiterate what Mark has said, whilst the letter sent did not reflect it properly, there was a clear favourite amongst the selection committee and given a bit more development time, we would have to love to have pulled this off.
Nick
 
Next a version of what was posted on catsailingnews, which was the first public exposure, because it discusses also the background to how this project started -

"The ST Foiler project was originated back in mid 2015, with some our of the box thinking. we asked ourselves: “forsee the evolution of foiling sailing multihull design will have a parallel track to aircraft design?” & “what can be learned from the evolution of powered hydrofoil boats?”  As a partnership between a naval architect and an aerospace engineer, it was a fruitful thought experiment. We knew that a containerized short course racing machine which could exploit the full potential of hydrodynamics to foil early and often, would be attractive. Both the economics and safety of existing and proposed cat designs left room for improvement.  ...  http://www.catsailingnews.com/2017/11/vor-inshore-foiler-proposal-by.html

So, the first thing to understand about the project as you see it, is that it was a concept that was developed for a very specific type of event.  Inshore, short course, 99-100% foiling fleet racing. ST does not for a moment think that this kind of craft is there to erase all other forms of sailing.  Those who say that if this is the future of sailing, why sail?  Well, sail what you like.  I like small skiffs / dinghies and large cats. I am infatuated with minis.  Davide loves the moth. Davide and I have not done as much foiling as maybe half of the readers of this forum, but that does not negate what we bring to the table as designers and engineers very much in the thick of foiling design work e.g. dna G4, Luna Rossa, Team France and many other projects in between.
 
Does anyone dispute that the development from AC45, GC32, AC72, AC50 and others that the current layout, with crew crossing the boat and a foil layout that, when things go very wrong, too often ends in a nosedive, does not provide a platform where VIP sailors and/or non-sailors can be safety foiled around the race course by a professional team?  That is the goal of the design, at its heart.  If not going from side to side, Frank Cammas does not nearly lose his leg falling overboard.  If not positioned in the hull cockpit, Team Softbank Japan sailors do not get narrowly saved by the shroud of their boat in a pre-start.  Foiling racing with just 2 boats is a fair bit more dangerous than most sailors have experienced.  Just as racing an ultimate tri trans ocean is more dangerous than foiling an A class.
 
The canopy was a very difficult choice for me personally.  We debated a lot about the problem of blocking out the environment.  But, it is the decision we made for this boat.  I had discussed the same with Paul Larsen at the little cup in Falmouth.  It was a close call for SR2 IIRC. You may hate it and think it is ridiculous.  It is a reality on this boat for reasons of safety of the crew and the VIP.  Not just for crashes, but also for ease of communication between the crew, and the guest.  Additionally there is windage to consider, which is a huge portion of the total drag at these speeds.
 
The sail trim position has been criticized in other forums (fora?) and I have been perhaps too cavalier in answering the comments.  Yes it is a rotating mast, yes the main twist will be crucial in the sail trim of the boat.  But there is a really substantial difference in this craft that essentially only a handful of boats have utilized.  The co-pilot, the second person in the cockpit, has a primary job of controlling flight height and RM, through the use of differential lift of the port and starboard main foil flaps.  All of the boats foiling RM is developed through hydrodynamics, and it has to ultimately be capped by monitoring rig tension.  We had a simulator made to test this craft, just as they have done in the Cup teams.  The outcome is that RM will be directly adjusted before most sail trim changes are made.  Foils will be actively trimmed even more frequently than sails, because weight is not moving and its more responsive than changing the sails. 
 
Looking at it another way, on e.g. a moth or an A-class, your position on the boat is crucial for the stability and limited in range.  You cannot move more outboard (or aft or fwd) than you are able to do with rack or trapeze.  You put your weight there for stability, not to get the best view of the sail trim.  You go to max stability when you can because it is fast.  To stay there you trim a lot.  On this foiler, the crew needs to be forward.  Putting them in the hulls was rejected for safety and weight reasons.  Again, they are positioned not for sail trim, but because the force balance dictates where they need to be.  So, they have to adapt to the sail trim view they have.  In a high tech boat such as this, expect there to be electronic means of seeing/feeling/sensing the sail trim many times a second.
 
