Jump to content


Olson 30 redesign, rebuild


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#1 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:24 PM

Ok, here it is:  I bought a beat Olson 30, sort of a strange deal.  I got an '82 O30 with a busted mast, no winches, no sails, and no keel for $800.  So, although I pretty much know what I'm going to do with it, I'm going to throw out to you folks to give me some ideas ;-)

 

First, I'm going with a lifting bulb keel and an outboard rudder, for better hydro and righting, and to be ramp launchable and easily trailerable.  A little sick part of me says: "c'mon, build a canter"  Crazy?

 

As for the rig, I've got another busted O30 mast so I've got plenty of splicing options.  Current thought is to move the rig forward and go with a B&R style rig w/o a standing backstay.  It would be fractional enough to use asym chutes well, the boom would grow a couple of feet.

 

Sails:  square head main, not a lot of overlap on the headsails, like I said, masthead asym chutes.

 

What I like about the O30:  It's overall toughness, performance offwind, fun factor.

 

What I want to fix about the O30:  upwind performance, clunky rig, one design anachronisms.

 

PHRF-I don't give a fuck, they may try to rape me, but they'll have to catch me!

 

Other stuff- I want to build this boat offshore tough and super simple, keeping it light, fast, and functional.  I've got the skill and budget to do this-my way, not Walter Wallets.

 

So.... laugh at me, call me a charlatan for messing with a classic, but maybe, give me a few good ideas....

 

I get it next week, so I'll get with some pics soon.

 

Rob



#2 Mariner2442

Mariner2442

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Location:Nevada City,CA

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:36 PM

Awesome concept! Cannot wait to see pics. Perhaps carbon spars? Forget pics, I want vids. I have been hoping someone would do something like this to an old santa cruz ULDB, I was leaning towards the Express 27, but the Olson 30 is great too.



#3 Lost in Translation

Lost in Translation

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 870 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:45 PM

Gotta admire the ambition!  I think the Olson 30 is great boat too.  They are are a little prone to sticking the nose in very heavy air and waves downwind.  Think about that in moving the rig forward.  Why not keep the forces more the same as they always have been and use a backstay and flicker?  And why not go bigger on the kite rather than smaller?

 

What about going with smaller split rudders off the back?  Would it make the boat much harder to wipe out downwind?  I know it is narrow transom, but the boat can be a little bit of a handful in breeze and you will loose a lot of rudder effectiveness in going to a transom hung approach.

 

Maybe someone will pipe up about the one that was turbo'd in Santa Cruz (Vanishing Girl) and share what they learned. Looked great!  The reports did not sound good though on performance.   http://forums.sailin...showtopic=46320

 

 

 

Ok, I'll admit, Vanishing Girl was HOT. Last I saw, for sale in about 2003...listed as tubo'd mini-sled or something like that. Still, the O30 is such a great OD boat and so simple yet fast I hate to see the mods.


Vanishing girl was a mistake. The tall mast caused the bows to swim in a blow because of the lack of researve buoyancy up forward. Sure, it looked hot and moved nicely in light air, but forget sailing that thing in winds >16 kts.

Agreed- O's are beautiful boats, but could use some updating for sailing comfort. The cockpit is miniscule and could be improved (cut-out transom). I know- I've got one.

 

There is really great info here on how the mods went: http://forums.sailin...showtopic=56989

 

Some other mods folks have done here: http://www.sailpix.c...2004/3289.html.  Cockpit, deck, and transom mods sound cool but lots of effort for little performance change.  

 

Would you get brave enough to widen the back of the boat?



#4 Schnick

Schnick

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,990 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:02 AM

I always thought that people liked the Olson 30 mast position better than the Olson 29 (forward) mast position in terms of nose diving?  I don't think I'd move it forward much, though I might extend the boom anyways.

 

That sounds like a pretty awesome project - I'm jealous, mostly that you think you have the time to do it!

 

Oh, I don't know about the outboard rudder either, seems less robust and not generally considered faster?



#5 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,733 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:11 AM

if trailer ability is key, how about a drum cassette in the floor for the rudder?



#6 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:12 AM

I'm not looking at a lot of big hull changes-If it came to that I'd build a new hull, but I have thought of a high chine, parallel to the sheer, about 9" or so down.  I once had the bow on my previous 030 about 3' deep into a wave.

 

The rig I'm thinking about would have a fair amount of rake and with the longer boom/main hoist the CE wouldn't be much further forward. It won't be much taller, and the "I" might be a bit lower.  Kind of thinking of an "I" of 34'-35' and an "IC " of about 38'. A firmer stern would tend to push the bow down even more.

 

First incarnation, the mast would be a spliced up aluminum mess with maybe a bit of carbon in the tip.

 

Kind of thinking of a "L" style bulb keel vs. a "T" style, practical reasons mostly, but will listen (some).

 

R



#7 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,703 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:24 AM

Awesome concept! Cannot wait to see pics. Perhaps carbon spars? Forget pics, I want vids. I have been hoping someone would do something like this to an old santa cruz ULDB, I was leaning towards the Express 27, but the Olson 30 is great too.

Someone had an express 27 set up with a carbon rig maybe Melges 24 rig and a flat deck at one point. I recall the hull was a unfinished hull ie never completed boat with keel attached when they started on the project.

 

One of the nice things about the O30 was how they drive inboard rudders done right are very nice- add open stern cockpit and your starting to look like an interesting frankin boat. Maybe a Hobie 33 lifting keel?



#8 stinky

stinky

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts

Posted 07 November 2013 - 03:31 AM

Awesome concept! Cannot wait to see pics. Perhaps carbon spars? Forget pics, I want vids. I have been hoping someone would do something like this to an old santa cruz ULDB, I was leaning towards the Express 27, but the Olson 30 is great too.

Someone had an express 27 set up with a carbon rig maybe Melges 24 rig and a flat deck at one point. I recall the hull was a unfinished hull ie never completed boat with keel attached when they started on the project.
 
One of the nice things about the O30 was how they drive inboard rudders done right are very nice- add open stern cockpit and your starting to look like an interesting frankin boat. Maybe a Hobie 33 lifting keel?
Alasberg just got the Franken-express back (just=a year of two), and is slowly finishing it. Lighter laminate, 9(?)" off the top sides , open cockpit, merges 24 rig, and something different for the foils.
I'd worry about moving the o-30 rudder aft, seems to me that gets it out of the water sooner. I think PAC- high has the rudder further forward in the boat, supposedly making it less on a train wreck downwind in breeze.

#9 Irish River

Irish River

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Interests:sailing, skiing

Posted 07 November 2013 - 04:54 AM

An O30 would be a good canting keel boat, if you got the know how.

 

I would add a tip to the mast, make a fat top high aspect main and go fractional jib and an assym. I race one on and off and we tossed this idea around while drinking heavily waiting for wind to fill in. 



#10 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 07 November 2013 - 01:25 PM

An O30 would be a good canting keel boat, if you got the know how.

 

I would add a tip to the mast, make a fat top high aspect main and go fractional jib and an assym. I race one on and off and we tossed this idea around while drinking heavily waiting for wind to fill in. 

Yes, the canter.  It directly addresses the O30's biggest weakness-stability, but at the expense of complexity.  I did some work on a retractable canting keel concept a number of years ago and it's possible and in the O30 the loads aren't crazy.  It would be very fast at times, but somehow a really tight, more conventional but current mod appeals more.

 

Looks like for a mast I have one single spreader spar broken at the spreaders, and a butt to spreader section.  It looks like I can splice it to give me an "i" of about 34' to 35' and keep the existing cap shrouds, but at the hounds, not lower as in the stock rig.  There would be a mast tip of about 4' to 5', giving an "IC" of 38' to 39', "P" would be about 34', "E" about 12' or so.  The spreaders would rake, maybe as much as 30 degrees.  The mast will move forward some, but rake will increase, the mast tip staying about in the same place fore and aft.  I too like a square head main but am also considering a flicker and just a healthy roach.  The chute would be asym and the hoist about 3' longer, and girths to the limit of sheeting.

 

It looks like the trickiest part will be positioning the keel.  I'm thinking about keeping more aft than forward, the bow dive issue, CE moving aft, etc.  When I get the boat next week, it gets stripped, goes into the barn, and I'll take the lines off and get them into cad.  At that point I can carefully work out the details.

 

Thanks for the ideas folks, especially the heads up on what hasn't worked so well.  If you're going to go franken boat, it had better work, otherwise, it's just a joke.

 

Rob



#11 Pointy End

Pointy End

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Location:St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL

Posted 07 November 2013 - 01:31 PM

A "mini" Thursday's Child or Route 66.

