Jump to content


Farr 400 vs McConaghy 38 vs Farr 40


  • Please log in to reply
716 replies to this topic

#101 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 10:00 AM



And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!


No question, the Farr is considerably more expensive - could very well be twice the price of the MC38 depending on specifics. For some people it might be worth the premium, for (many?) others it will not be. We will see the answer in the market soon.


The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.

#102 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 10:05 AM




And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!


No question, the Farr is considerably more expensive - could very well be twice the price of the MC38 depending on specifics. For some people it might be worth the premium, for (many?) others it will not be. We will see the answer in the market soon.


The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.


Wrong, it means no such thing.

#103 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 11:35 AM





And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!


No question, the Farr is considerably more expensive - could very well be twice the price of the MC38 depending on specifics. For some people it might be worth the premium, for (many?) others it will not be. We will see the answer in the market soon.


The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.


Wrong, it means no such thing.


So what does it mean? (this is like pulling teeth)

Have all boats built by Premier Composites been sold? Have they built more than 13 boats? Tell me?

Careful now.

#104 williwaw

williwaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Location:Netherlands, Amsterdam area

Posted 25 March 2012 - 12:09 PM

Fact is that they are being smoked by the new Carkeek 40 in the Rolex at St. Thomas.

#105 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 02:28 PM



[SNIP]

The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.


Wrong, it means no such thing.


So what does it mean? (this is like pulling teeth)

Have all boats built by Premier Composites been sold? Have they built more than 13 boats? Tell me?

Careful now.


Very simple:
  • Not all boats that have been ordered have been built/finished yet.
  • Some of the boats built are dealer/promotional boats available for charter and test sails.


#106 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 02:37 PM

Fact is that they are being smoked by the new Carkeek 40 in the Rolex at St. Thomas.


On the water, for sure - as it should be. Would be ridiculous to expect anything else.

On handicap, not so much - at least not under CSA. But much too early to tell, I reckon.

#107 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 05:12 PM

"So, what's the problem with a cynical marketing scheme that assumes potential customers can be lead to believe the class has already reached some kind of critical mass? Absolutely nothing, it's pretty much key...blah, blah..."

(fixed it for you...)

thanks for that...


Anybody with enough money to afford one of these boats in the first place is smart enough to understand how things are marketed and to do his homework.

And for the record that marketing technique (of showing how good class racing can be) did in fact work to sell boats.

MC38 is nice but having climbed all over one I wouldn't take it any more than 100 miles offshore. Farr 400 is a different story.

#108 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,518 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:42 PM

Decision broke her prod on Ben Poucher and Tim Fetsch's Class 40 Icarus's ass today in the final start. Pooch was above and ahead of Decision, who clearly thought there was no overlap when she turned up hard to start. End of the dick caught port side pushpit, mangling the stainless, and crunching the last foot or so off. Got back to the dock and it was already unbolted, no evidence to see! Got pics when Meg gets her camera back here.

#109 Jabbawocky

Jabbawocky

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Lots

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:42 PM

It seemed the two MC38's in the Sydney Harbour regatta were just match racing

You going to do that with the Farr 400 at Port Stephens if you are both in the same fleet?

#110 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,518 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:12 PM

Meg Hislop photo, with my editing screwing it up.

Attached Files



#111 Don

Don

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 778 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:21 PM

The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.
No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and no sails.
So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.
You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.
Don't believe me do the maths.

#112 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 10:32 PM

The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.
No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and no sails.
So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.
You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.
Don't believe me do the maths.


Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

So whats your point?

#113 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 25 March 2012 - 10:34 PM


"So, what's the problem with a cynical marketing scheme that assumes potential customers can be lead to believe the class has already reached some kind of critical mass? Absolutely nothing, it's pretty much key...blah, blah..."

(fixed it for you...)

thanks for that...


Anybody with enough money to afford one of these boats in the first place is smart enough to understand how things are marketed and to do his homework.

And for the record that marketing technique (of showing how good class racing can be) did in fact work to sell boats.

MC38 is nice but having climbed all over one I wouldn't take it any more than 100 miles offshore. Farr 400 is a different story.


I notice the Farr sales site has removed references to owners at Key West, although Dee's blog still refers to the owner drivers, not loaners. I don't have a problem with them lending or chartering the first boats they've built (and yes its a good idea) just don't imply they're sold by calling them owners.

It seems to me that if you were to prefer the 400 offshore it is because of the headroom and those high topsides (what is with that?). Any other reason? (and don't tell me McConaghys don't build a quality product)

I think that to claim one wouldn't go offshore in the MC38 is a reflection on what level of discomfort you'll accept..and frankly it'll be about the same with the Farr. Yes, the Farr 400 will be marginally more comfortable but it's pretty academic at 2 in the morning hiking your arse off. Both crews will be wet, both crews will have racks to catch a nap if the breeze lightens and one crew will be whinging occasionally about headroom. For the record, McConaghy's have a natty hard glass dodger for the companionway for offshore racing. The interior on both Cones has been left clear finished carbon which makes it hard to see below. I'll be encouraging Jamie to invest in 12oz of white polyurethane though I don't like my chances..

We sailed the old Cone for 4 seasons in the various East Coast races here as well as Jamie entering two Transpacs and the new owners doing Bermuda, Chicago Mackinac, Pineapple Cup and others. Same goes for the Mumm 3o Tow Truck, they even did a Sydney Hobart.. The new Cone will be easier offshore, by comparison. The MC38 and the Farr will be two of the less comfortable boats, but if you want to go to sea and be comfortable buy a Hinkley.

#114 jbs

jbs

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:24 AM

1332685716[/url]' post='3642796']

1332675349[/url]' post='3642690']

1332669948[/url]' post='3642668']

1332669627[/url]' post='3642667']
[SNIP]

The Farr website says 13 BOATS SOLD. So the 5 boats at Key West must have been sold.


Wrong, it means no such thing.


So what does it mean? (this is like pulling teeth)

Have all boats built by Premier Composites been sold? Have they built more than 13 boats? Tell me?

Careful now.


Very simple:
  • Not all boats that have been ordered have been built/finished yet.
  • Some of the boats built are dealer/promotional boats available for charter and test sails.


Thank you for adding some common sense to this discussion.

#115 Don

Don

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 778 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:35 AM


The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.
No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and no sails.
So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.
You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.
Don't believe me do the maths.


Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

So whats your point?


Point is, SA posters to this thread have been talking basic price of the MC and Farr not the ready to sail/compete all up cost.
If you are going to argue the price of different yachts, at least use the realistic figures.

#116 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:11 AM



The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.
No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and no sails.
So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.
You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.
Don't believe me do the maths.


Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

So whats your point?


Point is, SA posters to this thread have been talking basic price of the MC and Farr not the ready to sail/compete all up cost.
If you are going to argue the price of different yachts, at least use the realistic figures.


For sure... and so its has always been in the marine industry. I just couldn't be arsed going through the one design stuff to see which sails are specified etc etc. Your rough estimate of around 110k on top of the basic price for the MC38 sounds right but the Farr needs more than that to get it to the start line.

Which means the Farr400 is a much more expensive boat compared to the MC38 and I can't see why it should be, especially if you've had a good look at both boats, which I have..

#117 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:46 AM

It seemed the two MC38's in the Sydney Harbour regatta were just match racing

You going to do that with the Farr 400 at Port Stephens if you are both in the same fleet?

maybe... :ph34r:

in IRC it's likely to be 7 TP52s + M38 + F400 in Div 1. even rabid supporters of the smaller boats won't expect us to be mixing with the TPs, so that only leaves the F400 to play with

but hopefully it will be more follow the leader than match racing...

cheers,

#118 Windward Mark

Windward Mark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:59 AM

It's a shame that the 400 has entered in PHS and left the MC38 in IRC...... Souds somthing like the SHR a couple of weeks ago, but then they left it until the last mintue to change so the MC had no chance of changing divisions.