I will go ahead and post this much, expecting some replies.  I hope a few positives and not only what can happen here on Anarchy.  Future topics to elaborate on are the decision to use flapped T foils, the canard configuration including forward rudder (which I am pleased to see Steve shares) and the decision not to use a wing (or a boom).  (edit - don't expect much comment on the packing in a container or non beach launching the boat, please read the tender doc before you throw stones)
 
In the mean time, if you think this project merits your vote for innovation, please link through to the foiling week and do just that.  http://www.foilingweek.com/pages/season-2017/foiling-week-awards-2017/fw-awards-2017-vote/
 
Cheers
 
Doug Schickler
STYACHT
 

Doug, many thanks for taking the time to post that. 

Share this post


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

I wanted to continue on my earlier post, and will speak to points made by Steve, GBR, etc at another time.

The decision to use flapped T foils is based on a couple of factors.  The project brief asked for the ability to have a lake version, capable of sailing and possibly even foiling in pretty light winds.  At the same time, it had to be used far up the wind range too.  So, different sets of foils with different area were more or less imposed.  At the same time, there is a reliability and build budget aspect that cannot be ignored.  Trust me, I know that it seems ridiculous to complain about budget when the idea is to build a 40 foot racer for 700k, with the benefits of the economy of scale.  That said, it can take up to 3 months of work to build a daggerboard for the AC50.  Based on experience of the G4, a forty footer, could we really commit 100k Euro to a pair of foils, have two sets, prepare to build a few spares for the fleet AND still have a budget for the systems, spars, sails etc?  In addition, positioning foils that would weigh up to 70 or 75 kg in an accurate quick raking system to get the kind of reaction times necessary is expensive.  Raising and lowering foils as in the AC really takes up a ton of energy apart from the rake and yaw.  Hydraulics and control systems require a budget and juice.  The accumulator needs to be topped up to have ample pressure and flow of oil.

The answer is to unload the maneuvering system, so that it requires the minimum amount of energy for the maximum benefit.  Lessen the build cost of the foils, and chose a means to swap out parts or entire foils that is simple and robust.   Letterbox insertion of struts, that remain lowered, with the possibility given a couple of screws to swap lift foils.  Flaps are chosen specifically because the weight of the boat is carried by the fixed strut, flow across the leading edge remains attached despite changes in lift force, and the energy required to articulate the flap is a lot less than raking rams.

The canard configuration serves a couple of purposes.  It requires the crew to be forward.  So the sail and the crew no longer have to be in the same position longitudinally.  That may be more of a happy outcome, and extra benefit, than a goal, but it is there nonetheless.  The first reason was the direct action of the changes in pitch.  If you want to create upward angle to the main foil you use the canard foil to lift the bow, not push down the stern and wait for the lift force of the main foil in front to lift the bow.  This is a fundamentally more direct way to alter pitch and of course comes from aircraft design, it cannot be denied.  The canard layout has another meaning too.  The main lift foils carry the majority of the mass.  As speed increases and the need for RM goes up, the leeward foil lifts more and more, while the windward pulls down.  They will therefore be much more loaded in terms of pressure distribution as well.  If the main foil ventilates or cavitates due to this pressure field, flow is lost and lift is lost.  The weight of the boat is aft of the remaining lifting foil at the bow, so the stern drops.  The current AC45/50 layout does the opposite, and if downforce is used for stability (which it is on the windward rudder) it become even more critical.  Loss of the flow and lift of the leeward L foil leads to a nose dive.  As does ventilation of the windward rudder stabilizer which  up to then was adding RM, if it does not lead to capsize first.  So the canard layout is seen to have a more acceptable crash mode.