You'll need a mast/deck post on each side.
Lars would be proud.

#12 Irish River

Irish River

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Interests:sailing, skiing

Posted 08 November 2013 - 01:46 AM

Interesting, we were thinking a hobie 18 section to sleeve into the top of the mast to get a fract rig. I can't remember if we were thinking split back stays. But just going with Jibs, and a big deep rudder to take care of the new CE position. 



#13 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 08 November 2013 - 01:24 PM

Well, the mast HAS to move forward some to make room for the lifting keel which starts to build some spreader rake with the existing chainplate location.  I'm not averse to moving the chainplates aft for a real B&R rig-Lars is a god-but there are advantages to a regular frac rig with less spreader rake-being able to sail deeper is one.  Split backs are like runners, great until they get all snarled, not fun in a big jibe broach.  So it comes down to how much is the square top worth?  Does it pay for it's rating cost-in PHRF (which I bravely (brashly?) said I don't care about) they'll of course freak, whereas a flicker and a bunch of roach is boring, much more stealthy.  In the end it's going to be the numbers and balances that'll make this boat fast (or not) not how fast it looks.

 

I love that '70's left coast ULDB look.  It's kind of retro now, but still hot to this old guy.  With  a diet, a new keel and cockpit, some new threads, this babe will be a heartstopper and a mover.  The current trend toward boxy and industrial doesn't do it for me....

 

She comes to my fatcamp next week, and we'll get her on the program....

 

Rob



#14 PATSYQPATSY

PATSYQPATSY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:everything

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:37 PM

Open the transom and put a caset single rudder on.  That's what I had always envisioned.



#15 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:45 PM

one of the isssues of going to better keel is that you are going to do a BOD ((Beam Of Death) on steroids to keep it from flexing off the hull



#16 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:57 PM

I'm an O30 owner also in the midst of some mods although not as extreme as yours. The O30 OD class is pretty much shot. Only 7 boats showed up to the nationals this year. Larry won as usual.

So now, out here on the West Coast there are a lot of heavy mods going into these boats with the FU to PHRF like you said. Along with other ULDB's especially the Moore 24, the boats are being repurposed primarily for offshore single-handing with a big emphasis on the SS Transpac. Some are being rejigged for the buoys and most of the mods here are about deck layout and crew mobility. Like you said, the cockpit is tight compared to modern sport boats and the hardware layout is old and excessive. Example, going from original 8 winches down to 2.

IMHO the biggest gains in performance on the O30 will come from lightening the boat and stiffening the hull (given that you have a new set of sails, your bottom is polished and the standing rigging is all diaded in). The boats in the past suffered from flexing due to excessive crew weight (9-12 on the rail) and rig tension so. A Beam of Destiny and jock straps were added. These can be eliminated altogether with stringers, bulkheads and ribbing. Things like that will improve performance. Cutting and tossing away but stiffening throughout like the IMOCA's. There are two extreme examples I know of, Vanishing Girl (which sounds like it's overpowered) and this one http://havocracing.w...m/for-sale.html


I guess it comes down to how you're going to use the boat, with a crew, few crew, alone? A Canting keel might eliminate a lot of crew but the added weight in reinforcement? Wouldn't you also need some sort of dagger board? And the transom is reversed somewhat making it a pain to hang dual rudders. A lifting keel? There have been a few guys who have ramp launched their Olson's. Why not just get a Hobie 33? Burying the nose at speed dead down wind is a known issue. Overcome this and you might get past the low 20 knt bursts their capable of. I'd say add a bow sprit and move the mast back but the real edge the Olson has been surfing DDW. More volume in the bow with a plumb bow? But here you would have to start the cut way back just to get the necessary volume forward. Not impossible but a lot of work. And how would it effect upwind performance? Flatten out the hull aft of the keel? How about a deck stepped carbon mast? Costly. How much gain?

What's the trade off? Although the Olson is one of the fastest all round, toughest, most versatile boats ever made, way ahead of its time, the lines are still 35 years old. It can only be pushed so much no matter what you do IMHO

#17 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 08 November 2013 - 05:27 PM

This boat is coming to me without a keel, and the mast is broken.  It was going to the landfill.

 

My design brief is simple:  Olson 30 5.0.

 

I figure the O29 was 2.0, Vanishing Girl was 3.0, Havoc was 4.0.

 

I want to learn from their experience.  I also want this boat to be offshore tough, trailerable , ramp launchable and a good tight piece of design.

 

The canter is a dream, a gutted boat with purposeful reinforcing structure, a somewhat different rig (as I lined out earlier), a better foil set, and a better cockpit and layout, is not.

 

I had an O30 before, many of you guys have or sailed a lot on them.  I've spent a lot of time thinking about what would make them a better boat, I'm sure you all have also.  Short of a new hull, this is where the rubber hits the road.  A couple of provisos:  I'm not going to buy a carbon spar for this boat, and I'm not going to hire a NA, and any hull mods have to time and money efficient, I'm not going to get into spending more money and time than it would take to build a new hull.

 

There may be some solutions that are transitional, like hanging an outboard rudder vs. an inboard cassette.  I want to do this, nail the correct proportions for the keel, rig, loading, and go sailing.  Refinements can come later.

 

Keep the ideas, experiences, and dreams coming, it's really helping to provide perspective.

 

Thanks,

 

Rob



#18 Savage 17

Savage 17

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 938 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 05:29 PM

Good luck! The boat is too narrow in the stern to plane. It will surf, but every boat will surf a wave.

 

I would run the other way if I had to do it all over again!



#19 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 05:42 PM

Ballast bags on rail?

#20 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 08 November 2013 - 05:59 PM

Open the transom and put a caset single rudder on.  That's what I had always envisioned.


Some Olson 40 mods...

Attached Files



#21 Future MOB

Future MOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 08 November 2013 - 06:05 PM

Good luck! The boat is too narrow in the stern to plane. It will surf, but every boat will surf a wave.

The toilet seat can plane. I think it pops up once boat speed gets in the low teens (someone can correct me if I'm wrong). I've seen high teens (17+/-) in flat water.



#22 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,703 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 08 November 2013 - 06:54 PM

Good luck! The boat is too narrow in the stern to plane. It will surf, but every boat will surf a wave.

 

I would run the other way if I had to do it all over again!

Spoken by someone who clearly has never sailed an O30. Yes they do and lots of SF O30 sailors have done non stop planing for several hours doing Coastal Cups. BTW surfing big swells is not the same thing as planing between them.



#23 Irish River

Irish River

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Interests:sailing, skiing

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:06 AM

Check out this one on a plane with an assym.

Attached Files



#24 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:32 AM

Check out this one on a plane with an assym.

Yeah, I remember the difference between my O30, and everything else.  They'd all surf down the wave, but the Olson would plane up the back of the wave.  That was a paradigm shift for me.

 

Rob



#25 12 metre

12 metre

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Location:English Bay

Posted 09 November 2013 - 03:30 AM

Good luck! The boat is too narrow in the stern to plane. It will surf, but every boat will surf a wave.

 

I would run the other way if I had to do it all over again!

Spoken by someone who clearly has never sailed an O30. Yes they do and lots of SF O30 sailors have done non stop planing for several hours doing Coastal Cups. BTW surfing big swells is not the same thing as planing between them.

 

I was gonna say - must be a powerboater.

 

A few things people forget is that the dynamic lift for "planing" comes from the bow sections - yes it helps to have a broad stern to keep the boat from squatting and making too large an angle to the water (must have noticed that a runabout planes much more easily when you shift your weight forward.

 

Another thing to consider is that in order to "plane" you have to get to planing speed and a narrow light boat is usually much more easily driven than a fat ass boat.

 

Lastly, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and what is the real goal - to meet the definition of "planing", or just to go really f*cken fast?  Most people don't talk about multis planing (because they don't really), but they go f*cken fast because they have light, narrow, easily driven hulls that are capable of very high S/L ratios. 

 

No, I don't have an O-30.  Not really a big fan to be honest, but they are still great boats capable of very high speeds.

 

Oh yeah, the O-30 in the photo is Lithium.



#26 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 09 November 2013 - 05:06 AM

Always liked this video of Lunch Box in the 2010 Southern Straits race. Passing a J109 @ 4:19



#27 Savage 17

Savage 17

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 938 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 11:16 AM

Good luck! The boat is too narrow in the stern to plane. It will surf, but every boat will surf a wave.
 
I would run the other way if I had to do it all over again!