#119 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:28 AM

It's a shame that the 400 has entered in PHS and left the MC38 in IRC...... Souds somthing like the SHR a couple of weeks ago, but then they left it until the last mintue to change so the MC had no chance of changing divisions.

yes...just looking at the entry list and seen the change. bugger !

anybody got any background - apart from the obvious assumption ?

anyway, now gives us an interesting decision...we may have to change too !

cheers,

#120 Gorn FRANTIC!!

Gorn FRANTIC!!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,639 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie, Australia

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:59 AM

It could be that the people running the website haven't moved Ichi Ban into the IRC division yet. They've been on the entry list for Port Stephens for at least a month or more and that piece of housekeeping may not have been done. It could have been a strategic move by Matt Allen to get the boat entered and ensure he got a marina pen at Dalbora then worry about divisions etc later.

#121 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:43 AM

It could be that the people running the website haven't moved Ichi Ban into the IRC division yet. They've been on the entry list for Port Stephens for at least a month or more and that piece of housekeeping may not have been done. It could have been a strategic move by Matt Allen to get the boat entered and ensure he got a marina pen at Dalbora then worry about divisions etc later.

maybe...

all we can see is the boat was in the IRC div...then we entered the M38 in IRC div...now it's in the PHS div

wonder what will happen if we switch to PHS div ?

:D

cheers,

#122 Gorn FRANTIC!!

Gorn FRANTIC!!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,639 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie, Australia

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:54 AM

Very interesting. I hadn't looked at the entry list until I read your post the other day about The Cone being entered and Ichi Ban getting an IRC cert. When I did look I saw that Ichi was "still" in PHS and they hadn't re-shuffled the divisions yet.

#123 Edake

Edake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:10 AM


And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

#124 Edake

Edake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:16 AM


The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.
No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and no sails.
So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.
You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.
Don't believe me do the maths.


Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

So whats your point?

2 and a half times the cost of a Farr 40 OD maybe even three!

#125 williwaw

williwaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Location:Netherlands, Amsterdam area

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:24 AM

What is the Carkeek 40 costing?

#126 BAR KARATE

BAR KARATE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,331 posts
  • Location:Somewhere on the East Coast of OZ
  • Interests:Alcoholic with a Sailing Problem

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:15 AM



And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

The Farr's are bottomless pits in the arms race whereas the M38 have a limited sail inventory per season in OD config. I guess it'll take someone with kahuna's as big as Rock mellons to prove that a M38 will do an offshore race as was done for the F40 OD's a while ago. There were plenty of nay sayers back then as well as there are now. Just fuckin sendit ......

#127 Edake

Edake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:21 AM




And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

The Farr's are bottomless pits in the arms race whereas the M38 have a limited sail inventory per season in OD config. I guess it'll take someone with kahuna's as big as Rock mellons to prove that a M38 will do an offshore race as was done for the F40 OD's a while ago. There were plenty of nay sayers back then as well as there are now. Just fuckin sendit ......

I agree that it can be sailed offshore but it will need some good guys like the Tigers and the Cone to do it. They just do not sleep for the 2-3 days to do the long offshore east coast ozzie races. Nice SE and send it! Still a chance I could join the fleet just need to rationalise the ownership levels and for what it is worth the MC38 would get my vote over the Farr 400.

#128 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:59 AM

What is the Carkeek 40 costing?


A lot more than any of the others.

#129 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:31 AM



And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

Easy Tiger.. the boat fits in a 40 foot container so the cost of shipping is very competitive from China and you get a galvanised reusable cradle to use for overseas regattas. The GST is not 50k but I'll let McConaghys tell you and the sails are the new Norths Infusion and they weren't that much! Where's Jamie when you need him?? He is about to buy the Ocean racing options that'll add a bit. We've got some cat 1 kit in his garage so we'll be offshore racing for not too much over 400k with a brand new state of the art boat.

#130 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:48 AM



The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.
No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and no sails.
So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.
You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.
Don't believe me do the maths.


Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

So whats your point?

2 and a half times the cost of a Farr 40 OD maybe even three!


You do mean a second hand Farr 40?? Hull starting to go soft and needing new rag? Maybe re rigging, perhaps the rudder bearings are worn? Its not comparing apples with apples to say 2.5 times the cost.

The speed difference between the old Farr 40 and these new one designs off the wind is startling. I've raced on Cone with the kite on and any analysis on any course that thinks the old Farr 40 will have a similar pace is pure Disneyland. On corrected time I hope it'll be a lot closer because that will mean the IRC handicap system works. That's the only analysis which has any traction.

#131 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:59 AM




The MC38 is $248K in BASIC spec.
No instruments, antifouling, pipecots, portapotty, stove and galley unit, freshwater system, cotpit clip points, navigation lights, etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and no sails.
So now we are talking $360K at least to get one capable of a Sydney to Southport style race.
You want to transport the boat add another $12K to $20K for cradle etc.
Don't believe me do the maths.


Do the Same with the Farr and you'll find it more expensive too..

So whats your point?

2 and a half times the cost of a Farr 40 OD maybe even three!


You do mean a second hand Farr 40?? Hull starting to go soft and needing new rag? Maybe re rigging, perhaps the rudder bearings are worn? Its not comparing apples with apples to say 2.5 times the cost.

The speed difference between the old Farr 40 and these new one designs off the wind is startling. I've raced on Cone with the kite on and any analysis on any course that thinks the old Farr 40 will have a similar pace is pure Disneyland. On corrected time I hope it'll be a lot closer because that will mean the IRC handicap system works. That's the only analysis which has any traction.

+ 1...except i don't think IRC is able to deal with these sort of boats effectively

cheers,

#132 gone

gone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 123 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:09 PM


And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!


I have test sailed the boat that is in the states, which is gorgeous. Congrats Cone on a killer boat!!

I've noticed that you are planning on distance racing. The boat here has all the stuff to make it possible, I get that.

What I don't get is distance racing with a snap-on jib and only one jib and one spinnaker halyard. Do rating systems there take that into account?

Hoping to enter the build cue soon.

#133 Edake

Edake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:04 PM




And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

Easy Tiger.. the boat fits in a 40 foot container so the cost of shipping is very competitive from China and you get a galvanised reusable cradle to use for overseas regattas. The GST is not 50k but I'll let McConaghys tell you and the sails are the new Norths Infusion and they weren't that much! Where's Jamie when you need him?? He is about to buy the Ocean racing options that'll add a bit. We've got some cat 1 kit in his garage so we'll be offshore racing for not too much over 400k with a brand new state of the art boat.

Last time I looked at GST it is 10% on total costs including shipping and duty is 5% on the same base. This is a total of 15% on anything that comes from China. So I can easily get to a $50k figure. Add any instruments and other options as pointed out by someone before and I reckon you will not get any change out of that number. BTW the Farr 40 hulls are not soft. Have a look at the last wourlds when boats built over 10 years ago were still very competitive. Like any boat you have to do your homework to get the right one and not one that has been bashed in a lot of offshore races. If the MC38 can be around in 15 years time lets see how well these ones stand up as well!

#134 paulewill

paulewill

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:18 Footers<br />Mumm 30s<br />Hood 23s<br />Melges 24s<br />Wally 77s

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:29 AM





And on what basis do you consider the F400 to be "exorbitantly priced"?



Well, the Farr 400 is $US395k ex factory and the MC38 is $US248k ex factory. When you spec them up to class rules and ship them, the Farr gets much more expensive.