OK, time to go, more to follow

Doug,

Many thanks to your detailed explanation. They make for wonderful reading and thought. I do think your design is both radical and inspirational. Like Steve, I wish there were some investors around willing to play with these ideas.

On the canard configuration, I have played the mind game on an A-Cat. Others may have taken the ideas to prototype. Regardless, you are spot on regarding the pitch reaction etc., and if we look at the early days of flight, the canard configurations graceful stall characteristics were instrumental in the success of the Wright Brothers. After those early flights however, it was found that the conventional aircraft is generally better. Yes, the pitch change can be a bit slower (but augmented with control devices on the wings and running low stability margins), but the inherent stability of the conventional configuration is hard to deny. One of the big issues with designing canard aircraft, and one that your design may work around as the forward foil is well clear of the aft foils, is the airflow over the canard has a drastic effect on the wing, usually to the detriment of the main wings performance unless you get it exactly right, and even then other oddities can occur. The other catch 22 in aircraft design especially, but it applies to sailboats as well, is their is a need for a rudder, and you want that as far from the c.g as possible for stability and to impart the maximum sideforce possible for engine out conditions and crosswind landings (a similar need to a sailboats requirement to turn quickly when down speed). From an efficiency standpoint, since your rudder is well aft for stability, one might as well put the horizontal tail back there too. In your design I could easily see the addition of trim tabs to the fixed verticals on the aft foils to aide in maneuverability as required, since the C.G and stability requirements are different from a conventional aircraft design.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, and I thought putting Vestas on the rescue after inversion illustration was the disqualifying factor. :lol:

 

Cockpits and crew protection...
At the end it comes down to whether "Last man standing" an acceptable winning condition for foiling boat races or not. Or in other words is stadium sailing the new chariot racing - with all the historical attractions of it- or not.

Chances are that the first major accident, say Team Softbank not rescued by the shroud and instead cut in half, means GAME OVER.
For the race, the event and perhaps even that part of the sport. Simply because very few sponsors would be interested after that. So was close enough close enough, or is real world evidence required? 

 

In my optinion the next generation of AC cats had much more side impact protection coming. 
Since the VOR had VIP ride requirement in the RFP going for protection makes sense. Funny how most (all?) have the VIP center line and well protected. Sticking the driver into a fixed position makes sense too. After all the easiest way to reduce crashes is to keep the boat under control at all times.

Is crew running around required to create a compelling story? I don't know. Speed (-> looking fast) and the option for close contact (makes stuff looking even faster) are also ingredients for that. 
At the end of the day the question is how the whole thing is sold. Perception matters. The option to play some amount of bumper boats without(!!!) maiming, dismembering or killing people seems to be a better ingredient. More NASCAR than F1 in that aspect. Or perhaps DTM where all cars have side mirrors - at the beginning of the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again Anarchists,

last installment of design considerations.  Above I was describing the choice of a canard configuration. 

This led of course to discussions of using the forward rudder.  In this situation, there is a bit of break from aircraft technology.  Even most canard type airplanes have tail rudders.  But not all.  The B2 bomber is a notable exception.  It has no forward rudder either, for that matter.  Stealth dictated that it have none and steer with other means (thrust/drag).  We discussed internally the risks and benefits of a forward rudder.  It was the SailRocket 2 that was the most convincing case for a forward rudder, although it is not a foiler but a skimmer.  It did however prove that course holding at high speeds could be done effectively with a forward rudder, even in the absence of fly-by-wire.  By that I mean an electronic means to control dynamic instability using a control system that can monitor the need for very small and frequent corrections while at the same time executing user chosen maneuvers.  We really wanted to stay with a high performing 3 point layout of foils, just for drag reasons.  And we wanted to have the rudder/elevator setup right at the helm position, where the skipper or pilot is making the maneuvers, in part for feedback and in part for cost containment.  For these reasons we opted for a forward rudder and only one on CL.  The straight line VPP and dynamic simulation performed have not given a good reason to change that.  A nice bonus from our point of view is that when things are going their worst, and the bow is heading down toward the water, the helms ability to alter course is getting better not worse.  And it should be the same amount of rudder available in cases of heel angle given the foil type.

