james3232

New Hugo Boss Spotted

Recommended Posts

Alex and Neal talked about the collision and their injuries, which included a lot of bruising according to Alex, but no bruising was shown.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chimp too said:

Your point?

same result: keel gone. In the history of IMOCA many boats have been abandoned or limped to port after the keel has gone AWOL. Many different reasons. But same result.

Not at all same result.

There is a major difference beetween having a ripped open hull with the keel hanging beneath and destroying the boat, and loosing the keel, or breaking it's head.

Meillat came back with his boat, Jourdain, wavre, dick, guillemot etc ...

De pavant lost the boat, Alex didn't, but was not deep in the south and alone.

 

The other thing is you not reading properly what's written and trying to still argue

Share this post


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

Not at all same result.

There is a major difference beetween having a ripped open hull with the keel hanging beneath and destroying the boat, and loosing the keel, or breaking it's head.

Meillat came back with his boat, Jourdain, wavre, dick, guillemot etc ...

De pavant lost the boat, Alex didn't, but was not deep in the south and alone.

 

The other thing is you not reading properly what's written and trying to still argue

The result of all that you are talking about is a hole in the bottom of the boat, a missing keel and drastically reduced stability. Don't also forget that these keels are held to the boat with the keel pin, the hydraulic ram and a locking device. When the keel pin or the supporting structure lets go the keel remains attached by the ram and the locking device, but uncontrollable and unless it is removed or secured will rip the structure apart. The simplest case is when the fin snaps.

But I say again, keels and supporting structure can be designed to withstand impact loads bringing a 9000kg yacht to a standstill from 25 knots without making them stupidly heavy. It has been done before and will be done again

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.59eb8fd5d9622b2f11128fd5285f99fe.png

Two keel less boats making their way north... Just a tad different scale...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

But I say again, keels and supporting structure can be designed to withstand impact loads bringing a 9000kg yacht to a standstill from 25 knots without making them stupidly heavy. It has been done before and will be done again

You might be a bit optimistic there.

Care to tell us where this has been done before, and how that was tested at 25 knots? Would really like to see the test results. :o

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Optimistic?  Out with the structural fairies I'm afraid for the apeman:)  By the time the boat doesn't fail for a 25kn deadstop scenario then it for sure won't be an IMOCA 60!   Also, theres a lot of information that we'll likley never hear - what cant angle for the fin, where did it hit, what did it hit and all that and more for the failure condition.  

You will never, ever, get a straight answer from the ATR lot on anything, and indeed where are the bruises??!  

Share this post


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

The result of all that you are talking about is a hole in the bottom of the boat, a missing keel and drastically reduced stability. Don't also forget that these keels are held to the boat with the keel pin, the hydraulic ram and a locking device. When the keel pin or the supporting structure lets go the keel remains attached by the ram and the locking device, but uncontrollable and unless it is removed or secured will rip the structure apart. The simplest case is when the fin snaps.

But I say again, keels and supporting structure can be designed to withstand impact loads bringing a 9000kg yacht to a standstill from 25 knots without making them stupidly heavy. It has been done before and will be done again

 

Kinetic energy in units of Joules (J); one Joule is equal to 1 kg m2 / s2.

Boat weighing 9 metric tonnes travelling at 25 knots (12.86 m/s) has a kinetic energy of 744208 joules if my sums are right. If the boat is brought to a standstill all this energy must be transferred to some other object/s and/or dissipated (normally as heat). The critical thing as far as causing damage to the boat is concerned is … How long does it take to “bring it to a standstill”?

This is what will determine the magnitude of stresses the boat structure is subjected to.  The shorter the time the higher the stress.

The factors which will mainly determine how quickly the boat speed is reduced by the collision will include the mass of the object which it hits, the hardness of the object and the compressive strength of the object. If the keel hits a 10,000 tonne semi submerged iceberg, or a submerged 10,000 tonne reinforced concrete block, the keel  will stop very very quickly and the stresses developed on the boat structure will be very great. If it hits a 200 kg shark it will also slow down pretty quickly and may be perceived by those on board to have “come to a standstill”, but most of its kinetic energy will have been transferred to the shark and to the surrounding seawater etc. over a very much longer period of time and the stresses on the boat structure will be much less. Likewise if the boat touches a sand bottom at this speed it will pretty quickly come to a stop but it will not be instantaneous. Stresses will be well below those caused by hitting a concrete wall.

You are suggesting the Imoca should be able to withstand being brought to a standstill due to the keel hitting something. I suggest you need to define what type of collision and with what type of object. From talking with some Imoca skippers I understand that colliding with sharks and whales is a fairly routine event and has in many instances, not caused any significant damage even if the boat is “stopped in its tracks” by the event. Rudders hitting sharks and whales can survive undamaged or may get broken off, but keels are not as susceptible to damage by marine life.

Grounding on a mud or sand bottom could also be survivable but again it will depend on how the event stops the boat.

When it comes to hitting something solid like an iceberg or rock straight on I doubt that anything like an Imoca could survive without sustaining considerable damage to the hull structure which supports the bearings unless the keel fin itself is designed to act as a fuse and definitely fail before the keel to boat connection. Is this what you are advocating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staysail,

Agree completely. From the accounts of Alex and Neal that we have seen, neither was hurt, which suggests that it wasn't an instantaneous stop, but more of a whale strike or similar.

As I have noted above, there have been several documented (but not advertised) hits with whales at similar speeds by VO70s, which are significantly higher mass. They were structurally checked and only cosmetic repairs needed to the keel fin fairings.

I am not suggesting that IMOCA should be designed to hit an iceberg or concrete wall at 25 knots and remain structurally intact. But hitting sea creatures at normal sailing speeds should be considered for an ocean racer as something they should be able to survive.

I think that you would be surprised how little structural weight this would add. To me the flaw in the system right now is the confirmation that the bits the OD keel are attached to are designed to the same load cases is the gap. 

