Jump to content


Farr 400 vs McConaghy 38 vs Farr 40


  • Please log in to reply
716 replies to this topic

#301 Rawhide

Rawhide

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts
  • Location:Pittwater

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:14 AM


I hear they just sold a fourth MC38 in Aus anyone know where and to whom?


Yup. Could tell you but then I'd have to kill ya and take your 38. :P

At least it rates reasonably well under IRC, and much better under ORCi!

#302 NucMed

NucMed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Location:Darling Point, New South Wales, Australia
  • Interests:What?.......

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:06 AM

what is a Rogers 46? Never heard of one, where are they, who has one, what is it..another PHRF board meeting I presume?

Attached Files



#303 maaaxi

maaaxi

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:45 AM

Mexican is correct - it wasn't the boat, it was the sailors. All but one of the crew had never sailed on the boat and I (largely) hadn't sailed since last year. Sunday was better but we suffered a bit of bad luck - as tends to happen to the unprepared. Individually, our crew were talented but it's unrealistic to expect greatness first time out, especially in light and lumpy.

On the other side of the coin, this was the NSW IRC Champs and the other boats brought their A game and A teams - including the hired guns, sailmakers, etc. So not only were we slower than normal and they were better.

It was pretty obvious that if we sailed our boat as well the other teams sailed there's, the MC38 could have won the under 50ft band in Division 1 on IRC. But it was equally obvious that none of the under 50ft boats can touch a TP 52 on IRC, not matter how well sailed they are.

You have to remember The Cone is at least 4ft shorter and cost (at least) $600,000 less to launch than the next boat that the next boat in this grand prix fleet. I think says a lot about the MC 38 when people say it's a fail not to beat ALL of the bigger boats in every race.

Personally, I don't accept we would have been better off sailing in the 'kiddie pool' PHS division inshore like the Farr 400 did. I suspect it says the Farr 400 is unable to compete with the hot IRC boats and don't want the bad press. I'm not going to avoid racing the hot boats just to avoid bad press - what would be the point of that?

I notice someone commented it will be interesting to see how the Farr 400 and MC 38 go over winter series. Have they not read Mr Clean's reports from Charleston saying the one MC 38 is just a lot quicker than the three Farr 400s? Did they get that even the Farr 400 owners accept it and actually lodged a formal protest at Charleston (which was heard by a protest committed) to try to get their rating changed on the basis that the Farr 400 is clearly slower than the Mc 38.

So that Myth is Busted. We don't need the winter series to answer it.

As for the winter series, I'd hope that this kind of analysis of our results vs the Farr 400 wouldn't continue. It's a lottery out there in the winter anyway and I'm planning to take a lot of refreshments and have fun with my friends and not take things too serously. With that in mind I suspect our results are often not going to look too good on paper and might take some explaining - and it might be difficult to explain our strategy to those not there at the time. For example, one year during a glass out off Watson's Bay, the crew thought it would be a good idea to swim over to the pub and purchase further refreshments. Unfortunatley, the wind arrived back before they did.

This is a great example of how a very good idea can sometimes look like a bad one to those looking at the result sheet rather than consuming the refreshments.

I wish "The Cone" would quote the facts correctly with regards to the protest.
About 10 days before Charleston Race Week the owner of Carbonado protested his and the Farr400 PHRF Rating and it was adjusted MC38 down from -21 to -18 where as the F400 was adjusted from -15 to -18. Borne solely by a one sided protest, well done rating committee.
Surely one has to protest against that ruling, anyone would have.

#304 MKF

MKF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Location:London, now in Dubai
  • Interests:High performance sport boats...<br /><br />And going even more radical!

Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:10 AM

Looking at the results in Charleston I am most impressed with the speed of the MC38. I was expecting a lot more performance from the Farr 400.

With three 400's there, and never once beating the MC38 it will be a challenge for the 400 to establish itself as the new 40 foot benchmark. Harry Dunning has designed some fantastic boats at both Farr and RP (Storm), one must wonder if his thought process is what drove the success of these boats. After the challenges the 11's and other mid sized IRC Farr designed boats have faced, it maybe fair to assume the new group of designers succeeding Bruce and Russ may not have the competitive leadership the firm previously enjoyed. There is no doubt the 400 is an amazingly well thoughout boat, but if the performance doesn't match the sticker...

Does anyone know if either of these boats have a beta HPR rating - and if so how do they fit in the 'box'?

Cone (Jamie) - any chance to have a look at the IRC certificate? Thanks MKF

Both great boats, but looks like the MC 38 is ahead at the moment, will be good to see them go in a big breeze...

MKF

#305 jackattack

jackattack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:38 AM

I sailed on the Equinox on Sat/Sun up at Port Stephens and I thought a couple of points needed raising.

* In heat 5(?) the MC38s main fell down just after the start leaving her a fair way behind by the time she got going again. In saying that they almost got us by the finish. So you need to exclude the result from your comparisons.
* The Cone is right that the MC38 if sailed well would beat most boats under 50ft. Mind you if the other boats were sailed well they would probably win as well
* It appeared that none of the boats under 50ft had full time crews, I can only speak about our boat but we had almost a different crew on each day. Only 3 blokes sailed all races. On Friday they sailed the boat 5 or 6 up. Sat and Sun we had a bowman who had next to no experience plus a main trimmer with about 2 races on a Syd38 on his leadmine resume. I'm sure all the other boats had similar stories. Point being that you cant make comparisons from one regatta with shitty conditions.

The MC38 did look extremely sexy though and would love to go for a spin on one.

#306 Windward Mark

Windward Mark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,199 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:24 AM

Dark Star had a main falling down issue at the SHR as well..... Dam locks!!!!

#307 duncan (the other one)

duncan (the other one)

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Location:Siderney

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:29 AM

* It appeared that none of the boats under 50ft had full time crews, I can only speak about our boat but we had almost a different crew on each day. Only 3 blokes sailed all races. On Friday they sailed the boat 5 or 6 up. Sat and Sun we had a bowman who had next to no experience plus a main trimmer with about 2 races on a Syd38 on his leadmine resume. I'm sure all the other boats had similar stories. Point being that you cant make comparisons from one regatta with shitty conditions.


Wow.. that IRC champ sure seems to be attracting the crowds.

You guys should call around here a couple of weeks before the races.. I'm sure you'd be able to pick up a few barflys that know onen end of a boat from 'tother.

Dark Star had a main falling down issue at the SHR as well..... Dam locks!!!!


flood gates?

#308 jackattack

jackattack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:36 AM



* It appeared that none of the boats under 50ft had full time crews, I can only speak about our boat but we had almost a different crew on each day. Only 3 blokes sailed all races. On Friday they sailed the boat 5 or 6 up. Sat and Sun we had a bowman who had next to no experience plus a main trimmer with about 2 races on a Syd38 on his leadmine resume. I'm sure all the other boats had similar stories. Point being that you cant make comparisons from one regatta with shitty conditions.


Wow.. that IRC champ sure seems to be attracting the crowds.

You guys should call around here a couple of weeks before the races.. I'm sure you'd be able to pick up a few barflys that know onen end of a boat from 'tother.



I only got the call on the Wednesday night, still a good bunch of sailors on board, and an even better bunch of drinkers. Even though the results didn't go our way still had a great weekend.

And when I said "full time crews" I meant profesional or semi-professional crews that the likes of Hooligan, Loki etc appear to have.

#309 BAR KARATE

BAR KARATE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Location:Somewhere on the East Coast of OZ
  • Interests:Alcoholic with a Sailing Problem

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:48 AM



* It appeared that none of the boats under 50ft had full time crews, I can only speak about our boat but we had almost a different crew on each day. Only 3 blokes sailed all races. On Friday they sailed the boat 5 or 6 up. Sat and Sun we had a bowman who had next to no experience plus a main trimmer with about 2 races on a Syd38 on his leadmine resume. I'm sure all the other boats had similar stories. Point being that you cant make comparisons from one regatta with shitty conditions.


Wow.. that IRC champ sure seems to be attracting the crowds.

You guys should call around here a couple of weeks before the races.. I'm sure you'd be able to pick up a few barflys that know onen end of a boat from 'tother.

Dark Star had a main falling down issue at the SHR as well..... Dam locks!!!!


flood gates?

Obviously looking in the wrong trough :P :ph34r:

#310 duncan (the other one)

duncan (the other one)

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,700 posts
  • Location:Siderney

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:43 AM




* It appeared that none of the boats under 50ft had full time crews, I can only speak about our boat but we had almost a different crew on each day. Only 3 blokes sailed all races. On Friday they sailed the boat 5 or 6 up. Sat and Sun we had a bowman who had next to no experience plus a main trimmer with about 2 races on a Syd38 on his leadmine resume. I'm sure all the other boats had similar stories. Point being that you cant make comparisons from one regatta with shitty conditions.


Wow.. that IRC champ sure seems to be attracting the crowds.

You guys should call around here a couple of weeks before the races.. I'm sure you'd be able to pick up a few barflys that know onen end of a boat from 'tother.



I only got the call on the Wednesday night, still a good bunch of sailors on board, and an even better bunch of drinkers. Even though the results didn't go our way still had a great weekend.

And when I said "full time crews" I meant profesional or semi-professional crews that the likes of Hooligan, Loki etc appear to have.


Ahh. well that's a bit different again.

Big diff between a bunch of amateurs who sail together regularly on the same boat (which is what I'd think of as 'full time' for any non-pro boat) and a grab-bag from the dock.

#311 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:51 AM

Dark Star had a main falling down issue at the SHR as well..... Dam locks!!!!

it wasn't the halyard lock that failed for us. both main and jib halyard locks were working perfectly...really easy.

the guys did a great job lashing the sail back together and getting us back into the race, but it still took 90% of the first beat

cheers,

#312 miahmouse

miahmouse

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,219 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach, VA

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:35 PM

I wish "The Cone" would quote the facts correctly with regards to the protest.
About 10 days before Charleston Race Week the owner of Carbonado protested his and the Farr400 PHRF Rating and it was adjusted MC38 down from -21 to -18 where as the F400 was adjusted from -15 to -18. Borne solely by a one sided protest, well done rating committee.
Surely one has to protest against that ruling, anyone would have.


yup...

#313 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,673 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:46 PM


I wish "The Cone" would quote the facts correctly with regards to the protest.
About 10 days before Charleston Race Week the owner of Carbonado protested his and the Farr400 PHRF Rating and it was adjusted MC38 down from -21 to -18 where as the F400 was adjusted from -15 to -18. Borne solely by a one sided protest, well done rating committee.
Surely one has to protest against that ruling, anyone would have.


yup...


Huh? There's no disagreement of the facts. Cone simply observes that the owners' protest would be an acknowledgement that they now consider the 400 to be slower and worthy of being given more time.

Maybe the Farr consultant Dee Smith's public and careful(dodgy actually) public analysis of the previous regatta where he determined the 400 to be a faster boat was their undoing in these early determinations of PHRF handicaps.

#314 BLOW PIG

BLOW PIG

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:51 PM


I wish "The Cone" would quote the facts correctly with regards to the protest.
About 10 days before Charleston Race Week the owner of Carbonado protested his and the Farr400 PHRF Rating and it was adjusted MC38 down from -21 to -18 where as the F400 was adjusted from -15 to -18. Borne solely by a one sided protest, well done rating committee.
Surely one has to protest against that ruling, anyone would have.


yup...