Spoken by someone who clearly has never sailed an O30. Yes they do and lots of SF O30 sailors have done non stop planing for several hours doing Coastal Cups. BTW surfing big swells is not the same thing as planing between them.

Who do you think owned the O30 with a turbo keel? Check your facts first!

#28 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,635 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:22 PM

The way to improve any boat is to simplicate and add lightness.

Going over the OP's list, I don't see much of that.

 

More power doesn't help if the boat can't stand it up... what the O-30 needs is not more power, but instead more righting moment. The problem with adding more righting moment is dramatically (dare one say exponentially) increased structural stress. The problem with increasing structure is that you make it heavy (and weight added to the hull & deck -decrease- righting moment). Etc etc.

 

IMHO most of these ideas are moving away from the "circle of goodness" in design concepts. If you want to change the boat that much, you probably wanted a different boat. Yeah I know, it's the boat you got; so go ahead & have fun.

 

A lifting keel is a great idea IMHO. Makes the boat more practical in every way, and the trunk adds a girder between hull & deck that can (if done right) make it much stronger without much weight penalty. I also think it shouldn't be necessary to move the mast forward (bad idea IMHO). But the first step is to address the structure, Olsons needed some help in that regard already.

 

FB- Doug



#29 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 09 November 2013 - 03:02 PM

The way to improve any boat is to simplicate and add lightness.
Going over the OP's list, I don't see much of that.
 
More power doesn't help if the boat can't stand it up... what the O-30 needs is not more power, but instead more righting moment. The problem with adding more righting moment is dramatically (dare one say exponentially) increased structural stress. The problem with increasing structure is that you make it heavy (and weight added to the hull & deck -decrease- righting moment). Etc etc.
 
IMHO most of these ideas are moving away from the "circle of goodness" in design concepts. If you want to change the boat that much, you probably wanted a different boat. Yeah I know, it's the boat you got; so go ahead & have fun.
 
A lifting keel is a great idea IMHO. Makes the boat more practical in every way, and the trunk adds a girder between hull & deck that can (if done right) make it much stronger without much weight penalty. I also think it shouldn't be necessary to move the mast forward (bad idea IMHO). But the first step is to address the structure, Olsons needed some help in that regard already.
 
FB- Doug

+1

Say, hypothetically, you're able to reduce weight by 300lbs by cutting away structures (Vanishing Girl cut the cabin and cut out the furniture) and removing old hardware and fasteners (it adds up quickly), most of that weight will be added back into reinforcement which turns out to be costly and time consuming. If going offshore, there's a whole bunch of weighty stuff you'll need especially if racing offshore. Then you'll need all CAT required stuff - life raft etc.

On the West Coast a lot of boats have been hitting things in the water. So it got me to thinking about structural safety. Maybe sealing the v-birth to create a crash box and closing the area after the bow with an inspection plate. I've also thought about sealing up the aft bulkhead where the rudder post is, especially if I end up attaching a hydraulic arm to it. Was also thinking if I switched from my fiberglass post to a beefier post, it might tear a hole in the transom if I hit something. There are better hatches that slide underneath for example. All overkill probably but I'm a bit paranoid that way having almost been annihilated a couple times by drunk power boaters.

Good luck with your project. It's really great that the Olson's are getting a second life and that it's happening on the East Coast now too. Maybe these are the boats to substitute the Mini's in the US with? For now at least.

#30 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 11 November 2013 - 12:02 AM

The comments about weight and structure make a lot of sense to me and are one of the more interesting aspects of this build.  The first stage will be gutting the hull, stripping the hardware, cutting off the keel stub, cutting out the cockpit and after deck, and cutting off the aft section of the cabin.  At that point I'll have great access to the entire boat.  Next it gets weighed.

 

I've got the rig proportioned, it will be a single, swept spreader fractional, with an "I" of 34', "J" of 11.5', "P" of 34', "E" of 12', and a 7' sprit.  This gives me a mast tip above the hounds of about 5', the chutes will be masthead.   There will be a standing backstay with a flicker. The boat will carry a 155% overlap.  The rig will be set up with a lot of prebend and more rake than Olsons usually carry.  The hounds will probably be somewhat further aft than on the stock rig.  Coupled with the larger main, the net effect is that the CE will be further aft than on the stock rig. This will push the keel a bit further aft, so I'll go to a T keel, to keep the weight from being too far aft.

 

I've decided to remove the toerails and glass the hull-deck joint a la Vanishing Girl.  I also will glass in waterballast tanks aft of the chainplate bulkhead, volume TBD.

 

After I get the boat torn apart, I'll put together the drawings of the mods and get a weights and moments spreadsheet going.  I'd like the boat to end up actually lighter than the stock boat and significantly stiffer.  Obviously to add the structure to deal with more righting moment, the weight has got to come from somewhere, reducing cabin, deck, and cockpit structure will help, as will reducing the deck hardware, but some ballast will also have to be cut.  It will be interesting to see how much I can keep.

 

Rob



#31 Polaris

Polaris

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,651 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 01:31 AM

Taller carbon spar with swept back spreaders, fractional) dual running backs for upwind work and the fathead mainsail, class jib (no overlap). carbon sprit with asymmetric.  7ft (high efficient) keel with bulb (check with Mars Keels).

 

Changing the rudder system, you may have cavitation issues and problems with the stress on the pins like the FT10.  Instead, redo the existing rudder with a pinched tube and longer more efficient rudder.   



#32 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 11 November 2013 - 02:21 AM

I like the ideas. I took my toe rail off too. Vanishing Girl, I heard, only has about an 1" wide glass over the bottom of the joint. I'm going a littler wider. Also glassing the top of the joint and will glass in a lip/toe rail between stanchions all the way aft to the spreaders. Drill some holes for webbing on the foredeck etc.

When you say cut out cockpit, do you mean seats? Put the traveller on the floor? That's something being done over here too. I'm still on the fence about that. With the seats out your feet don't reach if you are sitting on the rail. You could raise the cockpit floor which would give you back the space below. But you'd have to watch your head being that much closer to the boom.

Speaking of masts and Flying Tigers. We were looking at an FT10 mast today. Eyeballing, it looked about 4 feet taller, swept back spreaders....

Interested in the water ballast. Where would you put them? High under the deck or low on the floor? Please post pics when you can.

#33 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,141 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 03:12 AM

 

Good luck! The boat is too narrow in the stern to plane. It will surf, but every boat will surf a wave.

 

I would run the other way if I had to do it all over again!

Spoken by someone who clearly has never sailed an O30. Yes they do and lots of SF O30 sailors have done non stop planing for several hours doing Coastal Cups. BTW surfing big swells is not the same thing as planing between them.

 

I was gonna say - must be a powerboater.

 

A few things people forget is that the dynamic lift for "planing" comes from the bow sections - yes it helps to have a broad stern to keep the boat from squatting and making too large an angle to the water (must have noticed that a runabout planes much more easily when you shift your weight forward.

 

Another thing to consider is that in order to "plane" you have to get to planing speed and a narrow light boat is usually much more easily driven than a fat ass boat.

 

Lastly, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and what is the real goal - to meet the definition of "planing", or just to go really f*cken fast?  Most people don't talk about multis planing (because they don't really), but they go f*cken fast because they have light, narrow, easily driven hulls that are capable of very high S/L ratios. 

 

No, I don't have an O-30.  Not really a big fan to be honest, but they are still great boats capable of very high speeds.

 

Oh yeah, the O-30 in the photo is Lithium.

 

 You are close to the nut of it on O30 planing, it doesn't "nose up" with the stock rig, it just picks up level, and so waves can be more of a problem than need be...borderline "nose digger". George discovered with the 29 that adding more form bouyancy to the ass end (less rocker) made that a bit worse too. Asym with a sprit has a significant lifting moment on the nose which would probably help that. 

 

 My votes for best ROIs are: Replace stock rudder with the Moore designed elliptical, cut maybe 50 lbs out of the mast with carbon and add a couple hundred to the bottom of a longer keel, stiffen the old girl internally, open up the cockpit, and that asym, although I'd make it both asym and sym capable. 



#34 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 11 November 2013 - 03:58 AM

My intention is to cut out the seats and raise the sole and duck.  I also want to shorten the cabin, leaving enough room to get below without running into the keel trunk.

 

The water ballast tanks would be tucked up against the upper hull and outboard deck.  Maybe 1x2x10 or 12?  I need to get in  there and scope it out, and then do the volume calcs.  Seems to me that I should be able to get somewhat more than a cu ft/lin ft,

so 800 to 1000 #?

 

Interesting about the O29 stern, I didn't know he changed it underwater.  The boat actually needs more rocker rather than less, but some nice bouyant bow sections would have been the key.