I will be honest with you all, we do think there may be some steep operational learning curve steps when this boat is built.  The bear away from a standstill in the starting arena is a move that I have thought a long time about.  Could the boat trip?  Maybe but doubtful, still more drag aft of the CG and CE.  How easily will it transition from 0.2 knots with 100% stability based on beam to 20 knots a few moments later with 100% stability based on differential forces up and down?  We have a feature at the bow of each hull, a spring loaded and over compensated foil on the inboard side.  The spring keeps this foil at its horizontal lower limit for windage reasons.  But the axis of rotation is well aft of the foil center of effort, so that a nose down entry into the water can create a good angle of attack, maybe 15-20 degrees from horizontal.  At even moderate speed, and when more so when accelerating, this should produce a strong bow up moment.  This lessens the need for really huge hull volumes, which in turn add windage.  What hull volume we do have in the hulls is more forward (where the weight is) so it floats normally at the dock.  The hydrostatic effect of the larger bows is a nice consequence to add to the foil lift for ... imperfect maneuvers.

Lastly, the deck sweeper.  For economic, container deployment, reefing, and just plain familiarity reasons we opted for a soft sail on a rotating rig.  It is well proven, and the use of such a rig has not stopped the GC32 from foiling well.  We wanted to get away from a headsail, and felt we could except for very low winds.  So far, that seems to be viable in the VPP, in no small part because of using a deck sweeping main.  Really and truly deck sweeping.  We have no reason to pass from side to side, so it became clear that no boom should be used.  This has been utilized on the most recent A-class worlds (and very likely is something that has been tried repeatedly in the history of the class).  Instead we developed a two ram system led to an arced track that allows the trimmer to control foot and leach pretty much independently from each other and from the LE-TE angle (not boom angle you see).  Add to this a cunningham and a zipper reefs (as seen in mini headsails) and the sail profile and plan will be adaptable.  More drag than wing, yes, but more pragmatic and light weight.  We can take a lot of lessons out of very high performance wheeled and ice borne sailing craft when it comes to rig and sail setup.  The only caveat is that we need to get up on the foils in order to change our drag situation.  Therefore we kept a larger furling headsail, only to be fit when conditions are 9 knots or less, so as not to have it dragging when we have 10 plus.

OK, I think that covers most of the design points for the VOR foiler project, if you have questions I will be checking back.

Share this post


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

Gee, and I thought putting Vestas on the rescue after inversion illustration was the disqualifying factor. :lol:

 

Cockpits and crew protection...
At the end it comes down to whether "Last man standing" an acceptable winning condition for foiling boat races or not. Or in other words is stadium sailing the new chariot racing - with all the historical attractions of it- or not.

Chances are that the first major accident, say Team Softbank not rescued by the shroud and instead cut in half, means GAME OVER.
For the race, the event and perhaps even that part of the sport. Simply because very few sponsors would be interested after that. So was close enough close enough, or is real world evidence required? 

 

In my optinion the next generation of AC cats had much more side impact protection coming. 
Since the VOR had VIP ride requirement in the RFP going for protection makes sense. Funny how most (all?) have the VIP center line and well protected. Sticking the driver into a fixed position makes sense too. After all the easiest way to reduce crashes is to keep the boat under control at all times.

Is crew running around required to create a compelling story? I don't know. Speed (-> looking fast) and the option for close contact (makes stuff looking even faster) are also ingredients for that. 
At the end of the day the question is how the whole thing is sold. Perception matters. The option to play some amount of bumper boats without(!!!) maiming, dismembering or killing people seems to be a better ingredient. More NASCAR than F1 in that aspect. Or perhaps DTM where all cars have side mirrors - at the beginning of the race.