Its is funny how when one boat was clearly just plain faster through the water every single race that people defending the slower boat start griping about the rating!

Even if the rating that the 400 had in Maryland last Fall ( -15) was still in play and even if the original assigned raing to the 38 was kept, (-21) the 38 would have still kicked the living crap out of the 400! in every sigle race.

The 400 would have needed a positive PHRF number to have done well in the regatta, as they were losing by many minutes boat for boat in very short races.

It is pretty clear that one boat goes through the water much faster than the other in a variety of different conditions. It may be time for the owners and charters to paint the snout of their 400's a special shade of black



FLAME ON

#315 doghouse

doghouse

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,835 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach, Va.

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:11 PM

Huh? There's no disagreement of the facts. Cone simply observes that the owners' protest would be an acknowledgement that they now consider the 400 to be slower and worthy of being given more time.

Maybe the Farr consultant Dee Smith's public and careful(dodgy actually) public analysis of the previous regatta where he determined the 400 to be a faster boat was their undoing in these early determinations of PHRF handicaps.


There actually is. Jaime said we were protesting to have our rating changed, when that is not true. We protested to have it stay the same since we were given no chance to appeal as the MC38 had done.

Comparing these boats is silly. I got to check out Carbonado up close for the first time this week, and it's an awesome boat. But they are not even the same thing remotely. The Farr is twice the amount of boat as the MC38, which is basically a 38 foot skiff. The boom comes to your shoulder standing in the cockpit on the 38, it would be hard for an old guy to even cross the boat in a tack. You don't even have to duck on the Farr.

I love the MC38 for day racing, looks like a hoot, and I love the Farr for the OD racing and offshore we have planned. I estimated the MC38 at about 6 secs a mile faster average than the Farr to several folks in private, I'd say about 9 secs after sailing head to head. We finished about 50 secs back in one race, the closest result of the week. Light air, the 1800 lb difference is really apparent. In 20+ it would probably be pretty close, also with tight kite reaching where stability comes into play.

Also, here's my first comment on the MC38 from the Cone thread, in case anyone was wondering.

The boat is hawt.



#316 echo

echo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,016 posts
  • Location:charlotte , nc
  • Interests:sailing, cycling and watching my kids grow

Posted 24 April 2012 - 08:34 PM

I don't have a dog in the fight but after seeing both boats (Farr 400 and MC 38) on the water both "pre start" sailing, racing and motoring out, they are clearly two different markets and design ideas.

I bet when it rained Sunday the MC38 guys got wet and the Farr 400 guys didn't...

#317 doghouse

doghouse

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,835 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach, Va.

Posted 24 April 2012 - 08:40 PM

I bet when it rained Sunday the MC38 guys got wet and the Farr 400 guys didn't...


And we turned on the disco lights!

#318 echo

echo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,016 posts
  • Location:charlotte , nc
  • Interests:sailing, cycling and watching my kids grow

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:25 PM




I bet when it rained Sunday the MC38 guys got wet and the Farr 400 guys didn't...


And we turned on the disco lights!



We were warming up enchiladas on the way in; hot food, cold rain, shitty results...

#319 DamnSkippy

DamnSkippy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:49 PM

I wondered why the MC38 had a DNC in the last race, could not hide from the rain?!

#320 doghouse

doghouse

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,835 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach, Va.

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:05 PM



I bet when it rained Sunday the MC38 guys got wet and the Farr 400 guys didn't...


And we turned on the disco lights!



We were warming up enchiladas on the way in; hot food, cold rain, shitty results...


Now I'm getting a bit jealous...

#321 Edake

Edake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 12:00 AM



Mexican is correct - it wasn't the boat, it was the sailors. All but one of the crew had never sailed on the boat and I (largely) hadn't sailed since last year. Sunday was better but we suffered a bit of bad luck - as tends to happen to the unprepared. Individually, our crew were talented but it's unrealistic to expect greatness first time out, especially in light and lumpy.



It was pretty obvious that if we sailed our boat as well the other teams sailed there's, the MC38 could have won the under 50ft band in Division 1 on IRC.

Winning the under 50ft band would put you in mid fleet and you would have to have picked up an average 7 minutes corrected per race (11 to win), a big ask in races generally not much longer than an hour. I doubt that the under 50ft band had all that many pro's on board
Down wind OK, but I struggle to believe the MC 38 will be competitive under IRC in windward leewards at that rating. That's not a criticism of the boat, it was never designed to race IRC.


Having sailed the 38 and the Ker 40, I struggle to think that the MC will beat the Ker across the line in a windward leeward race, so any chance of IRC results is a non event. The K40 struggles on up/down type courses as it is. Even in a passage race, hard downwind I can't see the MC holding it's time on the Ker. But as you say, it's not an IRC boat so who cares. Bring on a fleet of 8 of them, OD racing.

That is the answer but you will need a minimum of +10 IMO in Sydney alone before many others will join the ranks and even these will be scattered amoungst both Port Jackson and Pittwater based boats/crews. The key will be getting the owners together and then racing together as a like minded fleet. This is not an easy task as we all know. Until then I am staying with the only OD 40 fleet in Sydney even if people believe that it is also sufferring a decline in numbers. The trick is to come up with a solution and if that is the MC38 then sobeit.

#322 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,027 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 12:46 AM




I bet when it rained Sunday the MC38 guys got wet and the Farr 400 guys didn't...


And we turned on the disco lights!



We were warming up enchiladas on the way in; hot food, cold rain, shitty results...


Now I'm getting a bit jealous...


Freeze dried enchiladas on the jetboil?

#323 facthunt

facthunt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 894 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 01:28 AM

I don't have a dog in the fight but after seeing both boats (Farr 400 and MC 38) on the water both "pre start" sailing, racing and motoring out, they are clearly two different markets and design ideas.

I bet when it rained Sunday the MC38 guys got wet and the Farr 400 guys didn't...



can you sail the 400 from inside?

#324 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,673 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:16 AM


I don't have a dog in the fight but after seeing both boats (Farr 400 and MC 38) on the water both "pre start" sailing, racing and motoring out, they are clearly two different markets and design ideas.

I bet when it rained Sunday the MC38 guys got wet and the Farr 400 guys didn't...



can you sail the 400 from inside?


I believe the new sales spiel for this particular one design 40 footer is now comfort.

Topsides higher then other grand prix boats now standard, extraordinary below decks ammenities including Mexican chef with luxury galley, optional pilot house for dry windward legs (coffee mug in hand), boom furler (well the boom IS high), electric grinder and optional sock for the chute. This is comfort one design racing at its best. Yes, bugger the MC 38 it's far too uncomfortable.

:P ;) :huh: :angry: :ph34r: ... Where are you DoRag?

#325 Somtam Cowboy

Somtam Cowboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Location:Phuket .Thailand

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:28 AM

What about a dodger?? :P ( Spray hood to you U.S of A eers...)

#326 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,673 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:47 AM




Huh? There's no disagreement of the facts. Cone simply observes that the owners' protest would be an acknowledgement that they now consider the 400 to be slower and worthy of being given more time.

Maybe the Farr consultant Dee Smith's public and careful(dodgy actually) public analysis of the previous regatta where he determined the 400 to be a faster boat was their undoing in these early determinations of PHRF handicaps.


There actually is. Jaime said we were protesting to have our rating changed, when that is not true. We protested to have it stay the same since we were given no chance to appeal as the MC38 had done.

Comparing these boats is silly. I got to check out Carbonado up close for the first time this week, and it's an awesome boat. But they are not even the same thing remotely. The Farr is twice the amount of boat as the MC38, which is basically a 38 foot skiff. The boom comes to your shoulder standing in the cockpit on the 38, it would be hard for an old guy to even cross the boat in a tack. You don't even have to duck on the Farr.

I love the MC38 for day racing, looks like a hoot, and I love the Farr for the OD racing and offshore we have planned. I estimated the MC38 at about 6 secs a mile faster average than the Farr to several folks in private, I'd say about 9 secs after sailing head to head. We finished about 50 secs back in one race, the closest result of the week. Light air, the 1800 lb difference is really apparent. In 20+ it would probably be pretty close, also with tight kite reaching where stability comes into play.

Also, here's my first comment on the MC38 from the Cone thread, in case anyone was wondering.

The boat is hawt.


I think we're engaging in semantics since your owners nevertheless protested to have them change it back (assuming the race committee were entitled to make the 1st change, under protest). Don't forget that a consultant to Farr International had already established that the 400, in his opinion was faster and the Farr design office polars attested to this..

BUT...fair enough though, I'd protest once the reality was so clear.

#327 BLOW PIG

BLOW PIG

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 01:00 PM



Huh? There's no disagreement of the facts. Cone simply observes that the owners' protest would be an acknowledgement that they now consider the 400 to be slower and worthy of being given more time.

Maybe the Farr consultant Dee Smith's public and careful(dodgy actually) public analysis of the previous regatta where he determined the 400 to be a faster boat was their undoing in these early determinations of PHRF handicaps.


There actually is. Jaime said we were protesting to have our rating changed, when that is not true. We protested to have it stay the same since we were given no chance to appeal as the MC38 had done.

Comparing these boats is silly. I got to check out Carbonado up close for the first time this week, and it's an awesome boat. But they are not even the same thing remotely. The Farr is twice the amount of boat as the MC38, which is basically a 38 foot skiff. The boom comes to your shoulder standing in the cockpit on the 38, it would be hard for an old guy to even cross the boat in a tack. You don't even have to duck on the Farr.

I love the MC38 for day racing, looks like a hoot, and I love the Farr for the OD racing and offshore we have planned. I estimated the MC38 at about 6 secs a mile faster average than the Farr to several folks in private, I'd say about 9 secs after sailing head to head. We finished about 50 secs back in one race, the closest result of the week. Light air, the 1800 lb difference is really apparent. In 20+ it would probably be pretty close, also with tight kite reaching where stability comes into play.

Also, here's my first comment on the MC38 from the Cone thread, in case anyone was wondering.

The boat is hawt.


I think we're engaging in semantics since your owners nevertheless protested to have them change it back (assuming the race committee were entitled to make the 1st change, under protest). Don't forget that a consultant to Farr International had already established that the 400, in his opinion was faster and the Farr design office polars attested to this..

BUT...fair enough though, I'd protest once the reality was so clear.






So True,



After Key West there was so much smack talking about how fast the 400 was and that there was no way it was slower than the 38 or the Farr 40, BLA BLA BLA

I would venture to guess that there is a parade of cars from the Farr office to Rye this weekend to help Mr Gold try and figure out how to sail with his new/used toy with the marketing machine doing everything it can to salvalge the debacle from this past weekend. Poor bastard, he will not know what hit him after they get through with him.

#328 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 01:05 PM




Huh? There's no disagreement of the facts. Cone simply observes that the owners' protest would be an acknowledgement that they now consider the 400 to be slower and worthy of being given more time.

Maybe the Farr consultant Dee Smith's public and careful(dodgy actually) public analysis of the previous regatta where he determined the 400 to be a faster boat was their undoing in these early determinations of PHRF handicaps.


There actually is. Jaime said we were protesting to have our rating changed, when that is not true. We protested to have it stay the same since we were given no chance to appeal as the MC38 had done.