You could run an owner's regatta with 5 x MC38s, go faster and have more than $750k to throw at parties over the next few years (and that's just from 5 boats)


Farr 400s are actually US$420,000 ex-factory with grinder. As the others have grinders and you are supposed to be racing one design, I guess they are not really an 'option' so not sure why they are not quoted in the base price.

So if you add gst and duty, landed in Australia the prices excluding shipping. sails and instruments are:

Mc 38 $285,000
Farr 400 $483,000

Difference in price $200,000.

Difference in performance ??????????

The guy who said the Farr 400 was double the price of the MC 38 was exaggerating - it is only 1.7 times !!

So if you add say $35k shipping, $50k gst and duty and say $80k in sails to the MC38 you get a total cost of $450k or double the cost of a good Farr 40 OD right! Do not know if that is worth the performance gain inshore and how much offshore is still yet to be determine IMO.

Easy Tiger.. the boat fits in a 40 foot container so the cost of shipping is very competitive from China and you get a galvanised reusable cradle to use for overseas regattas. The GST is not 50k but I'll let McConaghys tell you and the sails are the new Norths Infusion and they weren't that much! Where's Jamie when you need him?? He is about to buy the Ocean racing options that'll add a bit. We've got some cat 1 kit in his garage so we'll be offshore racing for not too much over 400k with a brand new state of the art boat.

Last time I looked at GST it is 10% on total costs including shipping and duty is 5% on the same base. This is a total of 15% on anything that comes from China. So I can easily get to a $50k figure. Add any instruments and other options as pointed out by someone before and I reckon you will not get any change out of that number. BTW the Farr 40 hulls are not soft. Have a look at the last wourlds when boats built over 10 years ago were still very competitive. Like any boat you have to do your homework to get the right one and not one that has been bashed in a lot of offshore races. If the MC38 can be around in 15 years time lets see how well these ones stand up as well!


Last time I looked it was 2012, not 1995.

#135 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 804 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:40 AM

FYI..
3 x Farr 40's with IRC mods for sale in WA. Ive sailed them all.
Boat I run is on the Market, once sold MC 38 OD is on the way. Racing is 30 to 235nm offshore/inshore racing.
Owner looked at a Farr 40 speeds v MC38. looked at the theoretical W.L comparison under IRC. Looked at how boring the Farr 40 looked and said, "Lets get the cool looking one"

Sorry Edake, numbers have been crunched and people dont spend all that coin without doing the math, multiple times.

If they end up close on IRC, then the rule works and being on the MC 38 you would be having a hoot of a time in comparison.

As to your 15 years comment.. Give any boat 15 years of pro tweaking and the numbers of any new boat would far surpass the Farr 40.

Plus if u want to sail a Farr 40 OD in IRC to its potential you need not class standard sails, keel mod, stumpy thing for a Zero, extra bunks for offshore safety cat.. etc etc etc etc etc.. a $150k boat ends up costing $250k, and as you said, its a 15 year old design..

If OD is your game, as we know it is, I would still prefer the fast planing boat any day. And to be honest Melges 32's interest me more the the Farr 40 OD circuit.

#136 Mexican

Mexican

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,524 posts
  • Location:From south of the border

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:50 AM

FYI..
3 x Farr 40's with IRC mods for sale in WA. Ive sailed them all.
Boat I run is on the Market, once sold MC 38 OD is on the way. Racing is 30 to 235nm offshore/inshore racing.
Owner looked at a Farr 40 speeds v MC38. looked at the theoretical W.L comparison under IRC. Looked at how boring the Farr 40 looked and said, "Lets get the cool looking one"

Sorry Edake, numbers have been crunched and people dont spend all that coin without doing the math, multiple times.

If they end up close on IRC, then the rule works and being on the MC 38 you would be having a hoot of a time in comparison.

As to your 15 years comment.. Give any boat 15 years of pro tweaking and the numbers of any new boat would far surpass the Farr 40.

Plus if u want to sail a Farr 40 OD in IRC to its potential you need not class standard sails, keel mod, stumpy thing for a Zero, extra bunks for offshore safety cat.. etc etc etc etc etc.. a $150k boat ends up costing $250k, and as you said, its a 15 year old design..

If OD is your game, as we know it is, I would still prefer the fast planing boat any day. And to be honest Melges 32's interest me more the the Farr 40 OD circuit.

Sounds to me like there's a Freo to Geraldton run on the books. A picture perfect race for the M38.

Mex

#137 Don

Don

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 778 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:00 AM


FYI..
3 x Farr 40's with IRC mods for sale in WA. Ive sailed them all.
Boat I run is on the Market, once sold MC 38 OD is on the way. Racing is 30 to 235nm offshore/inshore racing.
Owner looked at a Farr 40 speeds v MC38. looked at the theoretical W.L comparison under IRC. Looked at how boring the Farr 40 looked and said, "Lets get the cool looking one"

Sorry Edake, numbers have been crunched and people dont spend all that coin without doing the math, multiple times.

If they end up close on IRC, then the rule works and being on the MC 38 you would be having a hoot of a time in comparison.

As to your 15 years comment.. Give any boat 15 years of pro tweaking and the numbers of any new boat would far surpass the Farr 40.

Plus if u want to sail a Farr 40 OD in IRC to its potential you need not class standard sails, keel mod, stumpy thing for a Zero, extra bunks for offshore safety cat.. etc etc etc etc etc.. a $150k boat ends up costing $250k, and as you said, its a 15 year old design..

If OD is your game, as we know it is, I would still prefer the fast planing boat any day. And to be honest Melges 32's interest me more the the Farr 40 OD circuit.

Sounds to me like there's a Freo to Geraldton run on the books. A picture perfect race for the M38.

Mex


At about half the cost to put in the water than General Lee.

#138 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 804 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:26 AM

Not likely.. They changed the time of the year.. from October to April for next season.. So all we would have to look forward to is cray pots and lighter winds more so from the East rather than the usual bombing SW'er..

Apparently someone was sick of getting beaten up on the Return trip and blamed Cyclone season or some bullshit..

#139 Dark Cloud

Dark Cloud

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • Location:Coldbourne

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:25 AM

Speedwise, how does the F40 OD compare to a DK46 ? They are similar on IRC....

#140 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 804 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:53 AM

Not sure but its a bit irrelevant when the running cost and crew requirement are in a different league v's these boats..

#141 GBH

GBH

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Location:mostly Oz

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:44 AM

+ 1...except i don't think IRC is able to deal with these sort of boats effectively

[/quote]

well thats at the root of the dissatisfaction with IRC, in that they are deliberately disenfranchising a whole potential bunch of owners and sailors who would much rather sail fast and fun, lighter designs - and conveniently ignore the fact that lighter boats can cost a lot less money! So the IRC world is centered around the boring same old/same old Euroshitter configuration indistinguishable from each other except by the maker's name.

Good for the 38's and their ilk for just getting on with it and waving two fingers to the rule - maybe we'll see some real design and build progress once more. And then its goodbye to IRC as it finds itself left behind.

Happened with the IOR, IMS went the same way but at least has done a bit to try and resurrect itself, metre boat rules and the rest all tried to protect the clunkers. Materials move on and you don't need a ton of steel frames or whatever to hold something together. So don't have a rule that forces people into carting unnecessary weight around which is what both IRC and ORC would have the masses do.

Its time for a new rule in maybe the same way that the CCA and RORC rules managed to get together to create the IOR. History does repeat itself but its also been the case that the politics get in the way of common sense. And here we are again!