Share this post


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

Staysail,

Agree completely. From the accounts of Alex and Neal that we have seen, neither was hurt, which suggests that it wasn't an instantaneous stop, but more of a whale strike or similar.

As I have noted above, there have been several documented (but not advertised) hits with whales at similar speeds by VO70s, which are significantly higher mass. They were structurally checked and only cosmetic repairs needed to the keel fin fairings.

I am not suggesting that IMOCA should be designed to hit an iceberg or concrete wall at 25 knots and remain structurally intact. But hitting sea creatures at normal sailing speeds should be considered for an ocean racer as something they should be able to survive.

I think that you would be surprised how little structural weight this would add. To me the flaw in the system right now is the confirmation that the bits the OD keel are attached to are designed to the same load cases is the gap. 

Agree 100%. I don't think there is any great sense in imposing a "very strong" one design keel fin on the class if there are no defined load cases which the structure to which it is attached must withstand.

Personally I think by now, with a fair history of keel failures of various kinds, the skippers and designers do better understand the risks of inadequate design, materials and quality management where canting keels are concerned and should once again be left free to design whatever keel they want so long as class dimensions and weights are met. Class could still impose some design and quality control requirements to verify the integrity of the design, but what is the real relevance now of the one-design keel?

Presumably the one design keel was designed before the new generation of foiling boats, and before old boats were modified to carry foils. Its now probable that the one design keel is not the optimum appendage for the foiling technology boats and could be an unintended limitation on both performance and safety.

Share this post


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

800,000 joules ~ 200 kcal

That will cook about 3 kg of shark

”We’re going to need a smaller shark”

Muzzle energy of a 50 cal BMG anti-material round is 15,600 Joules and 50 or so direct hits could do considerable damage to a vehicle like a Humvee for instance. How would a carbon fibre boat stand up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between a OD keel and mast vs. some sort of mandated design?

There are performance gains to be made back in the day to go exotic keel & exotic mast that delivered a concrete performance gain & there was a race to the bottom to push the boundaries in keel & mast. Imoca class didn't want a situation where the first winner was the guy whose boat crossed the finish line (but just barely) while spending more and more $. PRB before the most recent rebuild was the last example of that. And being imoca owner governed - fundamentally the owners all understood the benefit to be had with a OD keel and mast. 

Mandating a boat design to survive some sort of collision? The owners won't be in favor of that. Which turns all the predictable selective outrage machine that comes out whenever there's a collision, broken foil, etc to come out and go blah blah blah about "FORWARD LOOKING SONAR THAT AUTOMATICALLY CHANGES COURSE!" or "MAKE THE BOATS STRONGGGRRRRR"

Noise. The class as a whole doesn't want boats that sink rapidly with rudder stock damage, they didn't want boats that'll rapidly sink with a bow breach. The keel boxes are sufficiently robust such that it gives the skipper time to get off the boat or divert. 

Not very many want an arctic explorer with displacement that'll make Americans sailing old westsail happy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miffy, foils cost quite a bit and the class doesn't restrict spending money on them. Also you can easily rule out exotic materials.

Time has moved on. There is no longer any logic to resticting keel fin design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the keel  & mast OD immediately opens the pandora box and basically immediately makes 2 generations of existing boats no longer marketable. 

Not gonna happen. Imoca isn't the America's Cup or the old Volvo - it is continuously successful with diverse range of participants and open sponsor opportunities and doesn't require authoritarian regime money because it has successfully balanced the need to develop new boats while preserving the existing imoca class owners. 

There's been so many new boats launched this development cycle you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the class isn't healthy and needs a drastic change. And there's only so many mystery sponsors willing to throw money at unproven skippers and build them new boats in multiple classes without demanding results. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miffy, we are seeing huge improvements in the Imoca boats performances and even still a good market for boats which have no chance of winning the VG so for me your arguements simply don't add up. What you are saying is "you can improve anything you like on the boat and spend as much money as you like on your new boat"... (which plenty of projects seem to be happy to do) ... "but don't even ever think about improving the design of the mast or the keel".

Well I just hope you are proved wrong before too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're assuming the OD spec will not be given a gen 2 redesign. Before too long, when the chorus of interested parties who want elevator controlled rudders get loud - there will possibly be a OD spec there as well - while gradually relaxing the degree of freedom of the foils articulation. 

It isn't going to go apeshit free for all cypto money splurge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while ago, Rob Denney (harryproa) put forward an idea.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/177359-gunboat-68/&page=5      post no. 440.

At the time I wondered how long until this idea, or a derivative of this idea will become de rigueur.

It is only a matter of time, with a large part of the french ocean racing scene being sponsored by "clean/responsible" ocean use.

It is the last thing necessary to fit within it's own framework/guidelines, - ie.  they already have kick up rudders,   the boat cannot sink (imoca),  they are self righting -  it is the last thing to be addressed, so as they can sail on home/continue to race.  So, to not deal with this is NEGLIGENCE. 

Sticking your head in the sand & saying "it will not happen" is not acceptable anymore.

The 3 most current races, minisat, TJV & brest atlantiques have highlighted this problem.

Alex could have lost a 6(?)million dollar boat, there could have been loss of life,  there could have been very large costs involved in a search & rescue operation

          & of course their sponsors would have been very pissed off.   (ok, they could have had a lot of exposure - but it is not positive exposure)

I have mentioned imoca above - but it applies to all boats going long distance racing.   

YES - there will be some loss of performance, with the loss of the canting keel.

But with foils now clearly the way forward, the slight loss of performance (with no canting keel) can be more than made up for.

I am sure that i am not the only one thinking along these lines & it will be interesting to see how long before these measures can/will be implemented.

And for the whingers - it COULD be retro fitted to all existing boats for a reasonable price.  ( POSSIBLY less than the insurance excess costs )

Have a good day.

