Jump to content


It Begins


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1 Editor

Editor

    Anarchist

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,649 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 12:39 PM

What do you think of the approach? See front page.

#2 Arthur Peltzer

Arthur Peltzer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Location:Rotterdam, NED

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:15 PM

When correctly designed the chines don't ad much resistance.

I wonder a bit abouth the cost saving though. I can see an advantage there if you build
it out of ply, but not so much when you build it out of composites.

#3 dyslexic dog

dyslexic dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,038 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:23 PM

Well I do know that on a canoe, when you have a hard chine vs a rounded bottom, there is a thing called "initial stability". Rounded hulls tend to roll around and not hold to one position.

This is just the feeling that I get paddling.

#4 Captain Graybeard

Captain Graybeard

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 498 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:49 PM

Hard chined dinghies I've sailed on are great on plane....fireball, lightning, force 5 (to some extent). Like riding on rails....solid and steady planing. But they are slow/sticky in the light stuff. Granted they are all old designs.

Lets see, in the medium size boats, you have the T-bird (Uuughh), the star boat which I can't comment on as I have never sailed one. There's the 110/210 that are basically pencils but seem to go very well.

Then I've seen large hard chined ferrocement and steel boats for cruising :o . Doesn't the Mac have hard chines? :unsure:

But I can't recall a recent really hot hard chined racer. So...I have to say, I am not optimistic about the hard chines for an all around boat. Perhaps a downwind boat in the breeze...

Hopefully for all involved they will come up with something that works and has some visual appeal. It is interesting when somebody is willing to take a chance with their $$$. Remember procyon (spelling?) and cotote for example?

#5 star-sailor

star-sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 164 posts
  • Location:Europe

Posted 10 February 2006 - 01:53 PM

But I can't recall a recent really hot hard chined racer.


ABN AMRO 1? :angry: ;) B)

Attached Files



#6 redboat

redboat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,275 posts
  • Location:Spofford, New Hampshire
  • Interests:none

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:06 PM

I like hull concept but why use runners & checks in rig? Seems to add an unnecessary level of complexity to an otherwise refreshingly simple design.

#7 dave-j

dave-j

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 358 posts
  • Location:Marblehead, MA

Posted 10 February 2006 - 02:29 PM

I'm with redboat on this. I can only guess that they will recycle the old rig from Sprint 4 to save money on both the new rig and new sails.

Still, no R/C boat that REALLY wants to emphasize the "C" would do well with runners and checks. Seems like a huge compromise. You should be able to get a used rig that doesn't need runners out of the Katrina writeoffs.

I like the idea of the rest of the boat, though.

#8 LeeJerry

LeeJerry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 905 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:02 PM



But I can't recall a recent really hot hard chined racer.


ABN AMRO 1? :angry: ;) B)

But remember that ABN1 was designed to a rule - specifically a beam limit. So to get the lower sectional shape aft (flatness?) they wanted, the chine is used along with near vertical sides. Think of the very beamy Open 60 designs, but chop the sides off at some limiting beam, yielding the chine. Without the rule limiting the beam, the aft sections could continue curving on up smoothly to the deck. Or maybe not, maybe that is the section shape they would want regardless of the rule. What do I know?

#9 knuckles

knuckles

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 962 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:11 PM

Good luck to you Antony et. al. I would also question the rig with runners. It will save you, what, $40K up front, but runners are a pain in the ass. Overlapping headsails, too? Sure seems like you guys are going out on a limb for the sake of being different.

#10 Carboninit

Carboninit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:18 PM

I like it .I like it a lot .Keep it flat in the forward section with minimum rocker profile .Yeah nice.Easy and quick to build as well.Are the panels being waterjet cut ? Composites or wood construction. Go on go the black route.

#11 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,219 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:27 PM

I like a) the fact they are trying something different, and b)willing to share it with us. No one ever designed anything revolutionary by merely refining others ideas. But I am in the runners, wtf? group - having raced primarily on boats with runners I can appreciate the added sail shaping ability but not the pia part.

This will be fun to follow - thanks for letting us in on it.

and it reminded me of a quote from my favorite guy, Mark Twain:

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.

#12 Trov„o

Trov„o

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,218 posts
  • Location:south of the equator, west of greenwich
  • Interests:sailing (pretty obvious, uhmm)preferentially on boats with more than one hull ;D

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:33 PM

i always had some passion affair with hard-chined hulls, i can't even explain why. but i definitively hate the running backstays, although, as mentioned before, sail shaping ability is far better. oh yeah, and thanks for sharing all this with us and giving us the oportunity to give you our free, "specialized" and, sometimes, unwanted advice.

#13 timber

timber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Location:Pagosa Springs, SW Colorado
  • Interests:970-507-0428. Recognized Owner of the i550 design and main hawker of all things i550, Owner of Watershed Sailboats with Susan, my wife. Challenging Woodworking (the regular stuff is boring).

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:40 PM

really interesting project. Are the panels going to be built on molds and joined to the others on the building jig? Will it save time and money or be WOFTAM? Thoughts?
T

#14 BGD

BGD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:44 PM

Just curious if you guys have estimated the increase in wetted surface area with the chines you've drawn (5%?, 10%?, I guess the more chines you have, the closer it is to a round hull...).

I agree with the earlier comment about the canoe, there will likely be a sweet spot at some heel angle (hopefully where you want it) where there's some extra stability.

#15 Pokey uh da LBC

Pokey uh da LBC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:47 PM

Great article! Best I've read in some time. 'Think we're all sick of the VOR soap suds by now.

Gotta agree with the rest on the runners. I'd be interested in his rationale for using them. And the R/C idea seems to have been abandoned too. Don't cruisers usually have at least one window?