Sportsboats rule B)

#142 Edake

Edake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:48 AM

FYI..
3 x Farr 40's with IRC mods for sale in WA. Ive sailed them all.
Boat I run is on the Market, once sold MC 38 OD is on the way. Racing is 30 to 235nm offshore/inshore racing.
Owner looked at a Farr 40 speeds v MC38. looked at the theoretical W.L comparison under IRC. Looked at how boring the Farr 40 looked and said, "Lets get the cool looking one"

Sorry Edake, numbers have been crunched and people dont spend all that coin without doing the math, multiple times.

If they end up close on IRC, then the rule works and being on the MC 38 you would be having a hoot of a time in comparison.

As to your 15 years comment.. Give any boat 15 years of pro tweaking and the numbers of any new boat would far surpass the Farr 40.

Plus if u want to sail a Farr 40 OD in IRC to its potential you need not class standard sails, keel mod, stumpy thing for a Zero, extra bunks for offshore safety cat.. etc etc etc etc etc.. a $150k boat ends up costing $250k, and as you said, its a 15 year old design..

If OD is your game, as we know it is, I would still prefer the fast planing boat any day. And to be honest Melges 32's interest me more the the Farr 40 OD circuit.

You are wrong on the mods that would be needed to be competitive in IRC imo. I will not debate that anymore as I think that all that is needed is a slightly less roachy main and an assy flown off the standard class length pole. Not anywhere near as expensive as you suggest. Around $12k. Running costs are no different unless you do the top 10 type campaign and then you will not be sailing IRC.

#143 DickDastardly

DickDastardly

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Location:Syderney

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:34 AM

+ 1...except i don't think IRC is able to deal with these sort of boats effectively

Good for the 38's and their ilk for just getting on with it and waving two fingers to the rule - maybe we'll see some real design and build progress once more. And then its goodbye to IRC as it finds itself left behind.

Happened with the IOR, IMS went the same way but at least has done a bit to try and resurrect itself, metre boat rules and the rest all tried to protect the clunkers. Materials move on and you don't need a ton of steel frames or whatever to hold something together. So don't have a rule that forces people into carting unnecessary weight around which is what both IRC and ORC would have the masses do.

IRC isn't the only rule that can't fairly handicap boats with such different performance profiles as an MC38/F400 and say a King 40 or First whatever. PHRF/PHS/ORCi all have the same problem. How does any single number handicap rule make sense of a boat that planes when the wind is up against one that never, ever planes and only surfs under protest in very big waves? How does any such rule handicap those two boat types fairly in a heavy airs race that is mainly reaching and downwind? Or vice versa - Upwind? Impossible task, pointless pontificating over it. Any rule that handicaps big sports boats fairly needs to focus on that type of boat.

#144 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,698 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:56 AM

well thats at the root of the dissatisfaction with IRC, in that they are deliberately disenfranchising a whole potential bunch of owners and sailors who would much rather sail fast and fun, lighter designs - and conveniently ignore the fact that lighter boats can cost a lot less money! So the IRC world is centered around the boring same old/same old Euroshitter configuration indistinguishable from each other except by the maker's name.

Good for the 38's and their ilk for just getting on with it and waving two fingers to the rule - maybe we'll see some real design and build progress once more. And then its goodbye to IRC as it finds itself left behind.

Happened with the IOR, IMS went the same way but at least has done a bit to try and resurrect itself, metre boat rules and the rest all tried to protect the clunkers. Materials move on and you don't need a ton of steel frames or whatever to hold something together. So don't have a rule that forces people into carting unnecessary weight around which is what both IRC and ORC would have the masses do.

Its time for a new rule in maybe the same way that the CCA and RORC rules managed to get together to create the IOR. History does repeat itself but its also been the case that the politics get in the way of common sense. And here we are again!

Sportsboats rule B)


a look at my posts will show that i am no big fan of IRC.

but your analysis is a bit off the mark...

remember that IRC was started as a rule to rate cruising boats , or cruiser racers, not race boats, - it was designed for the kind of boat that 90% of the people own.

After the end of IMS, race boat owners were basically unable to agree on a new rule for rating race boats, and they ended up using IRC

now, you are basically saying that IRC should have re-written their rule, to accommodate race boats, in a way that is not consistent with the original goal of the rule, and in a way that probably would have made it not as good for the original audience.

if anyone has been holding up race boat design, it's the raceboat owners and designers themselves, who failed for so many years to come up with a rule for the boats.

now, it seems they have one - the HPR - an we'll see how it works.

personally, i's rather race one-design on a slower boat, than under any kind of rating rule.

the soto 40 looks fantastic, and the farr 400 looks like it has a chance.

#145 Matt B

Matt B

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:22 AM

Speedwise, how does the F40 OD compare to a DK46 ? They are similar on IRC....

The DK in most condtions, if not all is faster upwind. The Farr 40 in most conditions is faster downwind. On a reach the DK probably has the edge, but both boats are designed for W/L racing so reaching is not eithers strength. The DK costs ALOT more, both on the front and back end. The DK has a very nice interior and cockpit seats. It is also built a bit better, and is much better looking. It weighs a shitload though. That is the best I can do comparing an apple to an orange.

#146 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 804 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:25 AM

HPR rewards $$ spent. Simple.. Spend $700k ++++ on a carkeek 40 and be in for the chocolates.

Throw some eglass in to dumb down the costs and you are already at a performance handicap with no TCC credit points.

That said, if they could find a happy medium for the HPR i would be in for that.

#147 Matt B

Matt B

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 11:34 AM

<snip>
[/quote]

I am not any sort of salesman, I just sail on one. If you ever want the actual facts, don't hesitate to contact me through PM. If not, I am not getting into some idiotic internet shitfest here over it.
[/quote]


I'd like to hear your `facts' too .... and I'm sure a few other posters here do too!

Bloody hell, over 10,700 posts here on Anarchy and suddenly you've got nothing to say? That has to be a record.
[/quote]

Feel free to drop me a line, sport.
[/quote]
I think his point is why have you all the sudden stopped gloating about the boat you sail on, and from all accounts had a part in the decision for your team to purchase one? Not long ago you were first to respond about anything Farr 400. Now... Not so much. Did the marketing machine "Left Hook" you and ask that you stop talking?
Don't get me wrong. I liked the fact that you were so willing to share your opinion. Especially as one of the few here who have sailed any of the boats mentioned. It added quite a bit to this discussion. It is odd how silent you have become so quickly.
Why do you get so uppety towards that last poster, big guy.
[/quote]

I never gloated about anything, but I have said all there is to be said. It's all there to go look at. Do you just want me to repeat it? Nobody has asked me stop talking, if anything, they probably would like me to go on. I have just tired of arguing with idiots and trolls. If anyone has a genuine interest in anything going on, the offer is out there. I would be happy to talk seriously about the boat, class, and any other questions anyone may have.

If anyone should stop being uppity, it's you Baldwin. You have something to say about just about everything these days it seems, kiddo.
[/quote]


Did you really call me kiddo? Thanks! I'll be sure to tell my kids that, they'll think it is pretty funny.
I hope somethng is lost in the context of these posts (yours and mine). You are one of the few here that I like and that actually offers something good to this place once in a while. I even respected your opinion. Sorry this topic has gotten your panties in a bunch.

I have something to say about everything these days? Look at your post count! Buckeroo.

#148 Dark Cloud

Dark Cloud

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • Location:Coldbourne

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:16 PM


Speedwise, how does the F40 OD compare to a DK46 ? They are similar on IRC....

The DK in most condtions, if not all is faster upwind. The Farr 40 in most conditions is faster downwind. On a reach the DK probably has the edge, but both boats are designed for W/L racing so reaching is not eithers strength. The DK costs ALOT more, both on the front and back end. The DK has a very nice interior and cockpit seats. It is also built a bit better, and is much better looking. It weighs a shitload though. That is the best I can do comparing an apple to an orange.