     

Share this post


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

A while ago, Rob Denney (harryproa) put forward an idea.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/177359-gunboat-68/&page=5      post no. 440.

At the time I wondered how long until this idea, or a derivative of this idea will become de rigueur.

It is only a matter of time, with a large part of the french ocean racing scene being sponsored by "clean/responsible" ocean use.

It is the last thing necessary to fit within it's own framework/guidelines, - ie.  they already have kick up rudders,   the boat cannot sink (imoca),  they are self righting -  it is the last thing to be addressed, so as they can sail on home/continue to race.  So, to not deal with this is NEGLIGENCE. 

Sticking your head in the sand & saying "it will not happen" is not acceptable anymore.

The 3 most current races, minisat, TJV & brest atlantiques have highlighted this problem.

Alex could have lost a 6(?)million dollar boat, there could have been loss of life,  there could have been very large costs involved in a search & rescue operation

          & of course their sponsors would have been very pissed off.   (ok, they could have had a lot of exposure - but it is not positive exposure)

I have mentioned imoca above - but it applies to all boats going long distance racing.   

YES - there will be some loss of performance, with the loss of the canting keel.

But with foils now clearly the way forward, the slight loss of performance (with no canting keel) can be more than made up for.

I am sure that i am not the only one thinking along these lines & it will be interesting to see how long before these measures can/will be implemented.

And for the whingers - it COULD be retro fitted to all existing boats for a reasonable price.  ( POSSIBLY less than the insurance excess costs )

Have a good day.

     

What you forget is that the canting keel is an integral part of the foiling Imocas, that is the keels have tilt the attachment axis is not exactly horizontal, but around 5° up, so that when canted, the keel acts also as a second foil.

As to the the discussion on OD masts and keels, very different animals.

Removing the OD keels could lead to teams betting on lighther attachments, as mentioned by Miffy,, hoping no fish, whale, or whatever else will get in the way, so in fact decreasing the security factor. Whereas for the mast, removing the OD factor would still require designs to work in any typical "VG conditions".

So maybe the OD keel needs a V2, but it should remain OD, whereas for the mast the question is quite different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, yl75 said:

So maybe the OD keel needs a V2, but it should remain OD, whereas for the mast the question is quite different.

1) The OD keel did nothing to prevent keel loss for HB.

2) Do you really think the teams designing the latest Imocas are still incapable of designing a keel which suits their boat and carries the degree of risk which their customer wants to sail with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, staysail said:

1) The OD keel did nothing to prevent keel loss for HB.

2) Do you really think the teams designing the latest Imocas are still incapable of designing a keel which suits their boat and carries the degree of risk which their customer wants to sail with?

And what makes you think that all or most teams would go for a keel with a stronger design than the current OD ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, yl75 said:

And what makes you think that all or most teams would go for a keel with a stronger design than the current OD ?

They might choose not to, but it is their money and their risk and by now the designers know enough to make informed decisions. If they choose unwisely they will likely not win the VG.

With the benefit of all the hindsight and history, why can they not now decide for themselves? You seem to miss the point that for HB the OD keel did spectacularly not achieve its purpose. The OD aspect, for them at least, was useless, of no benefit whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to security aspects that are only "taxing" performances, yes I don't think the teams would go for max security, clearly.

For instance take all the security rules out of F1 cars, they would not go for higher security than current, but for lesser.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, staysail said:

Muzzle energy of a 50 cal BMG anti-material round is 15,600 Joules and 50 or so direct hits could do considerable damage to a vehicle like a Humvee for instance. How would a carbon fibre boat stand up?

Through one side and out the other. :)

Share this post


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

They might choose not to, but it is their money and their risk and by now the designers know enough to make informed decisions. If they choose unwisely they will likely not win the VG.

With the benefit of all the hindsight and history, why can they not now decide for themselves? You seem to miss the point that for HB the OD keel did spectacularly not achieve its purpose. The OD aspect, for them at least, was useless, of no benefit whatsoever.

Using HB’s collision is a poor example. When they were free to design their own keels, everyone sacrificed safety for speed. Have you forgotten the good old days where keels just broke off all on their own?  That’s what the OD keel stopped, and I seriously doubt any of the skippers are complaining. 

Share this post


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

Using HB’s collision is a poor example. When they were free to design their own keels, everyone sacrificed safety for speed. Have you forgotten the good old days where keels just broke off all on their own?  That’s what the OD keel stopped, and I seriously doubt any of the skippers are complaining. 

Is it better to tear the bottom out of the boat rather than break the keel off?

... and do you think people in the Imoca game have learned nothing in the last ten years?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, troll99 said:
Quote

Collisions at sea: VDH, Autissier, Guillemot and Desjoyeaux react to "Russian roulette"

After Alex Thomson's Hugo Boss during the Transat Jacques Vabre, three of the four Ultims of Brest Atlantiques were forced to stop over after collisions with objects at sea (OFNI, for unidentified floating object). Latest: Sodebo Ultim 3 lost his starboard rudder. Voiles et Voiliers interviewed four major navigators on the subject: VDH, Isabelle Autissier, Michel Desjoyeaux and Marc Guillemot. For them "it's more and more Russian roulette ..."
Nicolas FICHOT.
Published on 19/11/2019 at 06:30