Comparing these boats is silly. I got to check out Carbonado up close for the first time this week, and it's an awesome boat. But they are not even the same thing remotely. The Farr is twice the amount of boat as the MC38, which is basically a 38 foot skiff. The boom comes to your shoulder standing in the cockpit on the 38, it would be hard for an old guy to even cross the boat in a tack. You don't even have to duck on the Farr.

I love the MC38 for day racing, looks like a hoot, and I love the Farr for the OD racing and offshore we have planned. I estimated the MC38 at about 6 secs a mile faster average than the Farr to several folks in private, I'd say about 9 secs after sailing head to head. We finished about 50 secs back in one race, the closest result of the week. Light air, the 1800 lb difference is really apparent. In 20+ it would probably be pretty close, also with tight kite reaching where stability comes into play.

Also, here's my first comment on the MC38 from the Cone thread, in case anyone was wondering.

The boat is hawt.


I think we're engaging in semantics since your owners nevertheless protested to have them change it back (assuming the race committee were entitled to make the 1st change, under protest). Don't forget that a consultant to Farr International had already established that the 400, in his opinion was faster and the Farr design office polars attested to this..

BUT...fair enough though, I'd protest once the reality was so clear.






So True,



After Key West there was so much smack talking about how fast the 400 was and that there was no way it was slower than the 38 or the Farr 40, BLA BLA BLA

I would venture to guess that there is a parade of cars from the Farr office to Rye this weekend to help Mr Gold try and figure out how to sail with his new/used toy with the marketing machine doing everything it can to salvalge the debacle from this past weekend. Poor bastard, he will not know what hit him after they get through with him.


There isn't going to be any wind, so it'll be a wasted trip.

#329 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,466 posts

Posted 29 April 2012 - 03:32 AM

Their is definitely gorilla marketing going on with the promotion of the Farr 400, not to mention gorilla tactics on the race course.

They had the boat stacked with pros in the SF Bay debut in the US, and in one regatta did everything but run boats off the course at marks. A little course etiquette would have left a more favorable impression. Seems like they're trying too hard to push the design, politics included.

#330 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 29 April 2012 - 07:44 AM

I was on the Gp42 and With all do respect to everyone that was on the race course at Port Stephens we also had a few throw together crew members, No A1 or J1 and an Old falling apart mainsail. We didn't sail particularly smart, just sailed minimal loss the whole time.

I was a little worried when the Cone was as far back as it was in some races, but that being said, I am glad Jamie put his hand up and put forward the reasons. Also in a straight line in some of the conditions they had pace and height on us and down wind they had an edge in the bumpy stuff.

As for not being able to touch the 52's.. We thought we had 20-30 secs of tactical gain to be had minimum, new and correct sails would have given us close to a minute and maybe more in some races, and some clever IRC optimisation would maybe drop the rating a further 30 seconds an hour. That would have put us infront of Loki almost every race and Quest and Calm in other races. All hypothetical, but the only real optimized boats, almost full "pro" boats were the 52's and Loki. Oh and that's not even touching on late hoists, early drops, overrides etc etc.. But, its a work in progress and the Owners thoroughly enjoyed the sailing and the team was great!

I can guarantee we weren't the only boat course that felt that way.

#331 D-Star

D-Star

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:AUS

Posted 02 May 2012 - 04:13 AM

Is the MC38 competitive under IRC?

So the debate is over regarding MC v F400 but this threadhas now taken on the real issue….is the MC38 competitive under IRC? I launched hull #6 a few months ago (the blueone). Came in from an IRC optimisedcruiser-racer and a Melges24. Selectedthis boat because it looked to be the best to fill several roles: Awesome looking and fast OD, stiff enough forshorthanded twi-lighting and maybe, just maybe competitive under IRC. This last point will probably be redundant in12 months as the AUS MC38 fleet develops hopefully resulting in OD racing at all major regattas. But in the meantime (with only a few orphansin the country) there is a great opportunity to have some fun exploring the mixedfleet potential of the boat. The IRCnationals at Hamilton Island are a tempting target but the rating of the MC38 putsit into Div 1 with the bar set by the undefeated and brilliantly prepared TP52 “Hooligan”. So why even turn up if “RORC has given up on handicappingsub-40 foot light weight planing boats”? I don’t want to accept that so have been working with MC38 designer HarryDunning, McConnaghy’s and the guys at Norths to seek a solution even if itmeans taking the boat out of OD for IRC racing. So right now hull#6 has an issued IRC certificate of 1.235 vs the ODrating of 1.255. That’s a 72 second/houradvantage. Not a bad start. We ran some target numbers for theoreticalraces vs “Hooligan” and the outcome was close. Close enough to book the truck and enter the regatta. In any case the boat beat “Hooligan” to theMackerel Beach mark on Saturday by 20 seconds and smashed her on IRC. OK so what if it was the Old Timersnon-spinnaker race (go Wozza Miles) but that’s still 1-nil on IRC so bring on Hammo.





#332 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,027 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:00 AM

Could you elaborate on the modifications you explored and implemented for IRC "optimization"? Weight? Sail size/selection?

#333 D-Star

D-Star

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:AUS

Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:11 AM

Could you elaborate on the modifications you explored and implemented for IRC "optimization"? Weight? Sail size/selection?


Tell you in September.

#334 theworldhasgonemad

theworldhasgonemad

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:varied

Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:26 AM

"So right now hull#6 has an issued IRC certificate of 1.235 vs the ODrating of 1.255. That's a 72 second/houradvantage. Not a bad start. "

Yes that would be a good start except that when the IRC numbers are high it's not 3.6 seconds a pip.
If a boat rating 1.255 finishes with an elapsed time of 1 hour exactly, a boat rating 1.235 has to finish 58 seconds later to tie on corrected.


I think it will be a lot easier for you to assess the merit of your mods if you know how to calculate corrected times under IRC.


#335 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:35 AM

Reduce the block of flats it has as a mainsail, Shorter LL on the head sail. Smaller SPA as it doesn't actually need near on 190m2 to go, with that the STL should be reduced. find the "tipping points" for the boat.

If you look at the Non-Spin TCC v Spin TCC it gets a huge penalty on the downwind part.

You may want to look at Sail Area/displacement ratio... its ridiculous. And there ia always the Composite rigging penalty and the age old debate of whether it can sail to that penalty in IRC.

But in relevant terms. That is still only 10 Points lower than the GP 42 at Port Stephens. And in many races it was already slower than 10 points on elapsed.

I sure as hell am not saying it is a boat issue. I think its a mad boat. But I think the IRC office is still holding a grudge against the original day boat trial, designer pedigree and the looming presence of an OD fleet.

#336 D-Star

D-Star

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:AUS

Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:59 AM

Roger that "worldhasgonemad" you are correct. I guess thats why we asked Harry for help on the numbers. BTW non-spin TCC is 1.196. You would definitley think there is wiggle room there.

#337 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 02 May 2012 - 06:01 AM

that 1 point higher than the cert I have sitting infront of me.. but what 3.??? secs an hour..:P

#338 Muppethead

Muppethead

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
  • Location:Terra Firma
  • Interests:Rum, Women and Going Fast

Posted 02 May 2012 - 06:24 AM

Haven't read the whole thread but I believe the M38 has had mast track problems??? Jamie?

#339 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

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

Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:23 AM

Is the MC38 competitive under IRC?

So the debate is over regarding MC v F400 but this threadhas now taken on the real issue….is the MC38 competitive under IRC? I launched hull #6 a few months ago (the blueone). Came in from an IRC optimisedcruiser-racer and a Melges24. Selectedthis boat because it looked to be the best to fill several roles: Awesome looking and fast OD, stiff enough forshorthanded twi-lighting and maybe, just maybe competitive under IRC. This last point will probably be redundant in12 months as the AUS MC38 fleet develops hopefully resulting in OD racing at all major regattas. But in the meantime (with only a few orphansin the country) there is a great opportunity to have some fun exploring the mixedfleet potential of the boat. The IRCnationals at Hamilton Island are a tempting target but the rating of the MC38 putsit into Div 1 with the bar set by the undefeated and brilliantly prepared TP52 “Hooligan”. So why even turn up if “RORC has given up on handicappingsub-40 foot light weight planing boats”? I don’t want to accept that so have been working with MC38 designer HarryDunning, McConnaghy’s and the guys at Norths to seek a solution even if itmeans taking the boat out of OD for IRC racing. So right now hull#6 has an issued IRC certificate of 1.235 vs the ODrating of 1.255. That’s a 72 second/houradvantage. Not a bad start. We ran some target numbers for theoreticalraces vs “Hooligan” and the outcome was close. Close enough to book the truck and enter the regatta. In any case the boat beat “Hooligan” to theMackerel Beach mark on Saturday by 20 seconds and smashed her on IRC. OK so what if it was the Old Timersnon-spinnaker race (go Wozza Miles) but that’s still 1-nil on IRC so bring on Hammo.




d-star, welcome

i sail with jamie and we're bound to meet soon. who knows, i may even buy one myself. but why bother chasing the boat's IRC rating? it's always going to be difficult except on a downhill passage race.

i'm pressing jamie to get an ORC rating for CoS. sure that the boats will be much more competitive under that rule

and then there is this new 'high performance boat' rating that i've heard something about. don't know too much about it yet, but sounds like that will suit the M38 better as well.

cheers,

#340 BAR KARATE

BAR KARATE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Location:Somewhere on the East Coast of OZ
  • Interests:Alcoholic with a Sailing Problem

Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:43 AM

Haven't read the whole thread but I believe the M38 has had mast track problems??? Jamie?

Heard the same from a mate but he thought it was his trimming until he looked up :ph34r:

#341 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:51 AM

Anyone care to actually post some facts? What boat/s, when etc.

#342 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,643 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:21 AM

Facts? On SA?

#343 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:24 AM

I know I know.. But in the day there was lots of facts and a hell of a lot less DoRag...

Just hoping If i ask enough sensible questions I might finally get a relevant answer.

#344 BAR KARATE

BAR KARATE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Location:Somewhere on the East Coast of OZ
  • Interests:Alcoholic with a Sailing Problem

Posted 02 May 2012 - 11:04 AM

I know I know.. But in the day there was lots of facts and a hell of a lot less DoRag...

Just hoping If i ask enough sensible questions I might finally get a relevant answer.

POTY .... :lol:

#345 BLOW PIG

BLOW PIG

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:22 PM

Their is definitely gorilla marketing going on with the promotion of the Farr 400, not to mention gorilla tactics on the race course.

They had the boat stacked with pros in the SF Bay debut in the US, and in one regatta did everything but run boats off the course at marks. A little course etiquette would have left a more favorable impression. Seems like they're trying too hard to push the design, politics included.


So is some one editing this forum or what? What happened to the posts about how the Farr consultant dude sailed on Saturday up at Amariccan yacht club and then was asked to leave for Sundays race?

That is the shit that is interesting, who cares about IRC ratings and beating up on HOOLIGAN!! ( Although the MC 38 would have won her class under IRC @ Charleston race week as well , using the ratings published for both boats so all is not lost.

I would imagine in an upwind down wind scenario the 38 would have a tough go against a well sailed 52. But it sure seems Ok against boats her size under any rating formula

#346 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:15 PM


Their is definitely gorilla marketing going on with the promotion of the Farr 400, not to mention gorilla tactics on the race course.