Thanks Matt - i knew i'd find someone here that could provide some useful feedback.
:)

#149 doghouse

doghouse

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,256 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach, Va.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:47 PM

Did you really call me kiddo? Thanks! I'll be sure to tell my kids that, they'll think it is pretty funny.
I hope somethng is lost in the context of these posts (yours and mine). You are one of the few here that I like and that actually offers something good to this place once in a while. I even respected your opinion. Sorry this topic has gotten your panties in a bunch.

I have something to say about everything these days? Look at your post count! Buckeroo.


I'm all out of condescending names now. Have we used sport yet?

#150 misconseption2348

misconseption2348

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 457 posts
  • Location:Toronto, CAN

Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:08 PM

HPR rewards $$ spent. Simple.. Spend $700k ++++ on a carkeek 40 and be in for the chocolates.

Throw some eglass in to dumb down the costs and you are already at a performance handicap with no TCC credit points.

That said, if they could find a happy medium for the HPR i would be in for that.

Half true. You will get a credit, just not a large one, and the credits start to scale down the further out of the box you go. Their goal is to typeform to something similar to a TP52. The 38 should rate well under the new rule from what some of the guys have told me. They are still dialing in the details. But basically yes, you can spend a shit ton of money and design a custom boat and do well. It should thats why you hire a designer and pay him lots of money. Otherwise no one would do it and we would all race Beneteau's.

Out of curiosity, what kind of class support does the 38 have? Is there someone managing the class or is it all owner driven right now?

I ask because the "Farr Tax" has come up a couple times as to why the cost is so much higher. One of the things you get with Farr and Melges (where you also pay more) is a decent class support. Some will argue how effective that is, and certainly farr/stag has dropped the ball a number of times, but for the most part they run decent regattas and encourage people to keep racing together. Melges does this the best. It can be difficult to get a class especially of big boats to agree on anything, just look at the 52s right now. Getting 5 new boats on the line for a top end event in the first year is pretty impressive and shows owners that they are willing to back them if/when they buy.

#151 GBH

GBH

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Location:mostly Oz

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:38 PM

Sportsboats rule B)
[/quote]

a look at my posts will show that i am no big fan of IRC.

but your analysis is a bit off the mark...

remember that IRC was started as a rule to rate cruising boats , or cruiser racers, not race boats, - it was designed for the kind of boat that 90% of the people own.

After the end of IMS, race boat owners were basically unable to agree on a new rule for rating race boats, and they ended up using IRC

now, you are basically saying that IRC should have re-written their rule, to accommodate race boats, in a way that is not consistent with the original goal of the rule, and in a way that probably would have made it not as good for the original audience.

if anyone has been holding up race boat design, it's the raceboat owners and designers themselves, who failed for so many years to come up with a rule for the boats.

now, it seems they have one - the HPR - an we'll see how it works.

personally, i's rather race one-design on a slower boat, than under any kind of rating rule.

unquote

the designers and sailors would be very happy to write their own rules! And in fact that was what happened with IRM. But then the RORC in their wisdom, after starting it all off, got cold feet and retreated from something that now forms the very basis of HPR, and good luck to them and the NYYC! But as ever politics have reared their heads yet again, the Poms won't talk to the Seppos as they are maybe worried of losing their place at the table. ORC trumpets itself as the scientific alternative and loses the plot as its only semi-scientific with a load of fudgefactors to sort of make it work and so is expensive and no better in the long run.

But don't forget that the IRC rule has been touted around the world as the saviour for all, has ( politically and we hear mathematically ) done a deal with the TP52s so that they are now the most competitive of IRC types, but try to do the same thing to make for lighter faster fun boats down the size scale and fat chance, ratings in orbit, and don't try and tell me they couldn't have sorted the maths out to at least give the smaller boats some sort of a chance.
Pressure from the Beneslugs possibly to protect their patch, ditto from the myriad IRC Euroclones? It stinks.

And if you think racing so-called one-designs is a level playing field then you're in fairyland :ph34r:
Still, if thats where you're happy to plod around then thats fine :rolleyes:

#152 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:43 PM

IRC isn't the only rule that can't fairly handicap boats with such different performance profiles as an MC38/F400 and say a King 40 or First whatever. PHRF/PHS/ORCi all have the same problem. How does any single number handicap rule make sense of a boat that planes when the wind is up against one that never, ever planes and only surfs under protest in very big waves? How does any such rule handicap those two boat types fairly in a heavy airs race that is mainly reaching and downwind? Or vice versa - Upwind? Impossible task, pointless pontificating over it. Any rule that handicaps big sports boats fairly needs to focus on that type of boat.


Some PHRF areas utilize a 3 number system with a rating assigned for courses that are upwind, reaching or downwind. Based on prevailing wind strengths for the area, the 3 rating system can very accurately account for the very issue you describe. The problem comes when actual conditions do not meet the assumed/predicted condition. (assumed downwind in 10-12 turns into upwind at 20)

But back to the cost debate - any boat is going to cost you more than you want it to; it's not how much you don't spend but rather how much you do enjoy. Otherwise we'd all buy a nice bike and take up cycling.

#153 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,698 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 04:55 PM

Sportsboats rule B)


a look at my posts will show that i am no big fan of IRC.

but your analysis is a bit off the mark...

remember that IRC was started as a rule to rate cruising boats , or cruiser racers, not race boats, - it was designed for the kind of boat that 90% of the people own.

After the end of IMS, race boat owners were basically unable to agree on a new rule for rating race boats, and they ended up using IRC

now, you are basically saying that IRC should have re-written their rule, to accommodate race boats, in a way that is not consistent with the original goal of the rule, and in a way that probably would have made it not as good for the original audience.

if anyone has been holding up race boat design, it's the raceboat owners and designers themselves, who failed for so many years to come up with a rule for the boats.

now, it seems they have one - the HPR - an we'll see how it works.

personally, i's rather race one-design on a slower boat, than under any kind of rating rule.


the designers and sailors would be very happy to write their own rules! And in fact that was what happened with IRM. But then the RORC in their wisdom, after starting it all off, got cold feet and retreated from something that now forms the very basis of HPR, and good luck to them and the NYYC! But as ever politics have reared their heads yet again, the Poms won't talk to the Seppos as they are maybe worried of losing their place at the table. ORC trumpets itself as the scientific alternative and loses the plot as its only semi-scientific with a load of fudgefactors to sort of make it work and so is expensive and no better in the long run.

But don't forget that the IRC rule has been touted around the world as the saviour for all, has ( politically and we hear mathematically ) done a deal with the TP52s so that they are now the most competitive of IRC types, but try to do the same thing to make for lighter faster fun boats down the size scale and fat chance, ratings in orbit, and don't try and tell me they couldn't have sorted the maths out to at least give the smaller boats some sort of a chance.
Pressure from the Beneslugs possibly to protect their patch, ditto from the myriad IRC Euroclones? It stinks.

And if you think racing so-called one-designs is a level playing field then you're in fairyland :ph34r:
Still, if thats where you're happy to plod around then thats fine :rolleyes:


you clipped my comment in which i said that both the Soto 40, and Farr 400 looked nice..

Soto already has OD sailing, and the Farr might, or might not..

in any case i don't think either plods around.

of course not all OD boats are __exactly the same.., but it's generally pretty good. are there many complaints from the Soto 40 people?

but, i would say that if you think you can rely on a rating scheme to provide real racing..., it's you who are in fairy land.

#154 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:34 PM


Did you really call me kiddo? Thanks! I'll be sure to tell my kids that, they'll think it is pretty funny.
I hope somethng is lost in the context of these posts (yours and mine). You are one of the few here that I like and that actually offers something good to this place once in a while. I even respected your opinion. Sorry this topic has gotten your panties in a bunch.