Chasm,

for the submission to Foiling Week we re-rendered removing all logos, or so we thought.  In the submission to VOR, we dressed the boats in sponsors logos, as you might expect.

You point to the question of whether e.g. motor sport is sport.  My answer: Is there a market for the event?  I don't think that people focused on the pedaling of the crew, but on the maneuvers of the AC50 in the last AC.  The former was just a means to the latter, and not main focus.  Some loved to see them sweat, but mostly one wondered what sport this is, no?  We opted for stored (green) energy on this design because of the even sponsor is a maker of cars, not bikes and not even boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, samc99us said:

Doug,

Many thanks to your detailed explanation. They make for wonderful reading and thought. I do think your design is both radical and inspirational. Like Steve, I wish there were some investors around willing to play with these ideas.

On the canard configuration, I have played the mind game on an A-Cat. Others may have taken the ideas to prototype. Regardless, you are spot on regarding the pitch reaction etc., and if we look at the early days of flight, the canard configurations graceful stall characteristics were instrumental in the success of the Wright Brothers. After those early flights however, it was found that the conventional aircraft is generally better. Yes, the pitch change can be a bit slower (but augmented with control devices on the wings and running low stability margins), but the inherent stability of the conventional configuration is hard to deny. One of the big issues with designing canard aircraft, and one that your design may work around as the forward foil is well clear of the aft foils, is the airflow over the canard has a drastic effect on the wing, usually to the detriment of the main wings performance unless you get it exactly right, and even then other oddities can occur. The other catch 22 in aircraft design especially, but it applies to sailboats as well, is their is a need for a rudder, and you want that as far from the c.g as possible for stability and to impart the maximum sideforce possible for engine out conditions and crosswind landings (a similar need to a sailboats requirement to turn quickly when down speed). From an efficiency standpoint, since your rudder is well aft for stability, one might as well put the horizontal tail back there too. In your design I could easily see the addition of trim tabs to the fixed verticals on the aft foils to aide in maneuverability as required, since the C.G and stability requirements are different from a conventional aircraft design.

 

Thanks for your comments Sam.  I think you understand the design well.

Share this post


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

I think there is a lot to like in the Schickler Tagliapietra concept. It reminds me of the Skeeter ice boat (I typed that just before Steve replied, honest). I like that it needs very little energy to operate and that it can maneuver quickly without having to move massive levers up and down.  Not having people running from side to side makes it more practical to tack or gybe quickly, which could make the racing more exciting.  I also think it makes a lot of sense to have the helm forward so they get the best view all around.  

 

As you might have gathered from the pdf, we think that the maneuvers will not be just foiling, we expect to see carving banked turns with a boat that otherwise will find max speed when sailing as low and flat as the sea state allows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Steve Clark said:

GBR:

In watching the coverage and videos of the last AC cycle there were numerous near misses and at least one capsize ( Oracle in Chicago)  when a boat gybed right into an oncoming vessels path.  Sailing A cats has always been pretty risky ( at least since the wild thing) because two boats on a collision course don't see each other. Usually on the same tack but one going upwind and the other down wind. Same thing is true of asymmetric skiffs.  If this is a problem at 15 knots, it will be more than twice as bad at 30.  So I think visibility and lines of sight are a very big deal when  racing boats go this fast in close quarters.  We almost need coms between boats, but that would negate the dogfight nature of the spectacle. 

I also thought the guest experience, sitting right behind a great helmsman in the middle of the action was a highly marketable ride and one sponsors would line up to take. There was a possibility to have the VIP involved in the racing, like calling speed and heading or helping maintain a look out.   It also gave a good place for coaches.....

This is entertainment after all.

Distinct from Doug,  I wanted the crew to be visibly executing acts of seamanship to demonstrate that the sporting aspect was not just driving the boat. 