" I do not think there is more and more OFNI in the water but on the Golden Globe Race, when you hit one at 5 or 6 knots, it does not matter. On an Ultim at 40 knots, it's something! " Says Jean-Luc Van Den Heede who willingly shares the likely abatement of Thomas Coville after the breakage by an OFNI of his saffron during the night of November 17 to 18, in the South Atlantic.
 Oceans have become trash cans 
"Especially since on the Ultims, everything is calculated to the fairest for materials, even if they are in themselves more and more solid. Weight is the condition of speed. On the monohulls of the Golden Globe, we do not skimp on additional weight in hull reinforcement " adds the winner of the Golden Globe Race 2018/2019, aboard a Rustler 36. " On the other hand, even if There may be no more OFNI in the water than before, do not make me say that the oceans are better. They have become garbage cans, but it's not the plastics that damage boats "
"The OFNIs are containers, logs or cetaceans that slouch ," says VDH again. It is true that whales are less fished, so there may be more in the South Atlantic in particular. We will not complain ! And the whales, it's known, have a shrunken field of vision. In addition, when they sleep, they take care of nothing. So a hull that tumbles to 40 knots, they have not learned to avoid it. They do not know how to do! "
 On the America's Cup, the race area is clear!
And VDH concludes that " suddenly, it's Russian roulette aboard the Ultims. And it makes sense. I hate comparisons between sailing and cars but still: we would not run a Formula 1 on a country road with gravel, ruts and pebbles. This is what is asked of the oceanic Ultims. On the America's Cup, the race area is clear.
Isabelle Autissier: "With speed, it takes worrying proportions"
"The danger of the OFNI is not new. But with the speed of Ultim, it takes worrying proportions. Let's not forget that the violence of a shock is proportional to the square of speed, " explains Isabelle Autissier. " It's Russian roulette, actually, " she adds. So the runners stop, which would surprise me, or they know it's part of the risk. Either one finds a technical solution.
In business of "technical solutions", Isabelle Autissier admits that she is " not too aware of current progress. You know, now I am sailing slowly. But the solution is to be able to see far ahead and not just objects on the surface of the water. So it would need sonars but there, I do not know anything. I do not know if it is possible, if it is envisaged. Yet, in my opinion, the solution is there .
 The appendages will never be strong enough 
Marc Guillemot, precisely, had worked on this file a few years ago, on behalf of the Imoca Class. "Since I've been sailing, we still have big problems with the OFNI, whether it's fish or objects. The more we are in the South, the fewer objects there are but the more animals there are " .
"Take Alex Thomson on his Hugo Boss , in Jacques Vabre. The shock was extremely violent, according to him. Given this violence, it is difficult to envision appendages that would withstand such shocks when, nevertheless, already, it is very very solid. It will never be strong enough so VDH is right: it's a bit of a Russian roulette "
"I had actually worked for the Imoca Class on radar projects ," concludes Marc Guillemot, who also lost a keel because of an OFNI in the 2008-2009 Vendée Globe. In fact, the thing was so complicated. Even more on flying boats. The solution would be sonars ahead, to detect semi-immersed objects. But it is very greedy in energy. "
 It may still be a long story of Russian roulette 
For having long defended for his part the cause of lifting rudders, Michel Desjoyeaux also think that "in the current conditions and we know for a long time, with the OFNI, it may remain a good time again a story of Russian roulette. For the boat but fortunately not for the man.
" The OFNI can have a human or animal origin," says the teacher. " Regarding human waste, I do not know if there are more or less than before. The sea become trash, it concerns mainly plastics.
"And with regard to the animal OFNI, we are not going to blame the whales for being there. They were there before us! Now, if we are going to disturb them, we must assume the risks. And the risk calculation is simple: the faster we go, the more the kinetic energy increases, so the more the shock is violent. And the sooner we go we have to see far ahead to have time to anticipate, if we still see something. Unless you have found an immediate avoidance strategy ... "

 

Share this post


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

Is it better to tear the bottom out of the boat rather than break the keel off?

... and do you think people in the Imoca game have learned nothing in the last ten years?

 

You do realise that the keel isn’t attached to the hull in these boats and that there is already a hole in the bottom of the boat where the keel fits through don’t you?

Share this post


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

Is it better to tear the bottom out of the boat rather than break the keel off?

... and do you think people in the Imoca game have learned nothing in the last ten years?

 

You do realise that the keel isn’t attached to the hull in these boats and that there is already a hole in the bottom of the boat where the keel fits through don’t you?

 The Russian roulette approach is very French. Comparing the Ultima with  a Rustler 36 goes to the two extremes. Where should IMOCA sit between them? The VO70s and VO65s have both survived similar incidents with no structural damage and both have top 24 hour records higher than IMOCA. So proved it can be done. But the class has to want to do it.

it does make me wonder though, if a team wants to build it all a bit stronger, expecting such incidents, how can they still meet the class rules requiring the OD components? The rule is one that then limits safety. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

 

it does make me wonder though, if a team wants to build it all a bit stronger, expecting such incidents, how can they still meet the class rules requiring the OD components? The rule is one that then limits safety. 

Like someone said, every team would build light as possible. OD keel is problematic because it doesn't involve structure of hull that should be part of OD .. For instance, Volvo V65 is the whole OD and none of competitors can build lighter, obviously. 

On other hand, Imoca takes OD keel and breaks the hull apart in keel collision. We see Imocas that go faster and faster.  You dont want add weight and compromise speed vs safety unless other do that too. Its where OD is useful. 

Chapman built notoriously light F1 cars and they werent safe. 

image.jpeg.b6d1183dfe2e9a6a201136c150e4df81.jpeg

Share this post


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

You do realise that the keel isn’t attached to the hull in these boats and that there is already a hole in the bottom of the boat where the keel fits through don’t you?

 The Russian roulette approach is very French. Comparing the Ultima with  a Rustler 36 goes to the two extremes. Where should IMOCA sit between them? The VO70s and VO65s have both survived similar incidents with no structural damage and both have top 24 hour records higher than IMOCA. So proved it can be done. But the class has to want to do it.

it does make me wonder though, if a team wants to build it all a bit stronger, expecting such incidents, how can they still meet the class rules requiring the OD components? The rule is one that then limits safety. 

Let's compare what is comparable ! VO70 had a tendency to self-destruct even without hitting something and VO65 are truck built to be lead with a full crew on deck !(12t VS 8-9t of displacement) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, do we even know what actually broke on HB ?