I have something to say about everything these days? Look at your post count! Buckeroo.


I'm all out of condescending names now. Have we used sport yet?


Seppo always works.

Especially since barf bitch is taken.

#155 narecet

narecet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 27 March 2012 - 05:48 PM

Suggestions:

Chum, pal, friend, buddy, Bub, Sparky, Bunky, Bucko, son

#156 Gorn FRANTIC!!

Gorn FRANTIC!!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,639 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie, Australia

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:51 PM





Did you really call me kiddo? Thanks! I'll be sure to tell my kids that, they'll think it is pretty funny.
I hope somethng is lost in the context of these posts (yours and mine). You are one of the few here that I like and that actually offers something good to this place once in a while. I even respected your opinion. Sorry this topic has gotten your panties in a bunch.

I have something to say about everything these days? Look at your post count! Buckeroo.


I'm all out of condescending names now. Have we used sport yet?

Just use cunt. That's the all purpose greeting and term of endearment down here in 'Straya these days.

#157 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,974 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:52 PM

Uh...

Quick tutorial for how to quote prior posts

  • A quote begins with [quote] and ends with [/quote].
  • If there is a mismatch between begin and end tags, the layout will break.
  • You can "nest" quotes. Please heed your attributions whilst doing so.
  • You can edit the name, timestamp and post attributes if you want to.

    [quote name='original noobie poster' timestamp='1332666135' post='3642634']

    By edit, I mean delete the entire attribute. e.g. change it to:

    [quote name='original noobie poster'] for example, or:
    [quote name='some falsified name'] or just simply:
    [quote]


Here's an example off all four quoting styles:

This here is the entire opening tag as generated automatically when you click the little "Reply" button within an individual post.

In this example we have stripped out the timestamp and post attributes.

Again, no timestamp or post attributes, plus we changed the name attribute.

This is the raw [quote] tag -- no attributes at all.



#158 misconseption2348

misconseption2348

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 457 posts
  • Location:Toronto, CAN

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:57 PM

Uh...

Quick tutorial for how to quote prior posts

  • A quote begins with [quote] and ends with [/quote].
  • If there is a mismatch between begin and end tags, the layout will break.
  • You can "nest" quotes. Please heed your attributions whilst doing so.
  • You can edit the name, timestamp and post attributes if you want to.

    [quote name='original noobie poster' timestamp='1332666135' post='3642634']

    By edit, I mean delete the entire attribute. e.g. change it to:

    [quote name='original noobie poster'] for example, or:
    [quote name='some falsified name'] or just simply:
    [quote]


Here's an example off all four quoting styles:


This here is the entire opening tag as generated automatically when you click the little "Reply" button within an individual post.

In this example we have stripped out the timestamp and post attributes.

Again, no timestamp or post attributes, plus we changed the name attribute.

This is the raw [quote] tag -- no attributes at all.

Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

#159 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,974 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:04 PM

Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

Yes! You got it right!

Though you are getting perilously close to exceeding the number of quotes we are allowed in a single post!

I posted this, not to be condescending, but to benefit my own selfish person because I can't decipher some of the mash-ups we get here.

#160 gone

gone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 123 posts

Posted 28 March 2012 - 05:41 AM


Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

Yes! You got it right!

Though you are getting perilously close to exceeding the number of quotes we are allowed in a single post!

I posted this, not to be condescending, but to benefit my own selfish person because I can't decipher some of the mash-ups we get here.


I'm trying to get the hang of this myself...

My sleep-deprived parent brain, can't remember the correct buttons to click. Post-it notes are in order...

Or sleep. Not to bump the thread. Thanks SE.

Back on business of rating rules. New York Yacht Club is working on a High Performance Rule to rate these crazy fast planing boats.

Carkeek and others where involved in the "rule type form". Formula was piloted at Key West Race Week. I'm glad about this new rating system the encourages "fast is fun" sailing.

If you are using a formula to calculate ratings wouldn't any rule create a type form?

Having a rule that changes with wind strength or direction would be harder to administer.

Gone

#161 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 28 March 2012 - 10:53 AM



Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

Yes! You got it right!

Though you are getting perilously close to exceeding the number of quotes we are allowed in a single post!

I posted this, not to be condescending, but to benefit my own selfish person because I can't decipher some of the mash-ups we get here.


I'm trying to get the hang of this myself...

My sleep-deprived parent brain, can't remember the correct buttons to click. Post-it notes are in order...

Or sleep. Not to bump the thread. Thanks SE.

Back on business of rating rules. New York Yacht Club is working on a High Performance Rule to rate these crazy fast planing boats.

Carkeek and others where involved in the "rule type form". Formula was piloted at Key West Race Week. I'm glad about this new rating system the encourages "fast is fun" sailing.

If you are using a formula to calculate ratings wouldn't any rule create a type form?

Having a rule that changes with wind strength or direction would be harder to administer.

Gone


i seem to remember IMS did something like that...back in the good old days

of course that rule created it's share of dogs too...

cheers,

#162 gone

gone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 123 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 02:19 AM




Thanks SE you're the bestest! Did I do it right?

Yes! You got it right!

Though you are getting perilously close to exceeding the number of quotes we are allowed in a single post!

I posted this, not to be condescending, but to benefit my own selfish person because I can't decipher some of the mash-ups we get here.


I'm trying to get the hang of this myself...

My sleep-deprived parent brain, can't remember the correct buttons to click. Post-it notes are in order...

Or sleep. Not to bump the thread. Thanks SE.

Back on business of rating rules. New York Yacht Club is working on a High Performance Rule to rate these crazy fast planing boats.

Carkeek and others where involved in the "rule type form". Formula was piloted at Key West Race Week. I'm glad about this new rating system the encourages "fast is fun" sailing.

If you are using a formula to calculate ratings wouldn't any rule create a type form?

Having a rule that changes with wind strength or direction would be harder to administer.

Gone


i seem to remember IMS did something like that...back in the good old days

of course that rule created it's share of dogs too...

cheers,


IMS rule created those "fantastic looking" slab sided boats. IOR created boats that rolled over and played dead due to their high center of gravity. Designers found ways to create boats that were "fast" for their rating. My sincere hope is that the rule truly encourages FAST, as opposed to fast for its rating...

IMS did have different ratings for various wind strengths and it appears (to the casual observer) that the CSA rule (in the Caribbean) and maybe some rules "down under" take this into account. is this the case?

Other than slowing the results process are their any disadvantages to rules that change with wind speeds?

gone

#163 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,518 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 29 March 2012 - 02:34 AM

CSA has no wind speed adjustment, but when the wind blows its usual 15-25 as it has on the four CSA events I've done, it's pretty damned good at making close results. We tied with a J/80 one race last week, and they beat us by 1 second in another - in both cases, we were 10-15 minutes faster elapsed, with a symmetric vs. assym. Corrected over a J/122 by 3 and 6 seconds, etc.

Same thing in CSA 1 last week, where a Hendo 30, Melges 24, the HPR boat, and Farr 400, were all neck and neck on corrected.

I'm guessing it wouldn't do a great job in super light air...but what does?

#164 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 02:37 AM

"Other than slowing the results process are their any disadvantages to rules that change with wind speeds?" (gone)

Sure, the results can be 'gamed' by interested parties who would gain by promoting one 'windspeed factor' over another. The typical method was protest after result's posting, claiming 'wrong' factor used, and providing 'windspeed evidence' to make the jury instruct the PRO to re-calculate. Was used effectively at StFYC BBS for years.

#165 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,698 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 02:41 AM

CSA has no wind speed adjustment, but when the wind blows its usual 15-25 as it has on the four CSA events I've done, it's pretty damned good at making close results. We tied with a J/80 one race last week, and they beat us by 1 second in another - in both cases, we were 10-15 minutes faster elapsed, with a symmetric vs. assym. Corrected over a J/122 by 3 and 6 seconds, etc.