 

Does anyone have a lines drawing for the O30, you know, sections, wls, buttocks?  I'll do a take off if I have to, but would prefer not to.  Thanks,

 

Rob



#35 Irish River

Irish River

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Interests:sailing, skiing

Posted 11 November 2013 - 05:28 AM

The toe rail on the one I race on has been replaced with a low profile harken track. Bow to stern. works well, for hiking purposes too. 



#36 O30_OldSchool

O30_OldSchool

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Location:Kingston, Ontario
  • Interests:Olson 30, beachcats, anything fast.

Posted 11 November 2013 - 02:41 PM

UGH

 

I have a bit of experience with the boats. I think that moving the mast will be an engineering nightmare.  The cabin is already small...the lift keel will make any space disappear.

 

If you want to really play with the boat, and make a modification that could make a pretty big difference in performance without adding 500 pounds of structure to the boat, consider DSS.  If it is the boat I think it is, you will probably be needing to redo the cabinets anyways.



#37 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 11 November 2013 - 02:42 PM


 

"Good luck with your project. It's really great that the Olson's are getting a second life and that it's happening on the East Coast now too. Maybe these are the boats to substitute the Mini's in the US with? For now at least."

 

 

Maybe we need to start the "Open Olson 30 class".

 

2 rules:  1 The boat must be built on an Olson 30 or Olson 29 hull

              2 LOA and BOA must remain substansially as built-3" tolerance for LOA, 6" for BOA

 

;-)

 

Rob



#38 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 11 November 2013 - 03:12 PM

UGH
 
I have a bit of experience with the boats. I think that moving the mast will be an engineering nightmare.  The cabin is already small...the lift keel will make any space disappear.
 
If you want to really play with the boat, and make a modification that could make a pretty big difference in performance without adding 500 pounds of structure to the boat, consider DSS.  If it is the boat I think it is, you will probably be needing to redo the cabinets anyways.


DSS? Now you've done it! Doug Lord is going to be all over this thread. For fucksake, don't mention the "F" word!

#39 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:12 PM

Scott,

 

We talked about O30's about a couple of years ago.

 

This boat is coming to me w/o a keel, instead of getting stripped and going to the landfill.  The last thing I'm going to do is cast a new stock keel.

 

I respect your opinion about the stock boats, but just don't agree.  I don't see a one design future for the O30 or any other Eighties racer-cruisers for that matter.

 

A lot of people think this project is crazy.  I think it's gonna be fun, makes for interesting talk.

 

On an engineering basis, the rig and keel changes aren't a nightmare, just good, clean fun....



#40 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:14 PM

Faster is Funer.

#41 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,733 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 11 November 2013 - 05:19 PM

it is a bit crazy, I'm not sure she'll go upwind any better, although maybe so in the light.

 

Downwind, it would be great to see if it could plane earlier.

 

Is your idea shorthanded sailing?

 

It might be cheaper to pay $30k for an existing downwind flyer, but it could be fun as well.



#42 woody

woody

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Location:westcoast canada

Posted 11 November 2013 - 08:27 PM

Do yourself a favour. Continue on to the dump with the Olson 30 and take your money and buy a Farr 30 ,FT10m,Henderson 30 etc. If not you'll end end with a PILE of money sunk into a frankenboat that nobody wants ,or at least won't pay much money for.



#43 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 11 November 2013 - 11:14 PM

I think the difference between the new keel and the original keel upwind would be analagous to the difference between the stock keel on a Henderson 30 and a scaled Olson 30 keel on the Hendo.  Everyone would say it would be totally crazy to put a shallower trapezoidal keel on a boat with deeper bulb keel (and I'd agree) but somehow it's also crazy to do the opposite.  Hydrodynamics worked the same 30 or 300 years ago, we just know more now.

 

I get the frankenboat and ROI arguments, that's why so many folks live in raised ranches facing the street or condos, if it's mass market and you want to sell, well you've got a mass market ;-)

 

IMO (I won't bullshit you with the H) the O30 was a pretty awesome boat as originally conceived, updated I think it could be currently awesome. 



#44 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,703 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 11 November 2013 - 11:21 PM

 

Good luck! The boat is too narrow in the stern to plane. It will surf, but every boat will surf a wave.
 
I would run the other way if I had to do it all over again!

Spoken by someone who clearly has never sailed an O30. Yes they do and lots of SF O30 sailors have done non stop planing for several hours doing Coastal Cups. BTW surfing big swells is not the same thing as planing between them.

Who do you think owned the O30 with a turbo keel? Check your facts first!

What facts? Just because you change a keel doesn't mean its going to magically turn a hull into something else. Sorry to burst your bubble but yes they plane and they plane up the back sides of waves too not just in the hole between them of course you need to sail some place with wind no sailboat will plane without wind.



#45 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,733 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 12 November 2013 - 03:30 PM

Say, I've always wondered about this possible change:

 

Take off the trapezoidal keel of any of these boats, SC 27, O30, etc, etc

 

Put on a modern keel with a bulb - but retain the same righting moment.  Basically, take even more weight out of the boat, you don't have to change the structure of the boat to handle increased RM, and make it even lighter for downwind work.

 

Would there be an issue upwind as you don't go any faster, but have less cross section of keel to work with?



#46 sailman

sailman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,689 posts
  • Location:Portsmouth, RI

Posted 12 November 2013 - 03:44 PM

Yes, you do need to change the structure.  Even though you are keeping the same righting moment you are attaching it over a smaller area.

Say, I've always wondered about this possible change:

 

Take off the trapezoidal keel of any of these boats, SC 27, O30, etc, etc

 

Put on a modern keel with a bulb - but retain the same righting moment.  Basically, take even more weight out of the boat, you don't have to change the structure of the boat to handle increased RM, and make it even lighter for downwind work.

 

Would there be an issue upwind as you don't go any faster, but have less cross section of keel to work with?



#47 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 12 November 2013 - 03:50 PM

Say, I've always wondered about this possible change:
 
Take off the trapezoidal keel of any of these boats, SC 27, O30, etc, etc
 
Put on a modern keel with a bulb - but retain the same righting moment.  Basically, take even more weight out of the boat, you don't have to change the structure of the boat to handle increased RM, and make it even lighter for downwind work.
 
Would there be an issue upwind as you don't go any faster, but have less cross section of keel to work with?


http://forums.sailin...showtopic=14574

I started to wonder the same thing? Does the Olson have the underbody to make good headway upwind without it?

#48 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,733 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 12 November 2013 - 03:52 PM

Yes, you do need to change the structure.  Even though you are keeping the same righting moment you are attaching it over a smaller area.

Say, I've always wondered about this possible change:

 

Take off the trapezoidal keel of any of these boats, SC 27, O30, etc, etc

 

Put on a modern keel with a bulb - but retain the same righting moment.  Basically, take even more weight out of the boat, you don't have to change the structure of the boat to handle increased RM, and make it even lighter for downwind work.

 

Would there be an issue upwind as you don't go any faster, but have less cross section of keel to work with?

agreed on that, but chainplates, bulkheads, etc shouldn't have to be updated and you avoid falling into the "add weight to handle increased RM, then you need more RM, etc"



#49 casc27

casc27

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,513 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 04:19 PM

Say, I've always wondered about this possible change:
 
Take off the trapezoidal keel of any of these boats, SC 27, O30, etc, etc
 
Put on a modern keel with a bulb - but retain the same righting moment.  Basically, take even more weight out of the boat, you don't have to change the structure of the boat to handle increased RM, and make it even lighter for downwind work.
 
Would there be an issue upwind as you don't go any faster, but have less cross section of keel to work with?


http://forums.sailin...showtopic=14574

I started to wonder the same thing? Does the Olson have the underbody to make good headway upwind without it?

 

 

What I would expect to happen is the higher aspect keel will need more speed before it starts to work (i.e., it will have a higher stall speed). I've seen this in action at the finish of a Ditch run. The Melges 24 I was on stalled out in the light air in the marina and drifted onto the leeward rockwall. I hopped in the drink and pushed the boat off. The next Melges to finish did the same thing. I pushed them off the rocks, too. (What the hell, I was already wet up to my shoulders and they did give me a beer to drink on the walk around the marina.) Next boat in was an SC 27. They also started to drift towards the rocks and the skipper just grabbed the boom and held it above CL for a moment and that big, fat keel started to work at about half-a-knot and the started creeping upwind. Was a great practical lesson in stall speeds etc of vastly different foil sections. Albeit one that ended with a long, chilly stroll around the entire marina. (I did momentarily consider swimming across.)