Not the keel itself or keel pins (I guess), or is it ?

The bearings ?

The attachment to the hull ? (not part of the OD thing to my knowledge)

I know that CT would like to blame "the French" and the OD thing, but what did actually break ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, yl75 said:

By the way, do we even know what actually broke on HB ?

Not the keel itself or keel pins (I guess), or is it ?

The bearings ?

The attachment to the hull ? (not part of the OD thing to my knowledge)

I know that CT would like to blame "the French" and the OD thing, but what did actually break ?

My understanding is that the impact ripped out the forward pin housing in the hull. The ram kept the keel (fin and bulb still intact) attached to the hull. Alex and Neal cut the keel away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You do realise that the keel isn’t attached to the hull in these boats and that there is already a hole in the bottom of the boat where the keel fits through don’t you?

Yes of course, but the reason given why they cut away the keel was that if left unsecured it would damage the boat. I am assuming they reckoned the structure surrounding the "hole" you mention was not strong enough to survive long term and the integrity of the hull itself was likely to be damaged by the keel head and ram moving around without proper support by the bearings. My guess is that the front bearing and/or its fixing got ripped out, which in turn would be likely to at least partially destroy the aft bearing/attachment, and the bits these bearings and the ram are fixed to are not structurally unimportant regarding hull bottom integrity.

Nothing can change the fact that imposing a one design keel on the class with the intention of preventing keel loss has been very publicly proved not to work.

Share this post


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

Nothing can change the fact that imposing a one design keel on the class with the intention of preventing keel loss has been very publicly proved not to work.

The OD keel was supposed to provide a common engineering resource so that the boats would not randomly lose their keels, as was happening before, due to unknown engineering failures. e.g. shock loading and other unpredicted fatigue cycles. In this aspect the OD keel has been a success.

What has not happened (publicly / to the best of my knowledge at least) is an update to the original studies from the (assumedly) increased loads from foiling, I could see a Mk2 OD keel being introduced for this, same fittings, mandated for any boat adding foils to the design... (which would be fair, as the 1st gen OD keel was designed only for dagger boards).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

it does make me wonder though, if a team wants to build it all a bit stronger, expecting such incidents, how can they still meet the class rules requiring the OD components? The rule is one that then limits safety. 

Too true!

If team wants a stronger keel and stronger bearings/wet box, transverse bulkheads etc. Why not let them  do it? Equally if they want a different fin cross section, why not?

If you mandate a specfic keel design and teams dont build strong enough attachment systems, next step is one design wet box, then we have failure where the box attaches to the hull, next step, one design hull!  End result, V65.  It's a slippery slope.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, staysail said:

Is it better to tear the bottom out of the boat rather than break the keel off?

... and do you think people in the Imoca game have learned nothing in the last ten years?

 

And yet you propose bringing back the race to the bottom (unfortunately quite literal) HB smoked something big at speed. Bottom is still intact, crew home safe and sound. OD keel is looking pretty good in my book. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The OD keel was supposed to provide a common engineering resource so that the boats would not randomly lose their keels, as was happening before, due to unknown engineering failures. e.g. shock loading and other unpredicted fatigue cycles. In this aspect the OD keel has been a success.

What has not happened (publicly / to the best of my knowledge at least) is an update to the original studies from the (assumedly) increased loads from foiling, I could see a Mk2 OD keel being introduced for this, same fittings, mandated for any boat adding foils to the design... (which would be fair, as the 1st gen OD keel was designed only for dagger boards).

I agree on this point. No harm in a mandatory retrofit to be safer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 Knots boat speed was obviously a factor but if I were a competitor I would be wanting a stronger keel for the sake of some low down weight. If I were Alex I would be wanting a boat that doesn't break because he is officially No: 1 in the world for boat breakages.! Alex breaks boats and he will continue to do so and that's why he won't win the Vendee Globe. 

Share this post


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

25 Knots boat speed was obviously a factor but if I were a competitor I would be wanting a stronger keel for the sake of some low down weight. If I were Alex I would be wanting a boat that doesn't break because he is officially No: 1 in the world for boat breakages.! Alex breaks boats and he will continue to do so and that's why he won't win the Vendee Globe. 

Hmmmm. Don't think I'd be writing Alex off just yet. Sure, he breaks boats, but one of these go-arounds, he's gonna fluke it, surely? ;-)

He did OK last time, after putting HB on its lid. Better than OK in fact, given his foil loss. But I grant you, his history is hard to look beyond.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

HB now back in the UK

Picture or it isn't true, anybody?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Picture or it isn't true, anybody?

 

Pics r on his Instagram feed, sorry, can't be bothered further...

Share this post


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

Pics r on his Instagram feed, sorry, can't be bothered further...

Linky or it isn't true.

Nothing of the home coming here:     https://www.instagram.com/alex_thomson_racing/?hl=en

And just some Hugo Boss porn here:   https://www.instagram.com/hugo_official/?hl=en

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really get the argument that there's something wrong with the keel. Sure the IMOCA od components will need upgrades next generation for the increased forces we're seeing; but It hit crap in the water at full speed, what do you expect. That's like expecting to drive a car into a wall at motorway speeds and wanting it to drive away without a scratch. Maybe in a fucking tank you'll be fine. But in a finely tuned lean, mean racing machine? Get outta here. 

Also there's photos on instagram of the hull damage in the keel area. 

Share this post


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

That looks more like damage from self destruction than collision.

And ... this as never been presented otherwise ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit that allegedly suffered the collision is at the bottom of the ocean. So the damage shown is going to be at least partly from the aftermath of the keel swinging around I would have thought. YMMV though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2019 at 4:55 PM, Raptorsailor said:

I don't really get the argument that there's something wrong with the keel. Sure the IMOCA od components will need upgrades next generation for the increased forces we're seeing; but It hit crap in the water at full speed, what do you expect.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there is anything "wrong" with the one-design keel. The issue as I see it is whether or not there is justification in imposing a one-design feature in a class which was originally intended to be "open" or "box rule", when the one-design is proved not to achieve its objective.