Same thing in CSA 1 last week, where a Hendo 30, Melges 24, the HPR boat, and Farr 400, were all neck and neck on corrected.

I'm guessing it wouldn't do a great job in super light air...but what does?


people who defend rating schemes always say things like this...

drives me crazy!

the rule is good because it produces close finishes????

maybe the finishes shouldn't have been close...

in order to demonstrate that the rule is good..., you assume the very thing the rule is trying to determine - that is, what the corrected times should be.

also, ORR (newport-bermuda etc.) uses different ratings for different wind speeds

#166 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,518 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:37 AM


CSA has no wind speed adjustment, but when the wind blows its usual 15-25 as it has on the four CSA events I've done, it's pretty damned good at making close results. We tied with a J/80 one race last week, and they beat us by 1 second in another - in both cases, we were 10-15 minutes faster elapsed, with a symmetric vs. assym. Corrected over a J/122 by 3 and 6 seconds, etc.

Same thing in CSA 1 last week, where a Hendo 30, Melges 24, the HPR boat, and Farr 400, were all neck and neck on corrected.

I'm guessing it wouldn't do a great job in super light air...but what does?


people who defend rating schemes always say things like this...

drives me crazy!

the rule is good because it produces close finishes????

maybe the finishes shouldn't have been close...

in order to demonstrate that the rule is good..., you assume the very thing the rule is trying to determine - that is, what the corrected times should be.

also, ORR (newport-bermuda etc.) uses different ratings for different wind speeds


My point is that boats are finishing very close, even tied, to each other on multiple occasions in the same regatta. That means the rule is consistently rating boat-on-boat action, which probably means it's doing a good job. The top three Puerto Rican skippers in our class all know each other for ages, and they all agree that the others sail at a similarly high level to themselves. And after six races, we were on 14, 14.5, and 15 in a 13 boat class - something I've rarely seen under PHRF, IRC, or ORR.

Same with the F400, sailed by some very good pros, losing out to the very well sailed and chock-full-of-local-knowledge Budget Marine M24 that just won the Heineken by a ton. Again, sailors who should be at the very top of the performance curve, on boats that are wildly dissimilar, yet the corrected times are seriously close.

#167 DickDastardly

DickDastardly

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Location:Syderney

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:26 AM

MC38
Posted Image

Farr 400
Posted Image

GP42
Posted Image

#168 facthunt

facthunt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 894 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:18 AM

good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.

#169 Asymptote

Asymptote

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,583 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:08 AM

good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.


Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

#170 DickDastardly

DickDastardly

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Location:Syderney

Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:19 AM


good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.


Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

I've done the same in our Cookson 12. They're surprisingly fast and easier to sail than Farr 40s. Farr 40 Polars here, but I know they sail a couple of tenths fast than these upwind. I'm a bit skeptical about those MC38 numbers upwind - but they will be flat water inshore numbers so that probably counts for something. But, knowing the programs behind those boats well I've no doubt their instruments are calibrated.

#171 facthunt

facthunt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 894 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:32 AM


good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.


Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)



inshore, offshore bump numbers and angles may change a litle, and yeh steam gauge calibration is subjective,good sailors use thier empathy for speed through the water to find thier edge. the chart is a good place to start .

#172 Gorn FRANTIC!!

Gorn FRANTIC!!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,639 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie, Australia

Posted 10 April 2012 - 06:33 AM

Interesting. I'm surprised at the difference in speed downhill between the MC38 & F400.

#173 Don

Don

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 778 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 10 April 2012 - 07:18 AM

Interesting. I'm surprised at the difference in speed downhill between the MC38 & F400.


Designer polars are a baseline to work off and are a great sales tool.
They mean nothing until modified/updated after actual racing with well calibrated instruments.
My RP 36 design polars were easy beats.

#174 facthunt

facthunt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 894 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 07:42 AM

i think the far design is optimised toward w/l, rare to get that configuration in a passage race.

#175 TD Floater

TD Floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Canberra ACT, Australia

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:59 AM

Greenie has said that the upwinds on the MC38 are a bit high, but the downwinds are low.

As he says, it's a work in progress and what the designer is working off. In the end reality hits, boats get sorted and raced more and smart people work out things that they do.

I think the MC is optimised to looking sexy and fun, I said that. Should have asked Greenie that one, but if I'm not drinking, I'm to busy trying to keep up.

#176 DickDastardly

DickDastardly

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Location:Syderney

Posted 10 April 2012 - 10:06 AM

Greenie has said that the upwinds on the MC38 are a bit high, but the downwinds are low

I'd buy that

#177 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:01 PM


Greenie has said that the upwinds on the MC38 are a bit high, but the downwinds are low

I'd buy that

Me too. No way she is that slow downhill.

#178 Asymptote

Asymptote

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,583 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:05 PM



good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.


Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

I've done the same in our Cookson 12. They're surprisingly fast and easier to sail than Farr 40s. Farr 40 Polars here, but I know they sail a couple of tenths fast than these upwind. I'm a bit skeptical about those MC38 numbers upwind - but they will be flat water inshore numbers so that probably counts for something. But, knowing the programs behind those boats well I've no doubt their instruments are calibrated.


Interesting that those Farr 40 upwind numbers are almost identical to ours, maybe .05 higher. Our downwind numbers are approximately the same - again a touch lower - as well since we went to masthead kites with a longer pole. Which is pretty much what we've seen on the race course. Since our ratings have some "across the border" anomalies up here, not much use talking about that.

I'd like to line up against a M38 or a Farr 400 Just to see what they really can do. I suspect on a point-to-point they'd be deadly.


Now...if we only knew what to do with the Melges 32s that we owe time to. Friggen' fast little critters.






#179 Edake

Edake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:05 AM

MC38
Posted Image

Farr 400
Posted Image

GP42
Posted Image

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

#180 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:13 AM




good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.


Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

I've done the same in our Cookson 12. They're surprisingly fast and easier to sail than Farr 40s. Farr 40 Polars here, but I know they sail a couple of tenths fast than these upwind. I'm a bit skeptical about those MC38 numbers upwind - but they will be flat water inshore numbers so that probably counts for something. But, knowing the programs behind those boats well I've no doubt their instruments are calibrated.


Interesting that those Farr 40 upwind numbers are almost identical to ours, maybe .05 higher. Our downwind numbers are approximately the same - again a touch lower - as well since we went to masthead kites with a longer pole. Which is pretty much what we've seen on the race course. Since our ratings have some "across the border" anomalies up here, not much use talking about that.

I'd like to line up against a M38 or a Farr 400 Just to see what they really can do. I suspect on a point-to-point they'd be deadly.


Now...if we only knew what to do with the Melges 32s that we owe time to. Friggen' fast little critters.

there is a melges 32 entered in the first part of the port stephens regatta (in which we hv the Mc38). frankly in the flat water / light air, i'm more worried about the melges than i am about the 2 F40s

oh, and the IRC for the Mc38 (well the Cone anyway) is out. it's 1.255. high, but will do it easily on a down hill passage race. W/L course round the cans will be tough, but not out of the question... interested to see how we go !

cheers,

#181 DickDastardly

DickDastardly

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Location:Syderney

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:19 AM


MC38
Posted Image

Farr 400
Posted Image

GP42
Posted Image

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

#182 DogWillBark

DogWillBark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Location:Rocky River, OH.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:14 PM

CRW next week...
Division: PHRF PHRF A
USA 60432 Cool Breeze Mills 43 Custom 43 -6.0
ODC 12 Madina Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0
USA ODC10 Predator Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0
CAN 5 Carbonado McConaghy 38 38
USA 406 Spaceman Spiff Farr 400 38.5
USA 404 Meridian X Farr 400 38.5
USA 403 Team Premier Farr400 38

#183 narecet

narecet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:21 PM



MC38
Posted Image

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

Wouldn't the VB label stand for boat velocity?