They had the boat stacked with pros in the SF Bay debut in the US, and in one regatta did everything but run boats off the course at marks. A little course etiquette would have left a more favorable impression. Seems like they're trying too hard to push the design, politics included.


So is some one editing this forum or what? What happened to the posts about how the Farr consultant dude sailed on Saturday up at Amariccan yacht club and then was asked to leave for Sundays race?

That is the shit that is interesting, who cares about IRC ratings and beating up on HOOLIGAN!! ( Although the MC 38 would have won her class under IRC @ Charleston race week as well , using the ratings published for both boats so all is not lost.

I would imagine in an upwind down wind scenario the 38 would have a tough go against a well sailed 52. But it sure seems Ok against boats her size under any rating formula


Do you really need to hear another Dee Dee story? I'm sure it will sound just like all the others.

#347 Yard Dog

Yard Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD

Posted 02 May 2012 - 03:55 PM


and then there is this new 'high performance boat' rating that i've heard something about. don't know too much about it yet, but sounds like that will suit the M38 better as well.

The HPR is specifically being formulated for boats like the MC 38. The Farr 400, the Carkeek 40, and the Ker 40, among other lighter displacement, higher performance designs, are also part of the equation. The rating is not designed to replace IRC, but to supplement it. The rating is a move away from the heavy displacement racer-cruiser "furniture boats" favored by IRC and increasingly shunned by the market towards a truer race boat without the cruiser modifier. Still in development, but promising as more of these designs catch on with buyers.

#348 D-Star

D-Star

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:AUS

Posted 03 May 2012 - 12:51 AM

Hi MH111, yes the newer systems might be better for the boat but with Nats in Oct and more boats- coming next year is going to be OD for sure.
So this year it'll be good to be a flea in the big boat div @ Hammo. BUT.....and just to bring this thread back to it's source.....we have entered PHS at Airlie and here is the current entries:

BOAT NAMESAIL NOSKIPPERFROMDESIGNSTATEDivNoDARK STAR38002John BaconRPAYCMc38NSWtbaDOUBLE O SEVEN771Jeffrey BrownWSCNorthshore 38 ModQLDtbaICHI BAN00400Matt Allen Walter LewinCYCAFarr 400NSWtbaLOCAL HERO1236Peter MoselyMYCBh 36NSWtbaSHIRAZRQ17David LeslieMYCCavalier 395QLDtbaTAKE FLIGHTW1424Mike KeyteWSCBeneteau First 40QLDtbaTWISTERW407Kevin FogartyWSCBeneteau First 40.7QLDtbaUBS WILD THING1014Geoff LavisCYCAInglis / Murray 50NSWtbaWOBBLY BOOT640Craig PiccinelliWSCModyoung88QLDtba

#349 D-Star

D-Star

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:AUS

Posted 03 May 2012 - 12:53 AM

Try again:

BOAT NAMESAIL NOSKIPPERFROMDESIGNSTATEDivNo

DARK STAR38002John BaconRPAYCMc38NSWtba

DOUBLE O SEVEN771Jeffrey BrownWSCNorthshore 38 ModQLDtba

ICHI BAN00400Matt Allen Walter LewinCYCAFarr 400NSWtba

LOCAL HERO1236Peter MoselyMYCBh 36NSWtba

SHIRAZRQ17David LeslieMYCCavalier 395QLDtba

TAKE FLIGHTW1424Mike KeyteWSCBeneteau First 40QLDtba

TWISTERW407Kevin FogartyWSCBeneteau First 40.7QLDtbaUBS

WILD THING1014Geoff LavisCYCAInglis / Murray 50NSWtba

WOBBLY BOOT640Craig PiccinelliWSCModyoung88QLDtba

#350 Jason Ker

Jason Ker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:13 AM



and then there is this new 'high performance boat' rating that i've heard something about. don't know too much about it yet, but sounds like that will suit the M38 better as well.

The HPR is specifically being formulated for boats like the MC 38. The Farr 400, the Carkeek 40, and the Ker 40, among other lighter displacement, higher performance designs, are also part of the equation. The rating is not designed to replace IRC, but to supplement it. The rating is a move away from the heavy displacement racer-cruiser "furniture boats" favored by IRC and increasingly shunned by the market towards a truer race boat without the cruiser modifier. Still in development, but promising as more of these designs catch on with buyers.


Yes, that is the marketing pitch, but actually 3/4 of the diverse designs you mention could only play in HPR by the grace of age dispensation which effectively removes the walls of the box. Any new designs built to the rule would have to almost be facsimile's of the Carkeek 40, scaled up or down according to the length required. At 50+ feet arguably it has a difficult job to compete with IRC while at sub 50' that is not so useful if you want to compete in major races or regattas around the world...

#351 BLOW PIG

BLOW PIG

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:05 PM




and then there is this new 'high performance boat' rating that i've heard something about. don't know too much about it yet, but sounds like that will suit the M38 better as well.

The HPR is specifically being formulated for boats like the MC 38. The Farr 400, the Carkeek 40, and the Ker 40, among other lighter displacement, higher performance designs, are also part of the equation. The rating is not designed to replace IRC, but to supplement it. The rating is a move away from the heavy displacement racer-cruiser "furniture boats" favored by IRC and increasingly shunned by the market towards a truer race boat without the cruiser modifier. Still in development, but promising as more of these designs catch on with buyers.


Yes, that is the marketing pitch, but actually 3/4 of the diverse designs you mention could only play in HPR by the grace of age dispensation which effectively removes the walls of the box. Any new designs built to the rule would have to almost be facsimile's of the Carkeek 40, scaled up or down according to the length required. At 50+ feet arguably it has a difficult job to compete with IRC while at sub 50' that is not so useful if you want to compete in major races or regattas around the world...



So now I get it,

A certain sailmaker who has very close connections to a certain comodore of a well know and upstanding yacht club based in New York decides to come up with a new racing rule that favors only one kind of boat that the certian sailmaker has purchased?

He convinces two other very nice gentleman to part with 800k plus for this pricy little 40 footer and there is plenty of press from US based seahorse writers and low and behold we have a new rule? I am also curious how did these three boats get designed and built with out this new rule ever going out to public.

Talk about self interest or just conflict of interest...... And in closing, what happens when these three boat start losing to another kind of design, will the rule get "tweaked" in order to "slow down" the other design? To let the chickens play in the henhouse does not bode well for the future of this sham

#352 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,643 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:31 PM

Was interested to read in S/h how, among the factors measured and rated in HPR are: vertical centre of gravity, construction cost and an engine/propeller factor...

Bet Green Marine are happy about the second one there. And does VCG mean a return to the delights of inclining?

#353 Donjoman

Donjoman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • Location:Hong kong

Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:19 PM

Well the MC38 was destroyed by the Ker40 on the water today... by 10 minutes in a 90 minute race

#354 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 05 May 2012 - 05:11 PM





and then there is this new 'high performance boat' rating that i've heard something about. don't know too much about it yet, but sounds like that will suit the M38 better as well.

The HPR is specifically being formulated for boats like the MC 38. The Farr 400, the Carkeek 40, and the Ker 40, among other lighter displacement, higher performance designs, are also part of the equation. The rating is not designed to replace IRC, but to supplement it. The rating is a move away from the heavy displacement racer-cruiser "furniture boats" favored by IRC and increasingly shunned by the market towards a truer race boat without the cruiser modifier. Still in development, but promising as more of these designs catch on with buyers.


Yes, that is the marketing pitch, but actually 3/4 of the diverse designs you mention could only play in HPR by the grace of age dispensation which effectively removes the walls of the box. Any new designs built to the rule would have to almost be facsimile's of the Carkeek 40, scaled up or down according to the length required. At 50+ feet arguably it has a difficult job to compete with IRC while at sub 50' that is not so useful if you want to compete in major races or regattas around the world...



So now I get it,

A certain sailmaker who has very close connections to a certain comodore of a well know and upstanding yacht club based in New York decides to come up with a new racing rule that favors only one kind of boat that the certian sailmaker has purchased?

He convinces two other very nice gentleman to part with 800k plus for this pricy little 40 footer and there is plenty of press from US based seahorse writers and low and behold we have a new rule? I am also curious how did these three boats get designed and built with out this new rule ever going out to public.

Talk about self interest or just conflict of interest...... And in closing, what happens when these three boat start losing to another kind of design, will the rule get "tweaked" in order to "slow down" the other design? To let the chickens play in the henhouse does not bode well for the future of this sham


These are all interesting conspiracy theories, but my understanding is that there will be several "base" boats at different size ranges, including potentially the GP26 rule. With "penalties" for speed-inducing changes, and lack of "credit" for speed-reducing changes. So unless my sources are being lied to, it isn't a "scaled up and down Carkeek 40". But no, I imagine you won't get much credit for having made the boat slow with 2000lbs in furniture or a cruiser cockpit.

But even if true, so what if it was? IRC, IMS, IOR and every other rule have had base boats, and yet the original base boat gets surpassed as designers exploit the inability of the ratings debits and credits to accurately predict performance. This is not new. Although I acknowledge it would be frustrating if your boat wasn't picked as the base boat. So yeah, that would be a bummer.

#355 gone

gone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:45 PM

Well the MC38 was destroyed by the Ker40 on the water today... by 10 minutes in a 90 minute race


So put the elapsed times up please.

#356 gone

gone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:51 PM




and then there is this new 'high performance boat' rating that i've heard something about. don't know too much about it yet, but sounds like that will suit the M38 better as well.

The HPR is specifically being formulated for boats like the MC 38. The Farr 400, the Carkeek 40, and the Ker 40, among other lighter displacement, higher performance designs, are also part of the equation. The rating is not designed to replace IRC, but to supplement it. The rating is a move away from the heavy displacement racer-cruiser "furniture boats" favored by IRC and increasingly shunned by the market towards a truer race boat without the cruiser modifier. Still in development, but promising as more of these designs catch on with buyers.


Yes, that is the marketing pitch, but actually 3/4 of the diverse designs you mention could only play in HPR by the grace of age dispensation which effectively removes the walls of the box. Any new designs built to the rule would have to almost be facsimile's of the Carkeek 40, scaled up or down according to the length required. At 50+ feet arguably it has a difficult job to compete with IRC while at sub 50' that is not so useful if you want to compete in major races or regattas around the world...


Mr. Ker, I know you are a brilliant designer at the top of your game. What are you getting at here? Wouldn't any measurement rule have a "type form" that is encouraged by the rule?

#357 Jason Ker

Jason Ker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:24 PM






and then there is this new 'high performance boat' rating that i've heard something about. don't know too much about it yet, but sounds like that will suit the M38 better as well.

The HPR is specifically being formulated for boats like the MC 38. The Farr 400, the Carkeek 40, and the Ker 40, among other lighter displacement, higher performance designs, are also part of the equation. The rating is not designed to replace IRC, but to supplement it. The rating is a move away from the heavy displacement racer-cruiser "furniture boats" favored by IRC and increasingly shunned by the market towards a truer race boat without the cruiser modifier. Still in development, but promising as more of these designs catch on with buyers.


Yes, that is the marketing pitch, but actually 3/4 of the diverse designs you mention could only play in HPR by the grace of age dispensation which effectively removes the walls of the box. Any new designs built to the rule would have to almost be facsimile's of the Carkeek 40, scaled up or down according to the length required. At 50+ feet arguably it has a difficult job to compete with IRC while at sub 50' that is not so useful if you want to compete in major races or regattas around the world...