 

The one-design keel connection to Hugo Boss broke (and maybe other things we will never know about broke) resulting in the keel itself threatening the integrity of the boat.

 

Immediately after the collision ask yourself "What was the greatest threat to the safety of HB and her crew? Answer  -- "The one-design keel  !"

 

It is pretty obvious that the one-design keel failed to achieve its objective which broadly speaking was to prevent Imocas from frequently losing their keels. In this case the keel became the major threat to the boat and was eventually "lost" anyway.

 

Is there really now any supportable justification for imposing this one-design feature on the modern Imoca? I don't think so. When this one-design keel was designed Imocas were doing around 20 knots, now its upwards of 30!

 

Similarly with the mast.  Imocas have moved on. Righting moment and stress considerations have all moved on. Mast design should also return to pre-one-design rules.

 

By all means restrict the use of excessively expensive materials but I say let naval architects and engineers have the freedom to design the whole Imoca racing boat again. One-design features are not working as intended and are now merely an obstacle to sensible progress and evolution of design for much faster boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staysail, we don’t know that the OD keel failed. It could have been what the keel was attached to that failed. We can’t see that and I doubt HB will tell us if their structure was the bit that failed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically he doesn’t like any aspect of OD, he bitched about it in the build up the Volvo, he’s using Hugo Boss’ misfortunes to rant and rave against OD now. 
 

he doesn’t care if people will spend more and design more extreme boats that won’t be as robust. 
 

he just doesn’t want one design. 
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JonRowe said:

The bit that allegedly suffered the collision is at the bottom of the ocean. So the damage shown is going to be at least partly from the aftermath of the keel swinging around I would have thought. YMMV though.

The information available so far suggests that the upper section of the keel was engineered too light and snapped in part while under load.  Had there been a collision with the proverbial blunt object there would be a row of holes down the hull as the large object bounced along.  There do not appear to be any at all.

Share this post


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

The information available so far suggests that the upper section of the keel was engineered too light and snapped in part while under load.  Had there been a collision with the proverbial blunt object there would be a row of holes down the hull as the large object bounced along.  There do not appear to be any at all.

Or when the keel hit the object, the load got transferred to the bearing support structure, which failed, and the keel fell out. If the keel itself failed then much less likely that they would have to cut it free. Sounds like the keel itself was intact until they were able to cut through the ram. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

Or when the keel hit the object, the load got transferred to the bearing support structure, which failed, and the keel fell out. If the keel itself failed then much less likely that they would have to cut it free. Sounds like the keel itself was intact until they were able to cut through the ram. 

The keel was intact after impact. Alex and Neal had to cut away the ram, which was all that left the fin and bulb attached to the boat.

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2019/11/04/hugo-boss-forced-to-cut-off-keel-in-transat-jacque-vabre/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chimp too said:

Staysail, we don’t know that the OD keel failed. It could have been what the keel was attached to that failed. We can’t see that and I doubt HB will tell us if their structure was the bit that failed.

AFIK the objective of imposing a one design keel was safety in that it was not intended to come off!  It failed spectacularly in that objective.

I don't know whether the keel itself was broken or not. Does it matter if its doesn't stay attached to the boat? What is the point of a restriction which doesn't work?  Move on.

Share this post


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

AFIK the objective of imposing a one design keel was safety in that it was not intended to come off!  It failed spectacularly in that objective.

I don't know whether the keel itself was broken or not. Does it matter if its doesn't stay attached to the boat? What is the point of a restriction which doesn't work?  Move on.

What if the OD keel was absolutely fine and did it’s job, but the team designed and built keel bulkheads/structure was not up to it? Can’t blame that on the OD keel, but on a team under building structure to save weight, and maybe get around rule requirements.
Now move on unless you know which part failed for sure and have evidence that you can share

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that is undeniable and obvious from the pictures is that some of the structure holding the one design keel and canting system failed. Nothing more, nothing less.

And because most people here fail spectacularly to analyse it sensibly it is indeed best to move on.

Anyway, I am sure we will hear more about it at some point, but whether we hear the whole truth, if that is even known, that I am not sure.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is fucking videos of the upper part of the keel intact when they cut the ram.

No fucking need to cut the ram il the head broke

Alex is being very transparent with what happenned

Some of you are just flat earther level on this one

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

What if the OD keel was absolutely fine and did it’s job, but the team designed and built keel bulkheads/structure was not up to it? Can’t blame that on the OD keel, but on a team under building structure to save weight, and maybe get around rule requirements.
Now move on unless you know which part failed for sure and have evidence that you can share

Yes I think (like you?) its highly probable the keel forging itself sustained little damage but the big point is it didn't stay on the boat and the attachments and the structure around them are not "one-design" so it is easy for you to suggest the designers/builders of the boat are responsible for what happened and not that the concept of the one-design keel as imposed by the Imoca rule, is a flawed concept..

Would you seriously suggest imposing even more rules such as a one design keel box and one design hull bottom around it and one design structure all around where the pins connect to the structure? where would it end?

Also, concerning the mast, bearing in mind where the faster modern Imocas get much of their power from, do you still think the one-design mast as currently ruled makes sense? If not, how would you propose a new one-design mast rule?

Don't you think the current breed of designers know as much as the guys that write the rules?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the mast, Jeremy Beyou said that on charal, it's what is limiting the speed.

The foils give such a great RM with speed, that you have to reduce sails even if the boat is still quite flat and under control, because of the loads on the mast

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll weigh in with a stupid suggestion.  Leave the designing to the naval architects / structural engineers, but have rules that limit things that cost ludicrous amounts of money, sort of like the class 40.  Non-canting keels, non canting mast, get rid of those silly spreader outriggers, max beam (including foils) limits, or at least require the foils to be able to be retracted to a maximum beam.