We kept two sailors in the aft cockpit as sail trimmers, not having merely drivers, for similar reasons to why you have them crossing the boat.  They will be working with a pair of winches, and with hydraulics (some hand lever, others driven by power pack) to utilize the DRM power provided by the co-pilot.

I wanted the crew running across the platform, visibly adjusting sails and not just pumping oil or rising along.  I secured them in cockpits instead of just sitting on the edge for safety reasons, and I reasoned that with the L shaped foil configuration and the crew crossing behind the wing the risk to life and limb was relatively small. Having the aft foils articulate from tack to tack to create righting moment as well as lift is part of this.  Canting the wing is fast, but also is part of the maneuvering package as well as the two wing trimmers cranking handles and getting occasionally hit with fast moving water.

Further the Gull wing arrangement meant that the effective sailing beam of the boat was greater than the at rest beam of the platform,  Making the whole package more easily managed ashore and along side.  Further the boat could be ramp launched.

We were even trying to eliminate the need for a crane when standing up wings.

I can argue that a properly sorted one design wing is easier to manage than any mast and sails combination.  The C Class and ACs should not be the only frame of reference because both go to the extreme top gain an iota of performance.  The controls of a basic wing are very simple and reliable. Wings can be assembled and broken down faster than a 3 sail sloop rig.  This wing also was capable of rotating 360.

Not worried about the weight of that? 

  So you could disregard wind direction as long as the platform was tied down or soundly secured.  Unlike the AC45s which had to be moored out, these boats could be tied up in conventional marina like slips for the week.  The branding on the wings would therefore be visible 24 hours a day, delivering signage value that soft sails will not.

One reason we avoided clysar fairings was the environmental reality of damage.  Clearly when ETNZ pitched, a lot of that was left in the water.  We will make our fairings from bamboo/balsa composites utilizing bio resins.  It is not the best performing, and not the cheapest, but it will degrade over time.

The fastest Iceboats now have the helmsman sitting under a canopy in front of the rig.  If they don't have a problem, i cant imagine a hydrofoil  would have a problem either.  I wanted to have some ballast moving across the boat because stability rules and you should get what you can.  Getting 100% o the stability from the foils has been done before and is well proven, but by my reckoning, requires quite a bit of beam to work effectively.

In fact, we opted for a pretty large beam over all.

All good fun. Wish some of the billionaires would use their tax cut to build this stuff. 

SHC

Steve, of course thanks for your reply! 

Your comments about interaction between crew and VIP are exactly right.  We were looking at whether one trimmer could manage, placing a second VIP on board instead.  The only thing better than sharing the experience with the crew, is sharing it with a colleague with whom you will return to the head office complete with great stories.  We chose ultimately to have 4 sailors sailing the boat, because they are supposed to representative of the VOR crew totaling (I think) 8.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder, if any anarchists think this design is worthy of your vote in the Foiling Week awards, use the link below. More than just one click, it takes a few minutes to fill out a form. There is no verify, so slightly inaccurate phone and email doesn't matter. 


http://www.foilingweek.com/pages/season-2017/foiling-week-awards-2017/fw-awards-2017-vote/

Project is VOR Inshore Foiler Proposal by Schickler-Tagliapietra in category Foiling project Award Presented by Persico Marine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SYDE said:

As you might have gathered from the pdf, we think that the maneuvers will not be just foiling, we expect to see carving banked turns with a boat that otherwise will find max speed when sailing as low and flat as the sea state allows.

This might be the coolest sailing machine I've ever seen.  Your reasoning, presentation and explanations are first class.  Thanks and good luck!

5a16cc1df2eb5_ST-VORFoiler.thumb.jpg.be0d9e3a0fedd350e15c8a6b5a6bf80b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool thread and interesting boats.  They were pretty avant garde designs until a couple of days ago!    Hope we get to see all the Volvo entries, especially the short list.   