#50 Savage 17

Savage 17

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 938 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 05:15 PM

 

Say, I've always wondered about this possible change:
 
Take off the trapezoidal keel of any of these boats, SC 27, O30, etc, etc
 
Put on a modern keel with a bulb - but retain the same righting moment.  Basically, take even more weight out of the boat, you don't have to change the structure of the boat to handle increased RM, and make it even lighter for downwind work.
 
Would there be an issue upwind as you don't go any faster, but have less cross section of keel to work with?


http://forums.sailin...showtopic=14574

I started to wonder the same thing? Does the Olson have the underbody to make good headway upwind without it?

 

 

What I would expect to happen is the higher aspect keel will need more speed before it starts to work (i.e., it will have a higher stall speed). I've seen this in action at the finish of a Ditch run. The Melges 24 I was on stalled out in the light air in the marina and drifted onto the leeward rockwall. I hopped in the drink and pushed the boat off. The next Melges to finish did the same thing. I pushed them off the rocks, too. (What the hell, I was already wet up to my shoulders and they did give me a beer to drink on the walk around the marina.) Next boat in was an SC 27. They also started to drift towards the rocks and the skipper just grabbed the boom and held it above CL for a moment and that big, fat keel started to work at about half-a-knot and the started creeping upwind. Was a great practical lesson in stall speeds etc of vastly different foil sections. Albeit one that ended with a long, chilly stroll around the entire marina. (I did momentarily consider swimming across.)

This is exactly one of the issues I had with the Synergy 1000 keel on the Olson 30. You have to keep constant flow on the keel or it does nothing. You have to come out of tacks deeper to ensure you have enough flow over the keel to get any lift.

 

I have also experienced this in my Mumm 30, Melges 24 and Henderson 30. The difference is the hull shape and sail plan are much mroe powerful and designed to give you that flow.



#51 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:28 PM

I haven't done the numbers for the O30 keels-old and new-yet, but the idea is that with a lower CG, you can keep the same weight and get more righting moment, or keep the same righting moment and get less weight.  With more span and a better taper you can get more lift and a better l/d ratio which lets you reduce area.  Downside, as has been pointed out, you have to moving faster to generate that lift, which can suck in light air.  This is true with a keel change on any boat, but if you're going to make comparisons with other boats, hull shapes, d/l ratio, and sa/disp ratio needs to be similar, as does sail area to wetted surface in light air.

 

Other issues which may muck up things are the effect of deeper draft and lower CG on pitching, and will the boat tend to "trip" on a deeper keel.  You're probably familiar how many dinghies go better with the board raised a bit in heavy air.  I'm kind of concerned about the fine bow sections of the O30 and a deeper keel with a lower CG, which is why I'm thinking of pushing the keel further aft, and only going with as much additional draft as necessary.

 

Rob



#52 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 13 November 2013 - 04:18 PM

Have you happened to have worked out the wetted surface area of the stock Olson yet? Just wondering. Or do you know what the root and tip chord lengths are for the stock keel and rudder?

#53 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 13 November 2013 - 05:34 PM

Have you happened to have worked out the wetted surface area of the stock Olson yet? Just wondering. Or do you know what the root and tip chord lengths are for the stock keel and rudder?

Important things to consider!

 

If the new keel and rudder package have more area than the original, it will need to have more stability to go faster.

 

The 'eliptical' rudder that is 'class legal' is a good example. It makes the boat easier to steer, but because it has more area, it is not faster.

 

A fin and bulb keel that has less wetted area, and more stability, while the same (or less) weight as the original, would improve speed.

 

Tough to do, if you need to add structure as well.

 

My O-30 is stock, and I like it that way.



#54 Schnick

Schnick

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,990 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 13 November 2013 - 05:54 PM

The O30s around here, like Lithium in that planing picture up thread, have gone to short prods and A kites.  I thought initially that in this configuration the elliptical rudder would pay, as you'd be sailing hotter angles with more helm downwind, but even in that setup the stock rudder seems quicker to me. 

 

All of which leads me to think that for the O it is all about keeping drag down to a minimum.  No bulb configuration is going to achieve this, the comments in the last couple threads are spot on.  Its a tough compromise, but I think if you run the risk of adding below-waterline drag then you will want to make some large increases in RM and also in sail area, at least downwind.



#55 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,733 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 November 2013 - 07:00 PM

If the olson main hull was a bit narrower, you could make it go much faster by making it a trimaran...



#56 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 13 November 2013 - 10:53 PM

Have you happened to have worked out the wetted surface area of the stock Olson yet? Just wondering. Or do you know what the root and tip chord lengths are for the stock keel and rudder?

 

That's in the class constitution, minimum tip is 31.25", root 44", span ~ 48" for an area of about 12.5 sq. ft.

 

I was thinking of a keel with a span of about 60", about 9 to 10 sq. ft. area w/o the bulb.

 

I'm guessing the bulb and some keel tip will weigh about 1500#, with the vcg at about 5.5' vs 1800# w/ vcg at about 3.5', so that's about a 25% increase in RM. These are real ballpark guesses.

 

The keel will have more lift, it will be faster upwind.  I don't think it will be much faster offwind, hence the reasoning for adding more downwind area.

 

Like I've said this boat is coming to me w/o a keel, and I'm building a lifting keel.  When it comes to the actual design and balancing of the keel and rig, I hope to beat my guesstimates.

 

Rob



#57 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 13 November 2013 - 10:57 PM

Thanks for that. I confess I was just being lazy.

#58 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,141 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:16 AM

The O30s around here, like Lithium in that planing picture up thread, have gone to short prods and A kites.  I thought initially that in this configuration the elliptical rudder would pay, as you'd be sailing hotter angles with more helm downwind, but even in that setup the stock rudder seems quicker to me. 

 

All of which leads me to think that for the O it is all about keeping drag down to a minimum.  No bulb configuration is going to achieve this, the comments in the last couple threads are spot on.  Its a tough compromise, but I think if you run the risk of adding below-waterline drag then you will want to make some large increases in RM and also in sail area, at least downwind.

 

 The main problem with the stock rudder isn't that it's inefficient, it's that it's poorly balanced. Designed to look good on the brochures, so it matches the rake of the keel. Lot of area aft of the post. At high speed it takes a lot of grunt to move the tiller.



#59 Ultraman

Ultraman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:27 AM

The O30s around here, like Lithium in that planing picture up thread, have gone to short prods and A kites.  I thought initially that in this configuration the elliptical rudder would pay, as you'd be sailing hotter angles with more helm downwind, but even in that setup the stock rudder seems quicker to me. 

 

All of which leads me to think that for the O it is all about keeping drag down to a minimum.  No bulb configuration is going to achieve this, the comments in the last couple threads are spot on.  Its a tough compromise, but I think if you run the risk of adding below-waterline drag then you will want to make some large increases in RM and also in sail area, at least downwind.

 

 The main problem with the stock rudder isn't that it's inefficient, it's that it's poorly balanced. Designed to look good on the brochures, so it matches the rake of the keel. Lot of area aft of the post. At high speed it takes a lot of grunt to move the tiller.

The main problem with the stock rudder is that the boat wipes out in breeze and waves.  Much better with the elliptical although probably a little slower.  But laying the boat down on its side isn't very fast either.



#60 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,141 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 02:00 AM

 

The O30s around here, like Lithium in that planing picture up thread, have gone to short prods and A kites.  I thought initially that in this configuration the elliptical rudder would pay, as you'd be sailing hotter angles with more helm downwind, but even in that setup the stock rudder seems quicker to me. 

 

All of which leads me to think that for the O it is all about keeping drag down to a minimum.  No bulb configuration is going to achieve this, the comments in the last couple threads are spot on.  Its a tough compromise, but I think if you run the risk of adding below-waterline drag then you will want to make some large increases in RM and also in sail area, at least downwind.

 

 The main problem with the stock rudder isn't that it's inefficient, it's that it's poorly balanced. Designed to look good on the brochures, so it matches the rake of the keel. Lot of area aft of the post. At high speed it takes a lot of grunt to move the tiller.

The main problem with the stock rudder is that the boat wipes out in breeze and waves.  Much better with the elliptical although probably a little slower.  But laying the boat down on its side isn't very fast either.

 

  Changing rudders doesn't affect that much. Main problem with that is the boat is a borderline nose-digger. Nose gets deep and with a square mile of bow underwater the rudder can't do much, i.e: ihe Moore 24 has a small rudder, but wheelies when it planes, so....

 

 Being able to steer quick at the beginning of shit going bad helps some though.  