Yeah, the boats would look very different.

Share this post


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

Yes I think (like you?) its highly probable the keel forging itself sustained little damage but the big point is it didn't stay on the boat and the attachments and the structure around them are not "one-design" so it is easy for you to suggest the designers/builders of the boat are responsible for what happened and not that the concept of the one-design keel as imposed by the Imoca rule, is a flawed concept..

Would you seriously suggest imposing even more rules such as a one design keel box and one design hull bottom around it and one design structure all around where the pins connect to the structure? where would it end?

Also, concerning the mast, bearing in mind where the faster modern Imocas get much of their power from, do you still think the one-design mast as currently ruled makes sense? If not, how would you propose a new one-design mast rule?

Don't you think the current breed of designers know as much as the guys that write the rules?

The rules should require some evidence that the structure is designed to the appropriate safety factors so that they aren’t the weak link. 
I don’t think that the OD keel or mast need replacement as they are the limiting factors that keep the fleet under control.

and as far as who writes the rules, there is constant consultation with the active designers in evolving the rules. So the level of knowledge is going both sides of the fence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The rules should require some evidence that the structure is designed to the appropriate safety factors so that they aren’t the weak link. 
I don’t think that the OD keel or mast need replacement as they are the limiting factors that keep the fleet under control.

and as far as who writes the rules, there is constant consultation with the active designers in evolving the rules. So the level of knowledge is going both sides of the fence.

Agree about the keels, but with the new foils, some thought maybe needed about the spar specs and that’s not going to be too expensive to update. A lot cheaper than dropping one and associated damage. 
A few kilos of carbon would probably do it. 

Share this post


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

I'll weigh in with a stupid suggestion.  Leave the designing to the naval architects / structural engineers, but have rules that limit things that cost ludicrous amounts of money, sort of like the class 40.  Non-canting keels, non canting mast, get rid of those silly spreader outriggers, max beam (including foils) limits, or at least require the foils to be able to be retracted to a maximum beam.

Yeah, the boats would look very different.

And be a hell of a lot slower.

Share this post


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

The rules should require some evidence that the structure is designed to the appropriate safety factors so that they aren’t the weak link. 
I don’t think that the OD keel or mast need replacement as they are the limiting factors that keep the fleet under control.

and as far as who writes the rules, there is constant consultation with the active designers in evolving the rules. So the level of knowledge is going both sides of the fence.

I think we have to agree to disagree.
I like to see designers having as much freedom as possible, particularly for open class racing boats.

A keel which breaks boats and a mast which can't carry the sail when you don't need to reef don't fit with my ideals.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Any who, 25 knots to practically zero in a couple of seconds is a pretty massive deceleration.

What sort of overbuilt OD structure could withstand that kind of punishment? Nothing I'd want stuck to the bottom of my race boat, that's for sure.

 

Share this post


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

And be a hell of a lot slower.

Possibly.  With the use of foils (and rudder t-foils which would not add that much cost I think), canting keels might not be that important anymore.  Hugo Boss sailed (limped?) back to safety after losing their articulating keel a lot faster than my 5 knt shitbox.  Again, stupid suggestions if I was king of IMOCA.  Some of those people designing these things are really smart.

As far as having an "approved" keel attachment.  That would almost take a structural engineer review and then what sort of liability in case of failure?  Of course I am American and worried about stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yl75 said:

Very good find!

For those who are French speaking challenged, he is also saying that despite the fact that the new generation boats will get closer and closer in theoretical performance, because everybody sees what everybody else is doing, Jeremy is still convinced that there will be very large difference in boat speed, because the boat are so demanding; some will be able to push, and others won't.

He is also saying that you have to find the right "degraded mode" at 95% performance, because there are some times where it is not worth the extra effort to go 100%...

Regarding the keel failures, he does say that this is one of the things he fears the most: he does say that the One Design keel has a "rated" grounding speed around 18 knots, and that at 25 knots, you destroy the boat... He adds that around Azores Islands, which is an area with a lot of shipping activity, they all know that there is stuff in the water, and on top of that, a lot of marine life as well. So he goes further by saying; "you will not see me at 25 knots around the Azores..."

I wonder if we can quote him on that one, for the Vendée Globe... If the wind and sea conditions are right and everbody else is going 25 knots, I have a hard time to believe that he will restrain himself to 18 knots in this area, and lose 40+ miles in 12 hrs against his competition...

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

I'll weigh in with a stupid suggestion.  Leave the designing to the naval architects / structural engineers, but have rules that limit things that cost ludicrous amounts of money, sort of like the class 40.  Non-canting keels, non canting mast, get rid of those silly spreader outriggers, max beam (including foils) limits, or at least require the foils to be able to be retracted to a maximum beam.

Yeah, the boats would look very different.

The Golden Globe Race thread is elswere man

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I think we have to agree to disagree.
I like to see designers having as much freedom as possible, particularly for open class racing boats.

A keel which breaks boats and a mast which can't carry the sail when you don't need to reef don't fit with my ideals.

You need to place the this whole situation in context - before issuing such black and white statements.

The move to One design masts and canting keel specs was a life preserver to keep the whole class afloat and viable after a series of Vendee Globe editions where for the right or wrong reasons there was loss of both rigs and keels, causing some fatalities and a lot of multi-national political pressure, mainly because of sensational reporting by the media machines who love to focus on the cost of a Naval Rescue Mission and its cost to a taxpaying population most likely not French...... The organisers were under intense pressure to put their house in order and not make this a demolition/destruction/last man standing type of race.