So now I get it,

A certain sailmaker who has very close connections to a certain comodore of a well know and upstanding yacht club based in New York decides to come up with a new racing rule that favors only one kind of boat that the certian sailmaker has purchased?

He convinces two other very nice gentleman to part with 800k plus for this pricy little 40 footer and there is plenty of press from US based seahorse writers and low and behold we have a new rule? I am also curious how did these three boats get designed and built with out this new rule ever going out to public.

Talk about self interest or just conflict of interest...... And in closing, what happens when these three boat start losing to another kind of design, will the rule get "tweaked" in order to "slow down" the other design? To let the chickens play in the henhouse does not bode well for the future of this sham


These are all interesting conspiracy theories, but my understanding is that there will be several "base" boats at different size ranges, including potentially the GP26 rule. With "penalties" for speed-inducing changes, and lack of "credit" for speed-reducing changes. So unless my sources are being lied to, it isn't a "scaled up and down Carkeek 40". But no, I imagine you won't get much credit for having made the boat slow with 2000lbs in furniture or a cruiser cockpit.

But even if true, so what if it was? IRC, IMS, IOR and every other rule have had base boats, and yet the original base boat gets surpassed as designers exploit the inability of the ratings debits and credits to accurately predict performance. This is not new. Although I acknowledge it would be frustrating if your boat wasn't picked as the base boat. So yeah, that would be a bummer.


I don’t buy the conspiracy theory either, the person being referred to is genuinely and commendably trying to create a platform for boats like his to race in and knows well the present rules do not offer that. Unfortunately the project got lost along the way. If you take a close look at it you will see that it bears no comparison to a handicap rule but is essentially a box rule with some shape to the narrow bottom of the box in each parameter. It is of no consequence whose design has been chosen as the base boat, all four of the boats mentioned in the note I responded to will be fun fast boats to sail and all will be subject to grandfathering which removes the sides of the box allowing them to have dimensions which would otherwise be harshly penalised.

For a new design, if you take a generic TP52 hull, say a Botin one for example, and scale it by 77% in length and 83% in beam and depth you basically arrive at an HPR 40, nothing wrong with that, but actually if you stray dimensionally more than a couple of % away from that you’ll be nailed on handicap. Nothing wrong with intentional type forming or box rules either, but let’s not be led to believe a “handicap” or “rating” rule is being offered in the sense that most of us understand. If you ask 10 different designers to produce the dimensions of their “ideal” high performance 40’ boat you will get ten quite different designs and the nature of the rule being proposed is such that virtually all of those designs would be hammered by the rule being proposed. If that sort of restriction is wanted by the market then why haven’t the GP42 and GP33 been successful?

In my view it is extremely unlikely the direction of the HPR rule will change, but the original request for a transparent rule that rates small high performance boats fairly is very valid and it should be expected that the other rule makers are working hard to address that in a proper way. Possibly when we look back on it the best thing to come out of the HPR saga will have been pressure on the rule bodies to solve the problems that created the desire for it.

#358 opusone

opusone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:47 AM

I don’t buy the conspiracy theory either, the person being referred to is genuinely and commendably trying to create a platform for boats like his to race in and knows well the present rules do not offer that. Unfortunately the project got lost along the way. If you take a close look at it you will see that it bears no comparison to a handicap rule but is essentially a box rule with some shape to the narrow bottom of the box in each parameter. It is of no consequence whose design has been chosen as the base boat, all four of the boats mentioned in the note I responded to will be fun fast boats to sail and all will be subject to grandfathering which removes the sides of the box allowing them to have dimensions which would otherwise be harshly penalised.

For a new design, if you take a generic TP52 hull, say a Botin one for example, and scale it by 77% in length and 83% in beam and depth you basically arrive at an HPR 40, nothing wrong with that, but actually if you stray dimensionally more than a couple of % away from that you’ll be nailed on handicap. Nothing wrong with intentional type forming or box rules either, but let’s not be led to believe a “handicap” or “rating” rule is being offered in the sense that most of us understand. If you ask 10 different designers to produce the dimensions of their “ideal” high performance 40’ boat you will get ten quite different designs and the nature of the rule being proposed is such that virtually all of those designs would be hammered by the rule being proposed. If that sort of restriction is wanted by the market then why haven’t the GP42 and GP33 been successful?

In my view it is extremely unlikely the direction of the HPR rule will change, but the original request for a transparent rule that rates small high performance boats fairly is very valid and it should be expected that the other rule makers are working hard to address that in a proper way. Possibly when we look back on it the best thing to come out of the HPR saga will have been pressure on the rule bodies to solve the problems that created the desire for it.


Jason -

Thank you for your insight and explanations. I have been following the discussions regarding the HPR Rule on DropBox as well.

I also want to say congratulations on the new 51. Very impressive from the photos I saw.

Cheers,

opusone

#359 Donjoman

Donjoman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • Location:Hong kong

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:29 AM

Yesterdays results are here. I was on a J/80, there were a number of holes and a big current, but the Tornado guys have been sailing on the harbour for some time. Signal 8 had quite a few on the rail, although it was only 8-10 knots, occasional to 12.

http://www.rhkyc.org...sion%201%20HKPN

Tornado = MC38
Signal 8 = Ker40
Ambush = Mills 40 custom
Elektra = A40 RC
Freefire = TP52

#360 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,643 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:28 AM

FWIW, Magnum & Keronimo 1st and 2nd overall in the Morgan cup. 2 mins apart after 15 hours of racing.

http://www.rorc.org/...coverall02.html

#361 richiec

richiec

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 06 May 2012 - 01:23 PM

Saw the mc38 and the F400 on the water today. 38 is pure hand-to-loin. 400 is chew your own arm off - in the lookers stakes.

#362 gone

gone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 01:48 PM

Mr. Ker, It was not my understanding that the box was so narrow which is very disappointing. I have a copy of the HPR presentation that was given in Newport RI. It was short on specifics but neither did it suggest such a narrow box.



I don't buy the conspiracy theory either, the person being referred to is genuinely and commendably trying to create a platform for boats like his to race in and knows well the present rules do not offer that. Unfortunately the project got lost along the way. If you take a close look at it you will see that it bears no comparison to a handicap rule but is essentially a box rule with some shape to the narrow bottom of the box in each parameter. It is of no consequence whose design has been chosen as the base boat, all four of the boats mentioned in the note I responded to will be fun fast boats to sail and all will be subject to grandfathering which removes the sides of the box allowing them to have dimensions which would otherwise be harshly penalised.

For a new design, if you take a generic TP52 hull, say a Botin one for example, and scale it by 77% in length and 83% in beam and depth you basically arrive at an HPR 40, nothing wrong with that, but actually if you stray dimensionally more than a couple of % away from that you'll be nailed on handicap. Nothing wrong with intentional type forming or box rules either, but let's not be led to believe a "handicap" or "rating" rule is being offered in the sense that most of us understand. If you ask 10 different designers to produce the dimensions of their "ideal" high performance 40' boat you will get ten quite different designs and the nature of the rule being proposed is such that virtually all of those designs would be hammered by the rule being proposed. If that sort of restriction is wanted by the market then why haven't the GP42 and GP33 been successful?

In my view it is extremely unlikely the direction of the HPR rule will change, but the original request for a transparent rule that rates small high performance boats fairly is very valid and it should be expected that the other rule makers are working hard to address that in a proper way. Possibly when we look back on it the best thing to come out of the HPR saga will have been pressure on the rule bodies to solve the problems that created the desire for it.



#363 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 04:33 PM

Yesterdays results are here. I was on a J/80, there were a number of holes and a big current, but the Tornado guys have been sailing on the harbour for some time. Signal 8 had quite a few on the rail, although it was only 8-10 knots, occasional to 12.

http://www.rhkyc.org...sion%201%20HKPN

Tornado = MC38
Signal 8 = Ker40
Ambush = Mills 40 custom
Elektra = A40 RC
Freefire = TP52


Those provisionals were under HKPN (basically a Hong Kong PHRF). IRC results are here: http://www.rhkyc.org... Division 1 IRC

Small sample and fluky conditions, but FWIW the finishing order on the water was the same in all races:
  • TP
  • Ker 40
  • Mills 40
  • McC38
  • A40
(Except for the last race, in which the McC38 was DNS. Other boats still in the same order.)

#364 alcoholfunnycar

alcoholfunnycar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Interests:Fast cars, fast boats.

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:42 PM

I don't buy the conspiracy theory either, the person being referred to is genuinely and commendably trying to create a platform for boats like his to race in and knows well the present rules do not offer that. Unfortunately the project got lost along the way. If you take a close look at it you will see that it bears no comparison to a handicap rule but is essentially a box rule with some shape to the narrow bottom of the box in each parameter. It is of no consequence whose design has been chosen as the base boat, all four of the boats mentioned in the note I responded to will be fun fast boats to sail and all will be subject to grandfathering which removes the sides of the box allowing them to have dimensions which would otherwise be harshly penalised.

For a new design, if you take a generic TP52 hull, say a Botin one for example, and scale it by 77% in length and 83% in beam and depth you basically arrive at an HPR 40, nothing wrong with that, but actually if you stray dimensionally more than a couple of % away from that you'll be nailed on handicap. Nothing wrong with intentional type forming or box rules either, but let's not be led to believe a "handicap" or "rating" rule is being offered in the sense that most of us understand. If you ask 10 different designers to produce the dimensions of their "ideal" high performance 40' boat you will get ten quite different designs and the nature of the rule being proposed is such that virtually all of those designs would be hammered by the rule being proposed. If that sort of restriction is wanted by the market then why haven't the GP42 and GP33 been successful?

In my view it is extremely unlikely the direction of the HPR rule will change, but the original request for a transparent rule that rates small high performance boats fairly is very valid and it should be expected that the other rule makers are working hard to address that in a proper way. Possibly when we look back on it the best thing to come out of the HPR saga will have been pressure on the rule bodies to solve the problems that created the desire for it.



Not saying you are mistaken, but if you were mistaken, I don't think anybody on SA would be in the position to argue, or if they were in the position, inclined to do so. Who is going to argue on Sailing Anarchy with an internationally recognized yacht designer about a rating rule that hasn't got off the ground yet? Not me. Not anybody involved either, my guess.

#365 gone

gone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:11 PM


I don't buy the conspiracy theory either, the person being referred to is genuinely and commendably trying to create a platform for boats like his to race in and knows well the present rules do not offer that. Unfortunately the project got lost along the way. If you take a close look at it you will see that it bears no comparison to a handicap rule but is essentially a box rule with some shape to the narrow bottom of the box in each parameter. It is of no consequence whose design has been chosen as the base boat, all four of the boats mentioned in the note I responded to will be fun fast boats to sail and all will be subject to grandfathering which removes the sides of the box allowing them to have dimensions which would otherwise be harshly penalised.

For a new design, if you take a generic TP52 hull, say a Botin one for example, and scale it by 77% in length and 83% in beam and depth you basically arrive at an HPR 40, nothing wrong with that, but actually if you stray dimensionally more than a couple of % away from that you'll be nailed on handicap. Nothing wrong with intentional type forming or box rules either, but let's not be led to believe a "handicap" or "rating" rule is being offered in the sense that most of us understand. If you ask 10 different designers to produce the dimensions of their "ideal" high performance 40' boat you will get ten quite different designs and the nature of the rule being proposed is such that virtually all of those designs would be hammered by the rule being proposed. If that sort of restriction is wanted by the market then why haven't the GP42 and GP33 been successful?

