15 replies to this topic

[mr_ryano]

Here it is: http://www.volvoocea...2-v1-121031.pdf

Have fun tearing it apart! Note, rule is a "closed" rule. If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't!

[Koukel]

Doesn't appear to be finished yet. Lots of "To Be Advised" in the appendices. Why publish now if not done? Or did you get a 90% copy?

Koukel

[corkob]

Guess they have to publish something on the site to maintain hits.

[GBH]

Here it is: http://www.volvoocea...2-v1-121031.pdf

Have fun tearing it apart! Note, rule is a "closed" rule. If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't!

Well that'll stop all the fun games. Not!

[mr_ryano]

Doesn't appear to be finished yet. Lots of "To Be Advised" in the appendices. Why publish now if not done? Or did you get a 90% copy?

Koukel

The "official" answer is that some concepts are still being finalized, but they want to be as transparent as possible and give potential teams as much info as they can. FWIW, they promised a draft rule by Nov 1

[Lostmydetailsagain]

Interesting read: some suppliers were told everything had to be finalised September first to be in with a shot of being part of the story. However the fact that other suppliers were chosen and are allowed continuing "development" is resulting in a lot of poor opinion of the people behind the project.

The scary thing is that people involved in it all are starting to bitch about choices made: it seems in some cases the more expensive but lower quality option was the better choice...

I sincerely hope this does not kill off crewed ocean racing and I am sure that a certain couple of people involved will make sure the boat will be ok but I am still on the fence and am a bit scared the route will mean the end but hope to be proven wrong.

[mr_ryano]

Interesting read: some suppliers were told everything had to be finalised September first to be in with a shot of being part of the story. However the fact that other suppliers were chosen and are allowed continuing "development" is resulting in a lot of poor opinion of the people behind the project.

The scary thing is that people involved in it all are starting to bitch about choices made: it seems in some cases the more expensive but lower quality option was the better choice...

I sincerely hope this does not kill off crewed ocean racing and I am sure that a certain couple of people involved will make sure the boat will be ok but I am still on the fence and am a bit scared the route will mean the end but hope to be proven wrong.

Got details or sources?

[Moonduster]

Well, we shot our mouth off about November 1st, so let's publish the outline on October 31st and hope no one notices it's devoid of content.

Sigh.

[Who's your daddy]

Pretty difficult to write a closed manufacturer class rule when the design isn't finished. That is the reason for areas not being complete I guess. Gives teams enough info to understand approach and make decisons on what they need to work on.

[Lostmydetailsagain]

blablabla

Got details or sources?

Yes, but I am sure I will say too much to the wrong people at the METS next week so will try to refrain from any disclosure here at a forum. I am sure people posting under their own name will lead the way and make it all a lot more believable than my posts under a hidden name...

[Speng]

Comments:

• How can you have a offshore class rule without reference to the OSR?
• How is there no maximum weight specified in C.6.2? This is an OD right? Every dimension must have a max and min.
• C.9.4(d)(2) is unenforceable.
• C.9.7( is unenforceable.
• Hanked on J-1? In the 21st century? I guess they want to ensure a permanent forestay not part of the furling gear (as has been the downfall of a few Open 60 rigs) but that's just backward thinking.
• Overall sail limitations on a 65ft offshore boat are ridiculous.
• Green Marine makes masts, running and standing rigging?

In some regards it sounds like a stimulus program for Euro sailing equipment manufacturers OR the world's largest SMOD. What serious team is going to want to be in this thing when they can't trick out the sails or the rigging?

[CrushDigital]

What I really want to see is the VO65 owner's manual they make mention of a few times.

[Left Hook]

What I really want to see is the VO65 owner's manual they make mention of a few times.

You can find it in the glove box under the insurance card.

[sclero]

Comments:

• How can you have a offshore class rule without reference to the OSR?
  
• How is there no maximum weight specified in C.6.2? This is an OD right? Every dimension must have a max and min.
  
• C.9.4(d)(2) is unenforceable.
  
• C.9.7( is unenforceable.
  
• Hanked on J-1? In the 21st century? I guess they want to ensure a permanent forestay not part of the furling gear (as has been the downfall of a few Open 60 rigs) but that's just backward thinking.
  
• Overall sail limitations on a 65ft offshore boat are ridiculous.
  
• Green Marine makes masts, running and standing rigging?

In some regards it sounds like a stimulus program for Euro sailing equipment manufacturers OR the world's largest SMOD. What serious team is going to want to be in this thing when they can't trick out the sails or the rigging?

The last edition VO 70 required G1/J3 to be hanked on, while there is no mention of allowing furling I believe in the last edition you could furl but no boats chose to go down that route. The Open 60 still have to have a permanent forestay (rule C.5.2), just most of them have chosen there forestay to be mounted further aft giving them more flexibility in what sails they can fly from the bow. The setup on Energa sounds much more similar to the VO65 rule as compared to the OCD boats like Gamesa.

[Speng]

Yeah I know what you mean. Some of the Open 60s have used the staysail stay as the permanent forestay but load still runs through the furler. Turns out it's not greatest idea as hoisting a dropping the J1or whatever is carried at the "forestay" position has been reported to be a bit of a mission... Since in the VO65s the only sail to be carried on the forestay is the J1 then wouldn't a more conventional foil type furling system be possible?

[STYACHT]

Yeah I know what you mean. Some of the Open 60s have used the staysail stay as the permanent forestay but load still runs through the furler. Turns out it's not greatest idea as hoisting a dropping the J1or whatever is carried at the "forestay" position has been reported to be a bit of a mission... Since in the VO65s the only sail to be carried on the forestay is the J1 then wouldn't a more conventional foil type furling system be possible?

It is a purely weight aloft issue. Of course if it is one design, who cares. But, why shed righting moment for e.g. beam reaching by having furling swivel permanently up the rig to the headstay point? I can see it both ways. We also hanked on, and reefed, the solent a.k.a. J1 on Kuka-Light, which bears some resemblance to the VO65, as it happens. We debated and went for hanked on because it is a crewed boat, not a single hander.