So the specs were drawn up and they are what 8-12 years old now; and have done a remarkable job of improving finishing rates. Remember the race is so huge in France that returns on sponsorship investment can be many multiples of initial investment. But for the B, C and D grade teams who were never in with a shout of Line Honours, a new rig or new keel could be the difference in going or not going - so they would go with an old rig or a keel with a couple of laps already clocked up - and hence failure. Even the A grade teams with high budgets and intentions might be tempted by the carbon rams or hollow titantium bolts etc - at vast cost but but also higher risk of failure. So, pre One Design rules, it was tested or abused by a large proportion of the fleet.

Only with the advent of the Foilers have we seen the specs of the One Design items challenged, as boat speeds and RM have rocketed. So what. Its a good problem to have. Rather than no race or a race with bathtubs, that is so Govt. legislated as to be the proverbial watching paint dry....... Oh, hang on the GGR is already in existance.

There is a wholesale revision to the Class Rules scheduled for immediately after the next Vendee - whinge then; but expect to see One Design Masts and Canting Keel packages remain but with heavily revised specs - where investment dollars would go exponential with little outright gain in performance but again, likely trade away fleet resilience.

And its not like this class isn't the hottest design space outside of AC anyway.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

You need to place the this whole situation in context - before issuing such black and white issues.

 

There is a wholesale revision to the Class Rules scheduled for immediately after the next Vendee - whinge then; but expect to see One Design Masts and Canting Keel packages remain but with heavily revised specs

 

Since when has advocating more freedom been "whingeing"?

You are trying to blame failures on both excessive budgets and inadequate budgets, both at the same time, neither of which I believe have been proven.

What you attribute to "abuse by all and sundry throughout the fleet" is a totally unwarranted exaggeration and generalization.

Lets hope anyone revising the rules will be a little more objective and will 'fess up to what isn't working and will avoid fouling up a good thing.  I shudder to think what "heavily revised specs" might be if written by anyone with your opinions.

The VG is a great event. It has always been pretty risky. It has always attracted teams with both high and low budgets. There is no shortage of teams wanting to take part. Just let people, rich or poor, be free to keep it going forward as the most interesting offshore racing event in the world and don't kill it by over regulation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

27 minutes ago, Boink said:

And its not like this class isn't the hottest design space outside of AC anyway.

As Boink says!

And besides, it's an owners driven class, with highly experienced and knowledgeable sailors, who know a lot better than some tin foil head whinging "sailors" on SA...

That is the deal, take it or leave it.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

 

As Boink says!

And besides, it's an owners driven class, with highly experienced and knowledgeable sailors, who know a lot better than some tin foil head whinging "sailors" on SA...

That is the deal, take it or leave it.

 

Read what Boink actually said about the owners/sailors.

"so they would go with an old rig or a keel with a couple of laps already clocked up - and hence failure. Even the A grade teams with high budgets and intentions might be tempted by the carbon rams or hollow titantium bolts etc - at vast cost but but also higher risk of failure. So it was pre One Design abused by all and sundry throughout the fleet. "

Not exactly high praise! He blames both rich and poor, for taking the risks which led to the failures.

I agree with you that the current breed of owners, sailors and designers are indeed highly experienced. That is why the class doesn't any more need to have these keel and mast restrictions (which are not working!) imposed. That is the opposite of what Boink says as I read his post!

Share this post


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

The Golden Globe Race thread is elswere man

That made me laugh.  You are correct.  I am a retro grouch....ride steel framed bicycles!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Since when has advocating more freedom been "whingeing"?

It's a Transmission vs. Reception issue.

What you seem to fail to remember is that is that as the creator of that opinion - which no doubt, plays out in your own head, as craftily created and impervious to all other points of view - is in fact just opinion, but stated several times as a complaint, of the current situation.

It is interesting that in one posting you advocate materials restrictions, I think based on cost, yet in another bemoan stifling creative choices or restrictions that might otherwise produce superior performance or advances in design.

So, as long as you are the wise arbitrator of where this point of restraint or restriction happens; then you will be happy or satisfied.

Otherwise, with the status quo, you are not....

Yet we are discussing a massively popular event and class of boat that is in rude health.

Which circles us back to the commonly found situation - Whingers never like to be identified, but you do fit the definition. Not forgetting that usually, the only person who cannot identify who or where the Whinger is; is the Whinger.....

whinger
noun [ C ]
 UK informal disapproving 
 
 /ˈwɪn.dʒər/ US/ˈwɪn.dʒɚ/
 
 
 

Share this post


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

That made me laugh.  You are correct.  I am a retro grouch....ride steel framed bicycles!

I kinda like what the Minis do...  with the serie and proto options...  Seems like it could be scaled up to Class 40's and IMOCAs...  The Serie version would achieve the spirit of your point without blowing the development of the whole class, and would also allow lower-budget or first-time-owners to build experience on Serie versions while the pros are pushing the limits of technology in Proto.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good split, the tamer more solid series vs the prototypes, but its not necessarily lower budget... A back of the fleet proto can be very cheap.

I'd argue Class 40s are your series IMOCA in a way, non carbon hull, fixed keel, no outriggers... Step towards the IMOCA without being one... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2019 at 6:23 PM, Chimp too said:

Or when the keel hit the object, the load got transferred to the bearing support structure, which failed, and the keel fell out. If the keel itself failed then much less likely that they would have to cut it free. Sounds like the keel itself was intact until they were able to cut through the ram. 

If you are right then the thing that broke was whatever it is that supports the keel hinge presumably because it couldn't handle the loads.  Whichever is correct I still don't buy the collision theory.  Not enough hull damage.

Share this post


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

That is why the class doesn't any more need to have these keel and mast restrictions (which are not working!) imposed. That is the opposite of what Boink says as I read his post!

A development class like this will always need some restrictions. The current breed of skippers are demonstrating that they won’t stop development. The OD rig in particular controls them. Don’t forget that the class always meant to vary an RM control. But the 10 degree rule got worked around. The OD rig is much harder to cheat. It is doing just what the class intended.