In my view it is extremely unlikely the direction of the HPR rule will change, but the original request for a transparent rule that rates small high performance boats fairly is very valid and it should be expected that the other rule makers are working hard to address that in a proper way. Possibly when we look back on it the best thing to come out of the HPR saga will have been pressure on the rule bodies to solve the problems that created the desire for it.



Not saying you are mistaken, but if you were mistaken, I don't think anybody on SA would be in the position to argue, or if they were in the position, inclined to do so. Who is going to argue on Sailing Anarchy with an internationally recognized yacht designer about a rating rule that hasn't got off the ground yet? Not me. Not anybody involved either, my guess.


I'm glad Jason decided to weigh in/shed light on the matter. HPR is being pitched as something it is not, which is too bad. Fast boats make sailing fun and it would be great if a rule was developed that allows designers to design fast boats and could sail together. OD would make the issue moot, but while fleets build this would be a great option.

#366 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:35 PM

Is there an actual link to this proposed rating rule anywhere?

#367 opusone

opusone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:03 PM

I'm glad Jason decided to weigh in/shed light on the matter. HPR is being pitched as something it is not, which is too bad. Fast boats make sailing fun and it would be great if a rule was developed that allows designers to design fast boats and could sail together. OD would make the issue moot, but while fleets build this would be a great option.


Gone -

What type of boat are you looking to purchase, own or currently race on? I am just curious how HPR would fit into your program/plans.

It was mentioned to me that my boat may fit in with the HPR rating system, though not as fairly as some of the newer designs. It will be interesting to see if it ever gets traction, but in the mean time - it just doesn't seem to matter.

Some boats rate better under ORCi than they do under IRC, or better under IRC than they do under ORR, etc. Part of the fun is figuring out the best modifications to the boat to give yourself the best chance at a podium finish depending upon the course, the course history of conditions, etc. We try to make our horse the best for the course as it were....

Good luck,

opusone

#368 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

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

Posted 07 May 2012 - 03:02 AM



I don't buy the conspiracy theory either, the person being referred to is genuinely and commendably trying to create a platform for boats like his to race in and knows well the present rules do not offer that. Unfortunately the project got lost along the way. If you take a close look at it you will see that it bears no comparison to a handicap rule but is essentially a box rule with some shape to the narrow bottom of the box in each parameter. It is of no consequence whose design has been chosen as the base boat, all four of the boats mentioned in the note I responded to will be fun fast boats to sail and all will be subject to grandfathering which removes the sides of the box allowing them to have dimensions which would otherwise be harshly penalised.

For a new design, if you take a generic TP52 hull, say a Botin one for example, and scale it by 77% in length and 83% in beam and depth you basically arrive at an HPR 40, nothing wrong with that, but actually if you stray dimensionally more than a couple of % away from that you'll be nailed on handicap. Nothing wrong with intentional type forming or box rules either, but let's not be led to believe a "handicap" or "rating" rule is being offered in the sense that most of us understand. If you ask 10 different designers to produce the dimensions of their "ideal" high performance 40' boat you will get ten quite different designs and the nature of the rule being proposed is such that virtually all of those designs would be hammered by the rule being proposed. If that sort of restriction is wanted by the market then why haven't the GP42 and GP33 been successful?

In my view it is extremely unlikely the direction of the HPR rule will change, but the original request for a transparent rule that rates small high performance boats fairly is very valid and it should be expected that the other rule makers are working hard to address that in a proper way. Possibly when we look back on it the best thing to come out of the HPR saga will have been pressure on the rule bodies to solve the problems that created the desire for it.



Not saying you are mistaken, but if you were mistaken, I don't think anybody on SA would be in the position to argue, or if they were in the position, inclined to do so. Who is going to argue on Sailing Anarchy with an internationally recognized yacht designer about a rating rule that hasn't got off the ground yet? Not me. Not anybody involved either, my guess.

i happen to agree with you - but when you've been around S/A a while longer you'll learn that some of the clowns here would argue day was night with God himself if they thought it would attract some attention...

just sayin : never under estimate the stupidy you'll find here...

cheers,

#369 narecet

narecet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 03:05 AM

just sayin : never under estimate the stupidy

Indeed.

#370 BLOW PIG

BLOW PIG

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 12:32 PM

And now back to our regually scheduled program which of course is if the Farr 400 is fast enough to make it as a one design?

I wonder If Mr Gold is second guessing his decision on buying one of these? They steadily dropped down the ladder as the races went on these last two weekends

ending up 10th and getting beat by boats that did not sail all the races. Whats up with that?

One can say they are new to the boat , but are the boats that hard to sail by mere mortals? Does one need a pro crew every time they go out?

The Gold crew pushed around the J 122 with out too much trouble, is sailing that much harder now?

Me do not think so..... What a shame... Wonder what the PR machine will churn out next in defense?

#371 Lee G

Lee G

    Anarchist

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

Posted 07 May 2012 - 01:05 PM

And now back to our regually scheduled program which of course is if the Farr 400 is fast enough to make it as a one design?

I wonder If Mr Gold is second guessing his decision on buying one of these? They steadily dropped down the ladder as the races went on these last two weekends

ending up 10th and getting beat by boats that did not sail all the races. Whats up with that?

One can say they are new to the boat , but are the boats that hard to sail by mere mortals? Does one need a pro crew every time they go out?

The Gold crew pushed around the J 122 with out too much trouble, is sailing that much harder now?

Me do not think so..... What a shame... Wonder what the PR machine will churn out next in defense?


Listen you anonymous douche, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, and if you have anything to say, have the fucking balls to do it in person – we were all at the AYC party all 4 days. Our crew work, considering this was our first time for anyone in the boat (we didn’t even have the time for a practice day prior to last Sat), was great for the whole regatta. Sure, we had a few hiccups here and there, but nothing major. This is not a difficult boat to sail. We were competing against some top notch sailors and very well sailed boats. The conditions were not as favorable for us the 2nd weekend as they were the 1st weekend, but I won’t make excuses.

Now piss off….

#372 GME

GME

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 02:53 PM

And now back to our regually scheduled program which of course is if the Farr 400 is fast enough to make it as a one design?

I wonder If Mr Gold is second guessing his decision on buying one of these? They steadily dropped down the ladder as the races went on these last two weekends

ending up 10th and getting beat by boats that did not sail all the races. Whats up with that?

One can say they are new to the boat , but are the boats that hard to sail by mere mortals? Does one need a pro crew every time they go out?

The Gold crew pushed around the J 122 with out too much trouble, is sailing that much harder now?

Me do not think so..... What a shame... Wonder what the PR machine will churn out next in defense?


Hey Blow Pig.

The Farr 400 is not an IRC boat in any way shape or form. To claim that the boat is not capable of becoming a viable one design based on outright speed or the results from an IRC event is completely ludicrous. If that were a viable argument then please explain the success of the lightning class the j24 the j 22 the thistle the j 30 the j 35 etc....... see the future of the J-70 as a great example of what is important to gain one design status! management and buy in from a critical mass is all it takes.

I highly doubt that Mr Gold chose to sail the Farr 400 because he thought it would be a weapon in IRC. The fact is that his old J-122 is the IRC weapon in the 40 foot category, but is not that exciting to sail. How did the one design thing go for that boat? not that well eh?
Poo Pooing someones choice of boats is pretty weak. If someone wants to go buying a fast, fun, exciting boat that may not rate well in IRC, but is a blast to sail then that is their business. The foolish pontificating of how others "should" spend their money time and energy seems to be left for those who are on the outside looking in! I am betting Mr Gold is having a blast working up a new boat and learning new tricks that keep he and his crew fired up on sailing. Hope they are having fun getting up the learning curve.

What are you doing that makes your sailing so much fun........spending time knocking on others isn't really much sport is it? I don't know Mr Gold at all but have raced against them in their former boat. I have no clew who you are but it seems that there must be some other reason why you are ripping the sundari team for their lack of results in the last event. Why would you care how they did? Is your day really made any better for belittling someone else's choice of boat to buy? This is what is wrong with the SA forums. too many people use it to stir up Shite and get to do it anonymously and the people who approach it with an eye to exchange reasoned ideas have to sift thru all the guano to get to anything good.

Please consider this and don't just react!

Thanks

Geoff

#373 Lee G

Lee G

    Anarchist

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

Posted 07 May 2012 - 03:28 PM


And now back to our regually scheduled program which of course is if the Farr 400 is fast enough to make it as a one design?

I wonder If Mr Gold is second guessing his decision on buying one of these? They steadily dropped down the ladder as the races went on these last two weekends

ending up 10th and getting beat by boats that did not sail all the races. Whats up with that?

One can say they are new to the boat , but are the boats that hard to sail by mere mortals? Does one need a pro crew every time they go out?

The Gold crew pushed around the J 122 with out too much trouble, is sailing that much harder now?

Me do not think so..... What a shame... Wonder what the PR machine will churn out next in defense?


Hey Blow Pig.

The Farr 400 is not an IRC boat in any way shape or form. To claim that the boat is not capable of becoming a viable one design based on outright speed or the results from an IRC event is completely ludicrous. If that were a viable argument then please explain the success of the lightning class the j24 the j 22 the thistle the j 30 the j 35 etc....... see the future of the J-70 as a great example of what is important to gain one design status! management and buy in from a critical mass is all it takes.

I highly doubt that Mr Gold chose to sail the Farr 400 because he thought it would be a weapon in IRC. The fact is that his old J-122 is the IRC weapon in the 40 foot category, but is not that exciting to sail. How did the one design thing go for that boat? not that well eh?
Poo Pooing someones choice of boats is pretty weak. If someone wants to go buying a fast, fun, exciting boat that may not rate well in IRC, but is a blast to sail then that is their business. The foolish pontificating of how others "should" spend their money time and energy seems to be left for those who are on the outside looking in! I am betting Mr Gold is having a blast working up a new boat and learning new tricks that keep he and his crew fired up on sailing. Hope they are having fun getting up the learning curve.

What are you doing that makes your sailing so much fun........spending time knocking on others isn't really much sport is it? I don't know Mr Gold at all but have raced against them in their former boat. I have no clew who you are but it seems that there must be some other reason why you are ripping the sundari team for their lack of results in the last event. Why would you care how they did? Is your day really made any better for belittling someone else's choice of boat to buy? This is what is wrong with the SA forums. too many people use it to stir up Shite and get to do it anonymously and the people who approach it with an eye to exchange reasoned ideas have to sift thru all the guano to get to anything good.

Please consider this and don't just react!

Thanks

Geoff


Very well said, thanks.

And yes, we are having a ton of fun getting Barrys new boat up to speed, and thats all that really matters.

#374 Kmag

Kmag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 433 posts
  • Location:Laguna Beach CA
  • Interests:Sailing, Surfing, Snowboarding

Posted 07 May 2012 - 04:32 PM

So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.

#375 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 07 May 2012 - 05:41 PM

So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.