#184 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:53 PM

CRW next week...
Division: PHRF PHRF A
USA 60432 Cool Breeze Mills 43 Custom 43 -6.0
ODC 12 Madina Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0
USA ODC10 Predator Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0
CAN 5 Carbonado McConaghy 38 38
USA 406 Spaceman Spiff Farr 400 38.5
USA 404 Meridian X Farr 400 38.5
USA 403 Team Premier Farr400 38


Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.

#185 DogWillBark

DogWillBark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts
  • Location:Rocky River, OH.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:56 PM

Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.


+1. Money's on Sled.

#186 Lee G

Lee G

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,514 posts
  • Location:the rough part of Stamford

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:26 PM


CRW next week...
Division: PHRF PHRF A
USA 60432 Cool Breeze Mills 43 Custom 43 -6.0
ODC 12 Madina Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0
USA ODC10 Predator Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0
CAN 5 Carbonado McConaghy 38 38
USA 406 Spaceman Spiff Farr 400 38.5
USA 404 Meridian X Farr 400 38.5
USA 403 Team Premier Farr400 38


Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.


Charter boats/crews on the 40's or M38/400's?

#187 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:50 PM



CRW next week...
Division: PHRF PHRF A
USA 60432 Cool Breeze Mills 43 Custom 43 -6.0
ODC 12 Madina Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0
USA ODC10 Predator Farr 40 Ondeck 40 -6.0
CAN 5 Carbonado McConaghy 38 38
USA 406 Spaceman Spiff Farr 400 38.5
USA 404 Meridian X Farr 400 38.5
USA 403 Team Premier Farr400 38


Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.


Charter boats/crews on the 40's or M38/400's?


Oops, I wasn't specific. The Farr 40's are charter boats.

Sorry

#188 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:58 PM


Be cautious about drawing conclusions from the performances of those Farr 40's against the M38/F400. Charter boats with charter crews.


+1. Money's on Sled.



Ask me who I think will win at the end of the day next Sunday. Until then it's totally up in the air.

#189 Windward Mark

Windward Mark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:48 AM



MC38
Posted Image

Farr 400
Posted Image

GP42
Posted Image

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...


Edake, I think you will find they are boatspeed targets for best upwind/dwonwind VMG. Not target VMG speeds.......

#190 Windward Mark

Windward Mark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:53 AM





good post, it will be interesting to see how those targets stack up with reality.


Admittedly my ol' Cookson 12m is a bit gimpy, slower and generally headed out to pasture than those three race horses. But I swear I've sailed side-by-side with Farr 40's upwind for hours on many occasions with polar targets (and boat speed readouts) that are about a half-knot lower than those. Has somebody been foolin' with my steam gauge? Or are those numbers juiced a little to keep the marketing boys happy?

(With all apologies for mixing metaphors.)

I've done the same in our Cookson 12. They're surprisingly fast and easier to sail than Farr 40s. Farr 40 Polars here, but I know they sail a couple of tenths fast than these upwind. I'm a bit skeptical about those MC38 numbers upwind - but they will be flat water inshore numbers so that probably counts for something. But, knowing the programs behind those boats well I've no doubt their instruments are calibrated.


Interesting that those Farr 40 upwind numbers are almost identical to ours, maybe .05 higher. Our downwind numbers are approximately the same - again a touch lower - as well since we went to masthead kites with a longer pole. Which is pretty much what we've seen on the race course. Since our ratings have some "across the border" anomalies up here, not much use talking about that.

I'd like to line up against a M38 or a Farr 400 Just to see what they really can do. I suspect on a point-to-point they'd be deadly.


Now...if we only knew what to do with the Melges 32s that we owe time to. Friggen' fast little critters.

there is a melges 32 entered in the first part of the port stephens regatta (in which we hv the Mc38). frankly in the flat water / light air, i'm more worried about the melges than i am about the 2 F40s

oh, and the IRC for the Mc38 (well the Cone anyway) is out. it's 1.255. high, but will do it easily on a down hill passage race. W/L course round the cans will be tough, but not out of the question... interested to see how we go !

cheers,


Do it easily on a passage race, nope. Be competitve, yes. But at 1.255 it is no chance of W/L and yes, I have sailed the boat, I like the boat and hope it is successful, so no agenda to push!

Good luck up there, shame the 400 is running and hiding again.........

#191 TD Floater

TD Floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Canberra ACT, Australia

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:54 AM

Windy, you would hardly think a comment needs making.(re:vmg)

#192 Mexican

Mexican

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,524 posts
  • Location:From south of the border

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:41 AM



Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

Wouldn't the VB label stand for boat velocity?


Clearly stands for Victoria Bitter. MG knows the green can only too well.

Mex

#193 The Advocate

The Advocate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,360 posts
  • Location:32.00.13 S 115.50.73 E

Posted 12 April 2012 - 06:07 AM


MC38
Posted Image

Farr 400
Posted Image

GP42
Posted Image

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

Perhaps in this instance in means Virtually Meaningless Garbage?

#194 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 12 April 2012 - 06:13 AM




MC38
Posted Image

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

Wouldn't the VB label stand for boat velocity?

ooohhh..and here i was thinking it meant Victoria Bitter (a very well known aussie beer)

:lol:

cheers,

#195 HILLY

HILLY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 932 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 06:31 AM

So which of the Oz boats is going to change divisions at Sail Port Stephens.
I hear they both have IRC certs, will they choose to go head to head, inshore or offshore.
Current entries have Mc 38 offshore in IRC, Farr 400 inshore PHS.
Who will blink first??

#196 Windward Mark

Windward Mark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:12 AM





MC38
Posted Image

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...

Wouldn't the VB label stand for boat velocity?

ooohhh..and here i was thinking it meant Victoria Bitter (a very well known aussie beer)

:lol:

cheers,


I hope you use the term "beer" losely!!! :lol:

#197 Windward Mark

Windward Mark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:15 AM

So which of the Oz boats is going to change divisions at Sail Port Stephens.
I hear they both have IRC certs, will they choose to go head to head, inshore or offshore.
Current entries have Mc 38 offshore in IRC, Farr 400 inshore PHS.
Who will blink first??


The F400 will have a bloody good crew onboard..........

#198 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts
  • Location:a park by the sea

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:26 AM

hope you use the term "beer" losely!!! :lol:


yes..."vomit bomb" is far more appropriate

Posted Image

#199 Edake

Edake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:47 AM




MC38
Posted Image

Farr 400
Posted Image

GP42
Posted Image

Someone who did the MC38 numbers does not know what VMG stands for it is Velocity Made Good and clearly the MC38 can not do those numbers VMG. It has to be BS (i.e Boat Speed) not VMG!

I think you'll find the "MG" at the top of those targets stands for "Mike Green" - AFAIK he knows the difference between boatspeed and VMG...


Edake, I think you will find they are boatspeed targets for best upwind/dwonwind VMG. Not target VMG speeds.......

agreed thanks the top heading is confusing nomally just have wind speed, boat speed and twa on target cards IMO to avoid confusion

#200 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:37 AM

So which of the Oz boats is going to change divisions at Sail Port Stephens.
I hear they both have IRC certs, will they choose to go head to head, inshore or offshore.
Current entries have Mc 38 offshore in IRC, Farr 400 inshore PHS.
Who will blink first??

well we don't want to change too early...or it'll give them time to change as well

might be a day-of-the-race thing... :ph34r:

cheers,




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users