Steve,

Have you tried weathercocking a wing in a breeze?     My experience with a free to rotate wing was with a 6m high by 600 chord wingmast in 40 knots.  The boat threw itself all over the place.  If it hadn't been tied down in the marina, it would have capsized.   A big part of the problem appeared to be that the wind was different strengths and directions at viarious heights.    Different to a full wing, but still scary.    If there is a solution, I would love to know it.  

Please  "argue that a properly sorted one design wing is easier to manage than any mast and sails combination"     

We weren't short listed either, or encouraged by Mark and Nick, but decided to build one to see if we should have been.  http://harryproa.com/?p=424#more-424 and a picture of the lee hulls and progress report at https://www.facebook.com/Harryproa/?ref=page_internal

Darth,

You aren't the only one looking forward to a foiling shunt!  Plan is a foil on a free to rotate strut under the windward hull.  As long as the boat exceeds the flying speed, the foil keeps it airborne, regardless of direction of travel.   Ir will only be 150mm/6" or so deep so should be clear of the water when sailing.

The really fun shunt will be gybing when boat speed exceeds wind speed as the rig will want to pass to windward of the mast.  I am still getting my head round the handling that this will require.  

The tender requirements were hard work, but as they were resolved, it became apparent that they mostly made sense for the type of boats we design.  Crew and guest safety, speed of assembly,  environmentally sound (relatively), system simplicity, ease of use, fun in 3-30 knots, capsize recovery, low weight, low maintenance are all pluses if you are designing for the masses rather than for the elite.    And low cost.  We had to ask Volvo if the requirement was for 8 boats for 750,000 Euros or whether this was the per boat cost!   We doubled the hours, just to make it respectable.  Still came in at 150,000 Euros per boat.  Could have done 8 for 750, with a simpler arrangement.

Doug,

Any idea how much drag is added from the foils to compensate for the lost righting moment of the crew sitting in the middle and on the bows?  

I agree about the location of the foils to ensure a soft crash if the front one lets go, but this is much less likely than the aft windwindward one doing so.  Will  the small fixed  foil on the bow be able to cope if ththis happens, or will it go over diagonally?  Also agree about T foils vs L's.  

Harryproas have 2 rudders, at about 25% and 75% of the length and rockerless hulls.  Steering with the front one gives a much quicker response than with the aft one.     I have not tried it at more than ~15 knots, but suspect that with the rudder any nearer the bow and doing 25 knots it would be scarily twitchy.  

Not sure who,

I definitely think the boat takes the vote in that category though, it is clearly the most alternative approach, the others all being a lot more like existing designs and lacking any true innovation compared to it. They're all different foils added onto an existing boat by comparison to yours. 

I disagree. Worldwide (real and virtual), there are twice as many bow steering foiling cats with the crew in front of the mast (Steve's and Doug's) as there are shunting, foiling triscarph proas.  ;-)  

Chasm,

VIP comfort, safety and ease of getting them on and off were requirements.  I think it would be pretty boring sitting in the middle, unable to see the sail, feel the spray or communicate with the crew.  And likely to get kicked in the head when the crew change sides.  In the event of a capsize or pitchpole, sitting there would be scary, maybe fatal if the boat inverted.   

Pretty sure we will get to test your theory about what happens to an event after a serious accident sometime between now and the next AC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry:  Yes I have, more than once.

the AC 45s were moored out, with their wings up for all of the AC World Series and Red Bull events. In the five years of those events, there were windy nights, cold fronts and days when it blew too hard for racing, and the boats were fine. So to some extent, I think this objection is mute.

Key features were:  Mooring the boat by the main beam under the nmast step, turning the rudders so they were more or less 90 edgers to centerline, and hanging a big bag of water under the main beam. This allows the platform to swing with minimum resistance. The water bag stops the boat from galloping forward and tacking back and forth. Further it adds stability by holding the boat down.  The Land sailors pin the front wheel down and have casters for the aft wheels and their boats stay wing up for the duration.  