J-boats "crush" PHRF race. Look at the actual times, let's not exaggerate, especially in what I imagine from the finish times were typical SD fluky light air. Looks to me like Stark Raving Mad is very well-sailed.

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why? I would take a Farr 400, MC38, Ker40, Carkeek40, etc., etc., etc. any day of the week. It's not like you are riding a moped.

#376 Kmag

Kmag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 433 posts
  • Location:Laguna Beach CA
  • Interests:Sailing, Surfing, Snowboarding

Posted 07 May 2012 - 05:46 PM


So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.


J-boats "crush" PHRF race. Look at the actual times, let's not exaggerate, especially in what I imagine from the finish times were typical SD fluky light air. Looks to me like Stark Raving Mad is very well-sailed.

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why? I would take a Farr 400, MC38, Ker40, Carkeek40, etc., etc., etc. any day of the week. It's not like you are riding a moped.


Well over 5 races and looking at the results.. yes it was crushed.. as it was in Big Boat Series. There is always an argument about elapsed times... so the Farr 40 had very similar elapsed times to the Farr 400 at Key West Race Week... tA boat designed and built in 2011/2012 can't get around the course faster than its predecessor? No hate here just looking at the results and still thinking a J-125 is better.

I would take any of those boats any day of the week for free. No questions.

#377 Kmag

Kmag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 433 posts
  • Location:Laguna Beach CA
  • Interests:Sailing, Surfing, Snowboarding

Posted 07 May 2012 - 05:49 PM


So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.


J-boats "crush" PHRF race. Look at the actual times, let's not exaggerate, especially in what I imagine from the finish times were typical SD fluky light air. Looks to me like Stark Raving Mad is very well-sailed.

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why? I would take a Farr 400, MC38, Ker40, Carkeek40, etc., etc., etc. any day of the week. It's not like you are riding a moped.


And thanks for the actual times now i am totally convinced that finishing 10 minutes behind a 125 is getting crushed.

#378 opusone

opusone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 05:57 PM



So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.


J-boats "crush" PHRF race. Look at the actual times, let's not exaggerate, especially in what I imagine from the finish times were typical SD fluky light air. Looks to me like Stark Raving Mad is very well-sailed.

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why? I would take a Farr 400, MC38, Ker40, Carkeek40, etc., etc., etc. any day of the week. It's not like you are riding a moped.


Well over 5 races and looking at the results.. yes it was crushed.. as it was in Big Boat Series. There is always an argument about elapsed times... so the Farr 40 had very similar elapsed times to the Farr 400 at Key West Race Week... tA boat designed and built in 2011/2012 can't get around the course faster than its predecessor? No hate here just looking at the results and still thinking a J-125 is better.

I would take any of those boats any day of the week for free. No questions.


Actually - at BBS, the Farr 400 often beat the J125's by 3-7+ minutes on a 2 hour race (not DT). It just owed the J125 too much time under IRC. If BBS was raced under PHRF with the Farr 400 owing only 9 seconds per mile - the results would have been different.

Cheers,

opusone

#379 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:00 PM



So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.


J-boats "crush" PHRF race. Look at the actual times, let's not exaggerate, especially in what I imagine from the finish times were typical SD fluky light air. Looks to me like Stark Raving Mad is very well-sailed.

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why? I would take a Farr 400, MC38, Ker40, Carkeek40, etc., etc., etc. any day of the week. It's not like you are riding a moped.


Well over 5 races and looking at the results.. yes it was crushed.. as it was in Big Boat Series. There is always an argument about elapsed times... so the Farr 40 had very similar elapsed times to the Farr 400 at Key West Race Week... tA boat designed and built in 2011/2012 can't get around the course faster than its predecessor? No hate here just looking at the results and still thinking a J-125 is better.

I would take any of those boats any day of the week for free. No questions.


So now we are going to argue about "elapsed time"? Seriously? The boats are timed around the course. That's how it works.

Boat for boat elapsed time it was 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 4th, 2nd and it was pretty obvious the one boat that came in front was well-sailed. But yeah, on PHRF it got "crushed".

#380 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:03 PM



So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.


J-boats "crush" PHRF race. Look at the actual times, let's not exaggerate, especially in what I imagine from the finish times were typical SD fluky light air. Looks to me like Stark Raving Mad is very well-sailed.

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why? I would take a Farr 400, MC38, Ker40, Carkeek40, etc., etc., etc. any day of the week. It's not like you are riding a moped.


And thanks for the actual times now i am totally convinced that finishing 10 minutes behind a 125 is getting crushed.


In one light air race, my Donovan 30 beat a Farr395 by over 20 minutes elapsed time on a 6 mile course. I would never say my boat "crushes" a Farr395.

#381 Kmag

Kmag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 433 posts
  • Location:Laguna Beach CA
  • Interests:Sailing, Surfing, Snowboarding

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:07 PM




So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.


J-boats "crush" PHRF race. Look at the actual times, let's not exaggerate, especially in what I imagine from the finish times were typical SD fluky light air. Looks to me like Stark Raving Mad is very well-sailed.

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why? I would take a Farr 400, MC38, Ker40, Carkeek40, etc., etc., etc. any day of the week. It's not like you are riding a moped.


And thanks for the actual times now i am totally convinced that finishing 10 minutes behind a 125 is getting crushed.


In one light air race, my Donovan 30 beat a Farr395 by over 20 minutes elapsed time on a 6 mile course. I would never say my boat "crushes" a Farr395.


Oh so there are sometimes the odd exception to a persons argument that can be used to negate a point?

#382 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:16 PM





So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.


J-boats "crush" PHRF race. Look at the actual times, let's not exaggerate, especially in what I imagine from the finish times were typical SD fluky light air. Looks to me like Stark Raving Mad is very well-sailed.

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why? I would take a Farr 400, MC38, Ker40, Carkeek40, etc., etc., etc. any day of the week. It's not like you are riding a moped.


Well over 5 races and looking at the results.. yes it was crushed.. as it was in Big Boat Series. There is always an argument about elapsed times... so the Farr 40 had very similar elapsed times to the Farr 400 at Key West Race Week... tA boat designed and built in 2011/2012 can't get around the course faster than its predecessor? No hate here just looking at the results and still thinking a J-125 is better.

I would take any of those boats any day of the week for free. No questions.


Actually - at BBS, the Farr 400 often beat the J125's by 3-7+ minutes on a 2 hour race (not DT). It just owed the J125 too much time under IRC. If BBS was raced under PHRF with the Farr 400 owing only 9 seconds per mile - the results would have been different.

Cheers,

opusone




but it is not.. therefore ;)



Some people shouldn't have the keys to the internet.

#383 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,848 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:34 PM

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why?

No. That's not obvious. That is poor perception.

It's more like very high expectations and falling short of those expectations.
You look at the lines and the sail plan and the wonderful functional deck layout and you want one. Crave one. Yearn for one.

When the performance starts coming back as less-than-stellar -- does not meet expectation -- there is disappointment. That is OK. Things can change, techniques can be refined, tweaks can be discovered, the boat may have not yet found her groove. Needs two-boat testing -- weeks of it -- one parameter at a time, logs kept, etc. I think we can rule out crew ability as holding it back.

No. What sticks in peoples' craw is when the marketing flaks flog the holy shit out of it, heaping hype on top of more hype. THAT is what the hate is for.

#384 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:35 PM

I'm sorry, you are right. The fact that one boat is faster than another around a race course has no bearing on this discussion.

Does your amp go to 11? Mine only goes to 10.

#385 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:39 PM

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why?

No. That's not obvious. That is poor perception.

It's more like very high expectations and falling short of those expectations.
You look at the lines and the sail plan and the wonderful functional deck layout and you want one. Crave one. Yearn for one.

When the performance starts coming back as less-than-stellar -- does not meet expectation -- there is disappointment. That is OK. Things can change, techniques can be refined, tweaks can be discovered, the boat may have not yet found her groove. Needs two-boat testing -- weeks of it -- one parameter at a time, logs kept, etc. I think we can rule out crew ability as holding it back.

No. What sticks in peoples' craw is when the marketing flaks flog the holy shit out of it, heaping hype on top of more hype. THAT is what the hate is for.


I got ya, but Farr isn't the only one guilty of marketing hype overload, check out J-boats some time.

#386 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,848 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:57 PM

Another observation.

Very high-performance boats take a lot of water-time and testing to get optimized. A high-performance boat is like high-performance sails. You can get sails that point really high, but if the trimmers and the helm can't select the right gears they can be wallowing, wondering why their old sails feel faster. That team would be better served by sails with a fatter groove.

An entire boat can be the same way. That perfect heel angle that optimizes the underwater shape. That jib lead angle which gives the best point-per-speed ratio. That fine combo between point/foot. You can work for months or years and suddenly the combination "pops" and the boat comes alive. Look at the speed of Lasers downwind in 1975 and compare that to the downwind speed in 2005. Exact same equipment, but to a casual observer it looks like two completely different boats.

The best cauldron for brewing up speed is hot one-design competition.

Given the design briefs for the new crop of near-shore race boats and given the skill and experience of the designers, it's hard to believe that the base design of the Farr 400 is just plain wrong (though, you know, it IS possible.) It's more likely that she has a narrower groove and it hasn't been found yet. And when she does find that groove, she might squirt out the front, guided by a skilled team.

And so we get back to market research: is there room for a tweeky yacht that takes a boatload of skill to wring the best out of it? Or does the podium go to the boat that any crew can jump aboard and feel like a rock star. Remember the old J35? They built over 300 of those...

#387 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,848 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:04 PM

I got ya, but Farr isn't the only one guilty of marketing hype overload, check out J-boats some time.

Interesting comparison.

Specifically the J/125, eh?
Touted as being a grand prix rocketship at launch, but falling rather publicly on its face.

Now 14 years later everyone wants one.
Illustrates my point of a fine tool taking a while to flourish under the touch of a skilled craftsman.

#388 Yard Dog

Yard Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD

Posted 07 May 2012 - 10:32 PM

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why?

No. That's not obvious. That is poor perception.

It's more like very high expectations and falling short of those expectations.
You look at the lines and the sail plan and the wonderful functional deck layout and you want one. Crave one. Yearn for one.

When the performance starts coming back as less-than-stellar -- does not meet expectation -- there is disappointment. That is OK. Things can change, techniques can be refined, tweaks can be discovered, the boat may have not yet found her groove. Needs two-boat testing -- weeks of it -- one parameter at a time, logs kept, etc. I think we can rule out crew ability as holding it back.

No. What sticks in peoples' craw is when the marketing flaks flog the holy shit out of it, heaping hype on top of more hype. THAT is what the hate is for.

Well put.

#389 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:48 PM

Regarding the HPR, this is what the Offshore Racing Congress has to say on their Facebook page.



Another view of the same two boats, showing the differences in hull design possible within the same box rule.

Consideration is now being given to GP26's as being the lower-sized benchmark for the new HPR rule concept, where known high-performance boats are being used to define the HPR type forms.


Posted Image

#390 robalex117

robalex117

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 560 posts
  • Location:WLIS

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:12 PM

I am just a casual laser sailor but I am pretty sure the laser equipment has changed. The vang is the biggest but also other sail controls.
The ability to ease the vang downwind is a big deal and made it much easier to sail.

1336417068[/url]' post='3702479']
Another observation.