#61 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 16 November 2013 - 02:32 PM

Here are some pics.  On the plus side it's solid, fair, no obvious soft spots (yet, I know they're there), and it's a good right coast color.  Downside, it was hit hard amidships on the port side, the remaining hardware is old school, the stern pulpit is beat.

 

There's a good spreader down butt section of mast, the rod rigging is usable.  With the other broken O30 mast I have, I can splice up the stick I want.

 

Not a bad starting point for $800 ?Attached File  above.jpg   268.76K   244 downloadsAttached File  port side.jpg   269.39K   314 downloadsAttached File  stbd side.jpg   266.8K   231 downloads



#62 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 16 November 2013 - 02:37 PM

Not bad at all! Still a fine looking boat from any angle. What was the story behind it by the way? Took the keel for the lead?

#63 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 16 November 2013 - 02:44 PM

I don't have all the sorry details yet.  I bought the boat from a boat transporter/scrapper, who kept the keel, winches, and sails, and transported it to my place.  I've got a number for the former owner but no response yet.  The story will unravel-the urge to confess is innate.

 

I'm psyched!



#64 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,021 posts

Posted 16 November 2013 - 05:17 PM

Get rid of the godawful toe rail



#65 DRDNA

DRDNA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Location:Ventucky

Posted 16 November 2013 - 06:46 PM

If you cut out the seats, you raise the floor of the cockpit- which also makes it drain faster- although they drain nicely as is.  O 30's do plane- I planed down the backside of Santa Barbara Island with no waves once.  We sailed a lot with the bow under water- it steers nicely and pops back up. George told me in 1981 that he made the boat have a lot of helm pressure so it wouldn't go "negative" when hauling ass.  However, I am a surfer, and we are used to lots of fairly borderline stuff in the ocean anyway :P .  I think you'll have a great time!!  As far as an investment, it's a boat :). .  Once again, have a great time and do some great glassing so you can be proud.



#66 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 17 November 2013 - 02:10 AM

If you cut out the seats, you raise the floor of the cockpit- which also makes it drain faster- although they drain nicely as is.  O 30's do plane- I planed down the backside of Santa Barbara Island with no waves once.  We sailed a lot with the bow under water- it steers nicely and pops back up. George told me in 1981 that he made the boat have a lot of helm pressure so it wouldn't go "negative" when hauling ass.  However, I am a surfer, and we are used to lots of fairly borderline stuff in the ocean anyway :P .  I think you'll have a great time!!  As far as an investment, it's a boat :). .  Once again, have a great time and do some great glassing so you can be proud.

 

You've got the plan.....say, as a surfer, are thruster fins bullshit?  If not, would they work on an O30?

 

For Left Hook, the rail is gone, gonna be installed on my pickup be where it belongs.



#67 2to1

2to1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Interests:Black Holes

Posted 17 November 2013 - 03:23 AM

Good luck! The boat is too narrow in the stern to plane. It will surf, but every boat will surf a wave.

 

I would run the other way if I had to do it all over again!

wow, that is so incorrect. also, I believe the O30 likes a big rudder for proper response at higher speeds. those guys in Santa Cruz made some killer boats.



#68 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,141 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 08:02 AM

If you cut out the seats, you raise the floor of the cockpit- which also makes it drain faster- although they drain nicely as is.  O 30's do plane- I planed down the backside of Santa Barbara Island with no waves once.  We sailed a lot with the bow under water- it steers nicely and pops back up. George told me in 1981 that he made the boat have a lot of helm pressure so it wouldn't go "negative" when hauling ass.  However, I am a surfer, and we are used to lots of fairly borderline stuff in the ocean anyway :P .  I think you'll have a great time!!  As far as an investment, it's a boat :). .  Once again, have a great time and do some great glassing so you can be proud.

 

You've got the plan.....say, as a surfer, are thruster fins bullshit?  If not, would they work on an O30?

 

For Left Hook, the rail is gone, gonna be installed on my pickup be where it belongs.

 

 

  I don't recommend taking off the aluminum strip without re-enforcing the deck-hull joint for offshore work. It adds a surprising amount of stiffness to the boat, and it was designed to have it. You may find that it won't go back on because the boat has "curled" a bit. Correct with weights to get it bolted back on. 

 

 Just cut off the upper section of it where people sit. 



#69 knockabout

knockabout

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Location:NH/Me

Posted 17 November 2013 - 12:49 PM

I'm with Mark K. Not only does the toerail add stiffness, but it's a handy attachment point for preventers, tweakers, and spinnaker blocks. You're planning on shorthanded offshore, so no worries about railmeat comfort. The weight savings from removing the rail may not offset the benefits of leaving it.



#70 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 17 November 2013 - 02:08 PM

One of my mantras is:  "get rid of the metal".  I'm going to strip this boat completely, seal all the holes where stuff used to be, and redesign the structure.  The idea is not to change things for the sake of change, just to efficiently pick up the loads.  The hull-deck joint is a good example where a good glass and epoxy schedule will be stronger and stiffer than the original toerail and SS bolts.  Also that joint will be in the water ballast tanks aft, and I want that area well sealed.

 

One of the things I love about the original conceptualization of the O30 is it's minimalism.  Without the pressure of creating market appeal I can extend that idea to the point where everything is simple, straightforward and strong.  No band aids like a BOD and jockey straps.



#71 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 17 November 2013 - 03:26 PM

One of my mantras is:  "get rid of the metal".  I'm going to strip this boat completely, seal all the holes where stuff used to be, and redesign the structure.  The idea is not to change things for the sake of change, just to efficiently pick up the loads.  The hull-deck joint is a good example where a good glass and epoxy schedule will be stronger and stiffer than the original toerail and SS bolts.  Also that joint will be in the water ballast tanks aft, and I want that area well sealed.
 
One of the things I love about the original conceptualization of the O30 is it's minimalism.  Without the pressure of creating market appeal I can extend that idea to the point where everything is simple, straightforward and strong.  No band aids like a BOD and jockey straps.


This is true. I was very skeptical about removing the toe rail as well. But after talking to some NA's and pro shops about it and many other ULDB owners who have rebuilt their boats, the conclusion is that it adds almost no stiffness at all. Hard to believe, I know. The real issue is the bond, the glue, and keeping it together which a good epoxy schedule on top and mostly underneath will accomplish better than the toe rail with the 45 holes per length. The epoxy will add stiffness the boat never had. The toe rail is good for webbing, catching stuff from falling overboard and for clipping things onto, true. Anyway, the boat looks so much better without it.

I'm with you on the minimalism. If you really want to get creative and minimize thru hulls and metal, think about ways to do without all the headsail lead tracks. It's been done out here on some Moores. Very high tech, efficient and clean. And if you are cutting back the cabin, will you really need halyards etc leading back across the top?

#72 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 17 November 2013 - 10:05 PM

I'm probably going to mount both the main and genoa halyard winches on the mast.  No turners, deck loads, clutches.

 

A single pair of self tailers for sheet winches.

 

Definitely using hanks and a downfucker.

 

Will use a traveller on the cockpit sole.

 

Strop on the boom instead of a bail.

 

Got to do some figuring on headsail leads-need to have seamless inboard and outboard options, as well as fore and aft.



#73 carcrash

carcrash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Location:Waikiki Yacht Club

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:52 AM

Good luck! The boat is too narrow in the stern to plane. It will surf, but every boat will surf a wave.

The toilet seat can plane. I think it pops up once boat speed gets in the low teens (someone can correct me if I'm wrong). I've seen high teens (17+/-) in flat water.

 

This is a common misunderstanding. The stern has almost nothing to do with planing.

 

Consider the surfboard. Many people have tried surfboards with wide tails, and they simply suck. So you don't see many, and you see zero being used by people who actually surf big waves. The faster the board, the more narrow the tail.

 

The wide transoms one sees today has to do with maximizing stability under the box rules, and has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of pure speed. Nothing at all.

 

The reason a boat planes is because there is sufficient dynamic lift. High pressure under the hull pushes up, low pressure under the hull pulls it down.

 

The pressure is high forward, AND PRESSURE IS LOW AFT. Therefore, a fat stern sucks the boat DOWN, it does not lift it up.



#74 carcrash

carcrash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Location:Waikiki Yacht Club

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:16 AM

My Santa Cruz 27 had no rig or rigging when I picked it up new from the factory. I rigged the boat at the dock behind my parent's house, so I powered it all over for a few weeks until I had it fully rigged. 4hp outboard. Every time I put anything on the boat, the full-scale tank test would clearly indicate the boat went slower. Adding the tow rails slowed the boat by about a knot! Had a little rooster tail before, and no rooster tail afterwards. I always regretted not taking those things back off, but by then, I had all the holes in the boat, and it did look cool, the black toe rail contrasted nicely with the blue hull and tan deck.