The biggest issue seems to be turbulence,  meaning that the wind isn't blowing exactly the same direction all the time, and the top could generate a bit of AOA when the bottom is at 0. It doesn't take much at 40 knots to provide enough overturning moment to flip a light catamaran. The water bag addresses this. So does tying the boat down. I would envision these boats tied up between pontoons in a marina so all four corners were secured.  The wing will take care of itself because it won't have shrouds to limit its rotation, so the platforms can be at any angle to the wind. The other thing that might be necessary is a counter weight  forward of the pivot, similar to the ones they use for hoisting the AC wings, to mass balance the wing and stop it from fluttering. 

From my point of view, this whole project was defined by the entertainment and sponsorship requirements of the Volvo Inshore Races.  One easily quantifiable value is outdoor advertising. Billboards.  Displaying  the sponsors names and logos for more hours is a better value. So not taking down the "sails" is better than taking down the sails.  

I also was concerned for what the sporting activity would look like for spectators and for broadcast. Team work is one of the essential aspects of sport, and I think that needed to be manifestly demonstrated for these events. Crews that got it right would beat crews that didn't, so I thought that having identified individuals visibly responsible for manipulating the equipment would make for a more compelling competition, and lead to more popularity.  I appreciate all the tech and skill that goes into motor sport, but it is almost invisible during competition, so I find viewing auto races a complete bore because you really can't tell what is making a difference an why one car is beating another. Except for the pit stops, when humans do a lot of stuff very well. And very fast.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2017 at 5:40 AM, harryproa said:

Doug,

Any idea how much drag is added from the foils to compensate for the lost righting moment of the crew sitting in the middle and on the bows?  

I agree about the location of the foils to ensure a soft crash if the front one lets go, but this is much less likely than the aft windwindward one doing so.  Will  the small fixed  foil on the bow be able to cope if ththis happens, or will it go over diagonally?  Also agree about T foils vs L's.  

 

Drag - what you describe as lost RM, we don't really see that way.  We started the design from the standpoint of crew that does not move from side to side.  Yes, of course, there would be more RM available if they moved to one side and back. And, yes, because we are asking the windward/leeward foil differential to do the work of creating RM, we will have induced drag.  On the other side of the equation, we utilized a very wide platform and T foils that actually extend beyond that max beam.  Those steps go towards mitigating the amount of differential force that is needed to create RM.  T foil struts (the vertical part) also do not exhibit as much drag where they pierce the free surface and are smaller in chord than J or L foils.  So that also reduces drag given the layout.  We dramatically reduced aero drag of the platform compared to conventional layouts.  To keep down cost, make chaning simpler, and keep attached flow across the lift foils and stabilizer we used flapped foils, as opposed to raking, perhaps taking a bit lower efficiency as part of the bargain.  All and all we have not calculated a weight position vs drag study.  Instead we focused on viability with a view toward low take off speed instead of top speed.  In fact top speed is based on foil cavitation and how we limit dynamic RM.

Soft crash - not 'the front one lets go'.  The main foils are most loaded, so a loss of flow should result in stern down soft crash.  In fact the most loaded is the leeward aft, so this is the foil that should cavitate first.  If too much dynamic RM is sought, the windward foil might be the first to let go, which would allow capsize.  That and rig engineering are the reasons we must have a max allowable dynamic RM.  The flow across the forward stabilizer is very important.  If it (the least loaded of the 3) cavitates, ventilates, or is fouled by a plastic bag, the bow will go down as a result.  As for the foils you see on each hull, they are pivoting, not fixed.  At 20-25 knots they will give much more upward force than displacement of a bow 2x or 3x larger would.  But it will also slow the boat a lot.  Could it pitchpole or go over diagonally? there is of course this possibility.  But, in principle, we are trying to have a design that has a better behavior as much as the time as possible, then put the control over the boat in hands of a skilled skipper, but have a plan B if and when she or he makes an error.

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
Sign in to follow this