An entire boat can be the same way. That perfect heel angle that optimizes the underwater shape. That jib lead angle which gives the best point-per-speed ratio. That fine combo between point/foot. You can work for months or years and suddenly the combination "pops" and the boat comes alive. Look at the speed of Lasers downwind in 1975 and compare that to the downwind speed in 2005. Exact same equipment, but to a casual observer it looks like two completely different boats.



#391 Yard Dog

Yard Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD

Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:56 AM






and then there is this new 'high performance boat' rating that i've heard something about. don't know too much about it yet, but sounds like that will suit the M38 better as well.

The HPR is specifically being formulated for boats like the MC 38. The Farr 400, the Carkeek 40, and the Ker 40, among other lighter displacement, higher performance designs, are also part of the equation. The rating is not designed to replace IRC, but to supplement it. The rating is a move away from the heavy displacement racer-cruiser "furniture boats" favored by IRC and increasingly shunned by the market towards a truer race boat without the cruiser modifier. Still in development, but promising as more of these designs catch on with buyers.


Yes, that is the marketing pitch, but actually 3/4 of the diverse designs you mention could only play in HPR by the grace of age dispensation which effectively removes the walls of the box. Any new designs built to the rule would have to almost be facsimile's of the Carkeek 40, scaled up or down according to the length required. At 50+ feet arguably it has a difficult job to compete with IRC while at sub 50' that is not so useful if you want to compete in major races or regattas around the world...

These are all interesting conspiracy theories, but my understanding is that there will be several "base" boats at different size ranges, including potentially the GP26 rule. With "penalties" for speed-inducing changes, and lack of "credit" for speed-reducing changes. So unless my sources are being lied to, it isn't a "scaled up and down Carkeek 40". But no, I imagine you won't get much credit for having made the boat slow with 2000lbs in furniture or a cruiser cockpit.

But even if true, so what if it was? IRC, IMS, IOR and every other rule have had base boats, and yet the original base boat gets surpassed as designers exploit the inability of the ratings debits and credits to accurately predict performance. This is not new. Although I acknowledge it would be frustrating if your boat wasn't picked as the base boat. So yeah, that would be a bummer.


I don’t buy the conspiracy theory either, the person being referred to is genuinely and commendably trying to create a platform for boats like his to race in and knows well the present rules do not offer that. Unfortunately the project got lost along the way. If you take a close look at it you will see that it bears no comparison to a handicap rule but is essentially a box rule with some shape to the narrow bottom of the box in each parameter. It is of no consequence whose design has been chosen as the base boat, all four of the boats mentioned in the note I responded to will be fun fast boats to sail and all will be subject to grandfathering which removes the sides of the box allowing them to have dimensions which would otherwise be harshly penalised.

For a new design, if you take a generic TP52 hull, say a Botin one for example, and scale it by 77% in length and 83% in beam and depth you basically arrive at an HPR 40, nothing wrong with that, but actually if you stray dimensionally more than a couple of % away from that you’ll be nailed on handicap. Nothing wrong with intentional type forming or box rules either, but let’s not be led to believe a “handicap” or “rating” rule is being offered in the sense that most of us understand. If you ask 10 different designers to produce the dimensions of their “ideal” high performance 40’ boat you will get ten quite different designs and the nature of the rule being proposed is such that virtually all of those designs would be hammered by the rule being proposed. If that sort of restriction is wanted by the market then why haven’t the GP42 and GP33 been successful?

In my view it is extremely unlikely the direction of the HPR rule will change, but the original request for a transparent rule that rates small high performance boats fairly is very valid and it should be expected that the other rule makers are working hard to address that in a proper way. Possibly when we look back on it the best thing to come out of the HPR saga will have been pressure on the rule bodies to solve the problems that created the desire for it.

Jason,

I have been following the HPR’s development for the last six months, and it appeared to me that it was becoming a box rule as you described, but not being an engineer, I was unsure of my opinion. Your expertise counts for a lot, but raises the question of what the rule is trying to accomplish in its current form.

I did get the sense that the HPR was designed along the lines of a scaled version of the TP 52, as you described, and saw from the presentations that the Carkeek was being held up as a type form, but I also thought the HPR was more accommodating and inclusive than you suggest it is. If you are right, that is an unfortunate development for all the designs I mentioned previously, and for development going forward.

And for sailing. HPR was a move away from racer-cruisers and towards dedicated race boats, or so I thought.

What happened?

#392 sumpin

sumpin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,828 posts
  • Location:San Miguel
  • Interests:scallop mining and rudder fairing
    stair falling book cover mending

Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:11 AM

hope that 400 is faster and more fun that it looks. that is one ugly rig. good grief.

#393 Yard Dog

Yard Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD

Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:16 PM

A few phone calls and I get it. HPR was always meant for lighter racing designs. Those that hedge their bets with IRC in mind pay a rating penalty under HPR. You can design for one or the other and expect success, but not both.

#394 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,643 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:26 PM

Question: does HPR work as a rating rule? I.e., are there trade-offs to be made? Do you get a lower rating for less sail area? A lower rating for being heavier (within the range of weight that the rule wants to encourage)?

#395 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:38 PM

A few phone calls and I get it. HPR was always meant for lighter racing designs. Those that hedge their bets with IRC in mind pay a rating penalty under HPR. You can design for one or the other and expect success, but not both.

Interesting.

#396 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 10 May 2012 - 12:02 AM

Question: does HPR work as a rating rule? I.e., are there trade-offs to be made? Do you get a lower rating for less sail area? A lower rating for being heavier (within the range of weight that the rule wants to encourage)?


If not it kind of seems like the GP box rule all over again.. with a 40, 45 and 75

Linky

Don't get me wrong cool fast boats are what we need.. But With the Euro stuffed, the Yanks on the way out (sorry DoRag) Will it gain critical mass?

Some people dont like IRC due to its obvious Type forming without any transparency in regards to the rule.. Does HPR not offer an identical scenario except with a Carkeek 40 not a Beneteau First 40?? And i use the 40 as an example, relatively, this will be where any rule gains the most traction at the moment.

#397 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 10 May 2012 - 12:56 AM


Question: does HPR work as a rating rule? I.e., are there trade-offs to be made? Do you get a lower rating for less sail area? A lower rating for being heavier (within the range of weight that the rule wants to encourage)?


If not it kind of seems like the GP box rule all over again.. with a 40, 45 and 75

Linky

Don't get me wrong cool fast boats are what we need.. But With the Euro stuffed, the Yanks on the way out (sorry DoRag) Will it gain critical mass?

Some people dont like IRC due to its obvious Type forming without any transparency in regards to the rule.. Does HPR not offer an identical scenario except with a Carkeek 40 not a Beneteau First 40?? And i use the 40 as an example, relatively, this will be where any rule gains the most traction at the moment.


Explain the upside for a fat beach ball as the typeform. Apparently there is just enough traction for people to risk not getting silver in order to avoid sailing a piece of shit.

#398 Road Runner

Road Runner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:escaping all traps.

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:19 AM

To get good ONE Design you need over 100 boats world wide. Once you hit that number start talking one design. The builders that claim one design earlier then that are just hoping. Yes they may have one design in one area of the world when they get 10 boats on the line but to be a real one design you need more numbers so that you can have good racing around the world. Take J/Boats for an example. They have many successful one designs but they built good sailing boats first and once the fleets started growing they they supported with one design rules. They don't call the J/105 a One Design 34. They create good starting basic rules and allow the class to grow and give guidance. I think all the builders should look at their style. You may not like all the models but they do know One Design building stratagies and coming out of the box bosting about one design is not they way they do it.

I saw the Farr 400 getting thrashed by a McConaghy 38 yesterday and notice it avoided racing the McConaghy 38's and Farr 40s at Sail Sydney Regatta on the weekend too.

Plus the Farr 40 association have come out and said the Farr 400 is slower upwind than a Farr 40 and the performance advantage was not as advertised by the Farr 400 VPP.

So the question is ................... is the Farr 400 just to slow to succeed as a class?



#399 Road Runner

Road Runner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:escaping all traps.

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:29 AM

Quick note on each of these models:
Farr 400 I know the least about. Is Stag involved and no longer pushing the F40?
MC 38, sick boat. Not as wet as you think it might be with the low freeboard. Lines running below deck and some inovative ideas from McConaghy.
Ker 40 Good solid 40 footer.
Carkeek 40: Sick boat. All carbon, very light, cool deck layout, nice retractable prop system.
J/125: Very fun boat to sail and with the narrower stern a bit easier to sail for the average person but the guy that calls the spinnaker douse is very important becuase sailing past the leeward mark at 14 knots socks.
I think one of the Johnstones is helping with the MC, Ker and Carkeek. Does anyone know who?



So the Farr 400 got crushed by 3 J-125's (again) at yachting cup in SD.


J-boats "crush" PHRF race. Look at the actual times, let's not exaggerate, especially in what I imagine from the finish times were typical SD fluky light air. Looks to me like Stark Raving Mad is very well-sailed.

Obviously there is a lot of hate for this particular new boat (Farr400) and I'm curious why. Why? I would take a Farr 400, MC38, Ker40, Carkeek40, etc., etc., etc. any day of the week. It's not like you are riding a moped.


Well over 5 races and looking at the results.. yes it was crushed.. as it was in Big Boat Series. There is always an argument about elapsed times... so the Farr 40 had very similar elapsed times to the Farr 400 at Key West Race Week... tA boat designed and built in 2011/2012 can't get around the course faster than its predecessor? No hate here just looking at the results and still thinking a J-125 is better.

I would take any of those boats any day of the week for free. No questions.



#400 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,007 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 10 May 2012 - 12:48 PM

Quick note on each of these models:
Farr 400 I know the least about. Is Stag involved and no longer pushing the F40?
MC 38, sick boat. Not as wet as you think it might be with the low freeboard. Lines running below deck and some inovative ideas from McConaghy.
Ker 40 Good solid 40 footer.
Carkeek 40: Sick boat. All carbon, very light, cool deck layout, nice retractable prop system.
J/125: Very fun boat to sail and with the narrower stern a bit easier to sail for the average person but the guy that calls the spinnaker douse is very important becuase sailing past the leeward mark at 14 knots socks.
I think one of the Johnstones is helping with the MC, Ker and Carkeek. Does anyone know who?


Good eyes. A few comments:

1) Stagg is not involved in the F400, and I am fairly certain he will never be involved. Bunny Wayt, who was the best part about the Farr 40 class administration in the class's golden years, is now working for the Farr 400 Class (as well as the Farr 30 Class). Good news in all cases. Stagg continues to manage the Farr 40 class along with Tink Chambers AFAIK.

2) Depending on sea state, it remains to be seen just how wet the MC38 is, and I imagine it will be under water going downhill in big stuff. It's fast enough that it shouldn't matter though - keep your foulies on and let the adrenaline keep you warm...

3) Carkeek: Sooooo hot. If the Carkeek was a porn star, it'd be Kayden Kross - brainy, fresh, and dripping with sex appeal. Imagine if they'd painted it something other than boring ass white!

4) J/125: Such a phenomenal boat that failed as much because it was ahead of its time as because as good as the J/Machine is at marketing their boats, they're equally bad at marketing boats outside the J/box. Biggest issue with the J/125? Lack of supply, and the ones that are out there are taking a lot of work to keep them in good shape.

5) Jimmy J?

6) Ker 40: No idea. Where can I find the nearest one?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users