 

But if I did it again, for absolutely certain, there would be no toe rail.

 

Get rid of everything you possibly can. 



#75 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:03 PM

My Santa Cruz 27 had no rig or rigging when I picked it up new from the factory. I rigged the boat at the dock behind my parent's house, so I powered it all over for a few weeks until I had it fully rigged. 4hp outboard. Every time I put anything on the boat, the full-scale tank test would clearly indicate the boat went slower. Adding the tow rails slowed the boat by about a knot! Had a little rooster tail before, and no rooster tail afterwards. I always regretted not taking those things back off, but by then, I had all the holes in the boat, and it did look cool, the black toe rail contrasted nicely with the blue hull and tan deck.

 

But if I did it again, for absolutely certain, there would be no toe rail.

 

Get rid of everything you possibly can. 

 

Great point!  Takes a lot more discipline to remove stuff rather than add.  I'm looking forward to extending that concept to structure also.  I was looking at the molded in drain channel in the aft section of the cockpit seats, it keeps water from pooling on the seat and making your butt wet.  By eliminating the seats, it eliminates the necessity for that piece of design and it's weight. Then there's all the structure making the aft deck and lazerette area...poof...it's gone!

 

Rob



#76 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:51 PM

My Santa Cruz 27 had no rig or rigging when I picked it up new from the factory. I rigged the boat at the dock behind my parent's house, so I powered it all over for a few weeks until I had it fully rigged. 4hp outboard. Every time I put anything on the boat, the full-scale tank test would clearly indicate the boat went slower. Adding the tow rails slowed the boat by about a knot! Had a little rooster tail before, and no rooster tail afterwards. I always regretted not taking those things back off, but by then, I had all the holes in the boat, and it did look cool, the black toe rail contrasted nicely with the blue hull and tan deck.
 
But if I did it again, for absolutely certain, there would be no toe rail.
 
Get rid of everything you possibly can. 

 
Great point!  Takes a lot more discipline to remove stuff rather than add.  I'm looking forward to extending that concept to structure also.  I was looking at the molded in drain channel in the aft section of the cockpit seats, it keeps water from pooling on the seat and making your butt wet.  By eliminating the seats, it eliminates the necessity for that piece of design and it's weight. Then there's all the structure making the aft deck and lazerette area...poof...it's gone!
 
Rob

Out goes the transom too? Reinforce the rudder post? Another Pic of the Olson 40 that cut out the transom...

Attached Files



#77 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:55 PM

Dart. Similar. Looks sweet, no?

Attached Files



#78 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 18 November 2013 - 06:35 PM

Yeah the Dart is sweet, more the direction I'd be going in a build from scratch project.

 

This project happened in a funny way, I called the guy offering to splice up a mast for him and put the rig together, figuring if he put a couple of thou in it he'd get at least double or triple that out.  Must have needed the money.

 

The O30 is a much misunderstood boat.  I've noticed that people are rarely neutral about them, they love them or hate them.  There are not a lot of other boats out there with the performance per dollar solution that it has, it's simple, tough, easy to care for.

 

Man, if there was just some more RM and better lift upwind, a more ergonomic cockpit, a better structural solution for the rig loads, maybe more chute to break out earlier, a better rudder......

 

Rob



#79 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,571 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:34 PM

Check the link to have a look at a successful cockpit mod job. 2' of cabin missing, and a flat floor.

 

http://sailinganarch...' Rowlette.jpeg



#80 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:48 PM

Yeah the Dart is sweet, more the direction I'd be going in a build from scratch project.
 
This project happened in a funny way, I called the guy offering to splice up a mast for him and put the rig together, figuring if he put a couple of thou in it he'd get at least double or triple that out.  Must have needed the money.
 
The O30 is a much misunderstood boat.  I've noticed that people are rarely neutral about them, they love them or hate them.  There are not a lot of other boats out there with the performance per dollar solution that it has, it's simple, tough, easy to care for.
 
Man, if there was just some more RM and better lift upwind, a more ergonomic cockpit, a better structural solution for the rig loads, maybe more chute to break out earlier, a better rudder......
 
Rob


I get it. I didn't have my own boat for along time and/so I had the benefit of sailing on a lot of different boats from high performance dinghies and multi hulls to new larger crewed boats. Of course I knew of the boat but I never raced it. When I took it out for the first time my first impression was "Wow! There's defiantly some Devine inspiration in this boat." After taking it through its paces for a bit though, the "wouldn't it be cooler if it did this and had that" thoughts start to play out. I think if I had owned and raced one for a long time, having forgone rides on newer boats, those questions may not have come up. If you've got the time, skills and cash to do it then the performance per dollar is definitely there.

#81 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:16 AM

Was this your boat? http://www.olson30.org/show-ad?id=145.

#82 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 19 November 2013 - 01:17 PM

Was this your boat? http://www.olson30.org/show-ad?id=145.

Yes, I'm so perverse, I preferentially took it w/o the keel.

 

The reasoning: With keel, easy to get sailing, once it's looking good, upgrade never happens.

                         W/o keel, need to build keel and structure for keel, may as well go all the way.

 

But wait, there's more.  I have another boat, a 1971 Mull 30, which I was going do a race boat project with, but it's a little on the heavy side, with J-30 like performance after being tricked out.  I really like this boat, and now this lets me take it in a cruising direction without getting caught in that awful racer-cruiser mess.  The plan is that the Mull goes south in the winter and stays there.  It gets hauled, I come back here for the growing season (I have a vineyard), and go back south and move on late Fall.  Meanwhile, the Franken Olson lives on its trailer, for racing around here and elsewhere.  I get to sail year round, my son gets more independence in the business with Dad out of the way.

 

That's the plan, now it's busting ass to make it happen.

 

Rob



#83 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 19 November 2013 - 06:36 PM

This gets more and more interesting. A wine vineyard? Isn't it too cold to grow grapes? This reminds me of the guy who lives on a co-op type farm in Norway. He's building a metal boat with the help of the "backpacking through Europe" set, mostly woman, who want to experience the world and life on the farm. The guy is a genius. Once he gets them on the farm, he gives them a quick lesson in welding, hands them a torch and puts them to work. He has an endless supply of free labor. They work his farm, build his boat and dig for food in dumpsters apparently? Here's the link http://forums.sailin...topic=91813&hl=

Back to the Olson. IMHO two of the extreme mods to the Olson, Vanishing Girl and Havoc failed for reasons I mentioned before - took a well-rounded boat and castrated it. It seems like it's a common occurance. Get on the boat, push the boat to its limit, trick out the boat with every OD legal thing there is but then feel instinctively that there's so much more potential just waiting to come out if only this and this were done. I plead guilty.

I'm not a Naval Architect or an engineer so I couldn't begin to qualify my argument BUT it seems to me that the O30 was designed wholisticly, like all great boats, and that the keel design is integral to the shape of the bottom. And this is the reason it has worked so well for so long in so many varied conditions. A deeper draft and bulb makes all the practical sense in the world. But I think something is lost in the process. I think bulb keels work well on other boats because they are designed to work with a different bottom. There's RM compensation built in like wider transoms, for example. I can't find any newer boats that use this keel set up with the same under body as an Olson. And looking at how successful all the ULDB's to come out of that era were and how similar in shape and keel design they were, I personally couldn't justify a design change to this degree. I mean, is this a boat you'll feel confident surfing (excuse me, planing) in 15 ft swells and 55 knt gusts? Maybe. What do I know.

I understand the rational behind all of it and I envy your skills and ingenuity. I'm curious as hell to see how it all turns out. Just be mindful of the fact that George is watching ...

Attached Files



#84 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:39 PM

Yes. it's wine grapes, and there are a number of cold hardy cultivars that produce pretty amazing wine.  Whites are pretty easy, reds more difficult, but IMO I've cracked the code for the "big red" from northern grapes.  (Ready for the incoming from CA and Oz wine snobs...)  We'll have our winery license next year.
 
The problem with the approach you've outlined-the evolutionary thing-is that you get invested in the process like Old School.  You've got a boat at the top of the heap in a dying class, it's a poor business decision to admit that the boat may be positively improved outside of the class rules.
 
As for the holistic design argument, as a piece of sculpture, sure, as a boat, there's a lot more involved. My other boat, the Mull 30, is a good example. It was originally about 10000 # with a long fin transitioning into a skeg hung rudder. It was all nicely faired, integral, and a nice boat. In about '82 a former owner contracted with Mull to redesign the underbody. It lost about 2200 #, the keel, skeg, and rudder were removed, and a current (by early '80's standards) keel and rudder were installed. It transformed the boat, which had a good stretch of winning on Long Island Sound. Mull wasn't nostalgic about the original design, and had no particular "right" to change the boat because he designed it-he just went ahead and did what could be done. Another designer would have likely done the same. This is how I feel about the O30. I kind of hope George is looking over my shoulder, because my guess is that he'd be good with the changes.

I blame PHRF for instilling the concept that modding a boat is evil. There are so many ok boats out there that could be great boats with some changes, but we live in a culture where its better to throw them away, and buy a new market sanctioned boat instead. This might be what's changed sailing from being a relatively broader based sport to the strange assemblege of true enthusiasts, posers, and wannabees it is now. Rant over.

Stay tuned, this is gonna be one cool boat.

Rob

#85 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:39 AM

Who would have thought it. But I guess it makes sense. There are incredible wines from Northern France, Alsace Lorraine, which gets pretty cold as well. I wonder if there are any Canadian vineyards?

It would be silly of me to go back and forth about hypotheticals because in the end I would really like to see you pull it off. You'd be the first.

However, by using wholistically rather than holistically, I wasn't referring to the aesthetics of the boat, although she is a fine looking beast, no? I really meant that the keel and hull shape are integral to each other. I can understand the Mull transformation and why it worked. But would it still work if you put a bulb/keel on it? Does it make sense to put foils on every boat? That's extreme. The only analogy I can think of, and it's a lousy one, is trying to improve on a classic sports car that is perfectly balanced and powered. You could add a lighter more powerful engine, modern suspension, tires and disc brakes but the result is it spins out on corners it used to mold to. You're idea is to change the keel and power up the rig but there is nothing being done to reshape the hull to compensate for it all. But then it gets into, why not just invest in or build a new boat? Just saying.

Ignore me. And Godspeed. Post pictures of everything. I won't pester you anymore.

#86 12 metre

12 metre

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Location:English Bay

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:30 AM

I wonder if there are any Canadian vineyards?
 

 

Many in the Okanagan.  Some on Vancouver Island as well in the Cowichan Valley.



#87 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:05 PM

I appreciate a good argument, sharpens everyone involoved.

"Wholistic" and "holistic" are the same word, except maybe in CA ;-) I know what you're saying, you just haven't gotten to the point where you're willing to take the leap, fuck with a classic.

This is going to be an entirely results oriented exercise, if it works, I'll be happy, If it doesn't I'll feel stupid. Other than some kind of lifting keel and and some rig changes that I have to do because I let the seller scrap the keel, nothing is going to happen that doesn't work out on paper.

You can bet I'll be dragging the Vanishing Girl and Havoc stories with me when I go to PHRF board though....

Rob

#88 DRDNA

DRDNA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Location:Ventucky

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:05 PM

Toerails are a PIA, and I keep mine on my boats only because they catch lots of clevis pins and fasteners I drop on the deck before they roll overboard. (so, it has nada to do with structure,etc. for me) I totally agree that glassing the hull/deck joint is better.  In the bay area and Santa Cruz area they're often glassing on foam and glass toerails forward after glassing the hull/deck joint together and gettin' rid of the aluminum.  It is nice to wedge your footies on something up there when heeled.  As far as thruster fins- Narrow tails on boards really are fine with a single fin, then we went to twin fins, but they slide on really big steep waves, so then the thruster was born.  Now there's quads.  I feel the more fins, the more I get hung up in the lip sometimes- but local Ventura boy Dane Reynolds can rip on a bathtub.  I'm keeping in mind you got a pretty destroyed boat, so it's perfect for experimentation.



#89 Foolish

Foolish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:27 PM

I was looking at the horizontal dagger board/wing on the Infinity design (http://www.yacht-zoo...ti-yacht-dealer) and I got to wondering if a wing shaped dagger board, either horizontal or the more traditional vertical, might be a better option for keeping the boat upright rather than water ballast.    My thought is that in short tacking situations, retractable dagger boards would be better.  For long distances, the water ballast would be better.  The reasons are:

 

With the dagger boards we would never be caught with the water on the leeward side of the boat.

With the dagger boards we don't need to worry about significant slowing during water scoop-up operations.

With the dagger boards we don't have to spend 15 seconds at each tack while the water transfer to the leeward side.  Moving from port to starboard dagger board would take only a few seconds, and could be done at the skippers convenience before, during or after the tack.

With the dagger boards we would never have an extra 1,000 lbs of weight on a boat that was created as an ultralight.

but:

With the water ballast, we don't have the extra drag of a dagger board in the water (and extra kelp catching).

The O30 was designed to have 1,000 lbs of weight on the rail.

I would think that the dagger board size, shape, placement and angle of attack would need to be incredibly precise, while water ballast requires less precision.

 

I think that both possibilities would require about the same amount of construction work. 

 

What are other peoples thoughts on this?



#90 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:33 PM

You mean DSS right? http://www.dynamicst...itysystems.com/

Attached Files



#91 Foolish

Foolish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:46 PM

Yes, the DSS. But I really can't see the difference between a horizontal or vertical wing/dagger board.   I'm just looking at it as a very interesting idea.  What boat is that in your DSS photo?  I'd like to speak with the skipper before my next book.



#92 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:47 PM

The main concern I would have is hitting debris. Tritium's dagger boards were destroyed in the last Transpac.

Attached Files



#93 Foolish

Foolish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:51 PM

The Transpac would be a good example of a long distance race, from my notes above.  But I do short distance racing every week and that even includes tacking duels where water ballast would be a real problem.    It would be interesting to do a real comparison of performance.    What boat is that in your DSS photo?  I'd like to talk to the skipper before my next book.



#94 Schnick

Schnick

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,990 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:08 PM

Foolish that is a new mini 6.5 that was build this year.  Google DSS and Welbourn I think you'll find it.  He also posts here as hughw so a PM might get through.



#95 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:10 PM

That was a Mini that didn't make it to qualify for this years Mini Transat. We were all curious to see how it would stack up especially against 747, the scow bow.

Hugh something or other has the patent on DSS. A number of new boats and older boats are opting for it so I guess there is justification for it. Wild Oats is adding it for the next Sydney - Hobart. Doug Lord is the real chear leader for it. The Mini above is from one of his threads. Hugh chimes in with some interesting comments and as usual Baltic and Doug get into it. On that note, please don't mention the "F" word (foils) as Doug might feel inclined to comment - which will then begin the slow death of this thread.

#96 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:18 PM

Last thought. 1 cubic ft of lead weighs 708lbs. Shape that into a cylinder. Now just figure out how to get it from side to side without killing anybody. An internal, encapsulated, glassed in under the deck rolling system controlled with blocks? Crazy?

#97 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:35 PM

Another shot of the Mini and an extreme example of a Canting keel.

Attached Files



#98 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:43 PM

I thought of the internal rolling lead cylinder in the early 2000's while pursuing the Open 30 idea. I think it still has merit, kind of a canting keel w/o the drag.

As for the "f" word, a couple of well placed, ahem, "wings" forward of the mast and above the waterline might end the O30 bad rap for nosediving.

One of the bitches about these "things" is they require speed through the water to work, until a certain crossover speed is reached, they're going to be slower.

O30's always suck in tacking duels, even with a crew, the v'd hull shape is too directional, and the genoas are slow to tack. Kind of like trying to ski the bumps on 210's (if you remember 210's).

#99 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:50 PM


Last thought. 1 cubic ft of lead weighs 708lbs. Shape that into a cylinder. Now just figure out how to get it from side to side without killing anybody. An internal, encapsulated, glassed in under the deck rolling system controlled with blocks? Crazy?


I'm getting carried away and quoting myself.... But what if the lead ballast ran on tracks (think roller coaster) that followed the contour of the hull form from one side where the chain plates are to the other. This way, when neutral, the center of mass would be low at the keel. Lines could come through the deck through a block to winches, one on port and one on starboard. 1000lbs shouldn't be too much more load than a good size Genoa. You could vary RM by how high up you pull the lead ballast. All the way up to the underside of the deck would be max of course. Keep this all encased so that no one gets crushed.

#100 armac

armac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:very upstate NY
  • Interests:catching that wave...

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:38 PM

Works even better if you think of it as a flattened, hollow section of a cylinder running on ball bearing tracks. There can even be a fore/aft component. It's very doable. Only downside is that it's heavy lifting and expensive to throw it overboard offwind ;-)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users