Can't wait for the next installment!

#16 Antony

Antony

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location:Northridge, California

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:07 PM

We estimate that the chines will add about 1% to the wetted surface area.

We are planning on building 40 foot composite panels on a long table. Thus, we'll have six contiguous panels on the hull.

Thanks for the comments. I'm happy to answer any questions.

#17 _DB

_DB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Location:LA

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:09 PM

How does your proposed boat compare to a Sydney 41? I only ask because its more of a crusier than your ilc40, rates about the same, you've sailed on one, and it has to be cheaper (perhasp not) than building an almost new boat that will potentially be worth less than your ilc40 is now. Building something up from scratch is fun though.

#18 Antony

Antony

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location:Northridge, California

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:09 PM

We're staying with runners for a couple of reasons:

1) yes, they can be a true pain. However, in conditions similar to those we have in SoCal, they can be quite helpful.

2) overlapping genoas, we sail in a lot of 6-8.

Frankly, I like the versatility that runners and overlapping jibs give.

#19 Mike Hunt

Mike Hunt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Location:Hamilton, Canada

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:12 PM

I'm happy to answer any questions.



1. How much does it cost?
2. How stupid are you?

;)

#20 Antony

Antony

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location:Northridge, California

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:12 PM

How does your proposed boat compare to a Sydney 41? I only ask because its more of a crusier than your ilc40, rates about the same, you've sailed on one, and it has to be cheaper (perhasp not) than building an almost new boat that will potentially be worth less than your ilc40 is now. Building something up from scratch is fun though.



Interesting question. We looked at the Sydney 41. However, I recall that they are not quick in long runs offshore, downwind. They are relatively heavy at 14k+. Yes, they are a great boat, but they are a great 1992 boat. Frankly, I didn't want another 10 year old boat that was not really good for Transpac. I felt the Ross 40 and Santa Cruz 40 were more of a direction in which I wanted to head...reasonably light and comfortable.

#21 SailDry

SailDry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,048 posts
  • Location:Detroit

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:17 PM

I'm with redboat on this. I can only guess that they will recycle the old rig from Sprint 4 to save money on both the new rig and new sails.

Still, no R/C boat that REALLY wants to emphasize the "C" would do well with runners and checks. Seems like a huge compromise. You should be able to get a used rig that doesn't need runners out of the Katrina writeoffs.

I like the idea of the rest of the boat, though.


That rig was in Sprint 3 and when they built the ILC40 the boat was designed around the rig. Apparently the rig is superb and the boats under it have been marginal.

#22 TXRS

TXRS

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:24 PM

Thank you for including us in this process. Permanent back stay looks extended from the transom. Maybe runners are for tweaking only and can be moved to the shrouds for crusing. Smaller main for cruising?

#23 Arthur Peltzer

Arthur Peltzer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Location:Rotterdam, NED

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:28 PM

Here is a link to a boat beeing build with the same principle in Holland.

http://www.waarschip...recomposiet.htm

#24 -TG

-TG

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 10 February 2006 - 04:47 PM

Great project... Question... are you getting a new rig or using the one from your current 40? Wasn't sure how far you were going w/ the gutting of your 40, or if it would even translate well to Antirm's plans. Regardless, I think runners & checks are great if you have guys that know what to do with them, which I'm sure you do. I'll be very interested to see this boat up close, and to see the interior design shots when you post them. I hope it goes well. Just please affirm that the hull won't be purple!

#25 railrider

railrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:06 PM

Congrats,
I like it....as far as hard chines go...Force 5's were fun, so are Lightnings (real stable on a plan), the Cheetah 30 goes like hell and is PHRF. (as do all of Bob Ames designs). But my favorite boat of all time is the Tasar for simplisity/speed through water and is also hard chined. So you see, its good to be hard. All you fat/leadboaters can't think outside the box.
Good luck to you sir, and to hell with the naysayers!

#26 Carboninit

Carboninit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:07 PM

Here is a link to a boat beeing build with the same principle in Holland.

http://www.waarschip...recomposiet.htm



Blimey thats the old Waarschip from 20 years ago .That is one sweet little boat . Nice up wind not to hot down wind hence minimum rocker required and flat front section . David Thomas has done a lot of chine boats they worked . I was lucky to sail Needlework great little boat .Chines do work.Nice to see you updating with new design and materials.

#27 Antony

Antony

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location:Northridge, California

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:26 PM

Great project... Question... are you getting a new rig or using the one from your current 40? Wasn't sure how far you were going w/ the gutting of your 40, or if it would even translate well to Antirm's plans. Regardless, I think runners & checks are great if you have guys that know what to do with them, which I'm sure you do. I'll be very interested to see this boat up close, and to see the interior design shots when you post them. I hope it goes well. Just please affirm that the hull won't be purple!



We are using the current rig, although we have a separate plan for a new rig, should we desire.

The interior will include a forward stateroom, full head with hot shower, galley, and quarterberths aft.

We're not sure on the color. Although I'd love to have a British Racing Green metallic hull (a la Esmo).

#28 -TG

-TG

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:33 PM

Nice... that gives you plenty of options down the road... albeit at first it may seem like a new girlfriend wearing your old gal's clothes (hey, that's not such a bad thing)...

Looking at Moneypenny (Swan 60?) down in KW was very cool... sort of a metallic midnight green... looked black until you got up close to it or the light hit it a certain way. Very impressive.

#29 dave-j

dave-j

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 358 posts
  • Location:Marblehead, MA

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:35 PM

Without asking "what will it cost", have you figured out an estimated percentage savings, on the hull construction alone, by going to the flat panels? With only a 1% increase in wetted surface, any significant savings, along with the simplified building technique, could be interesting.

I the Marblehead area we have an older hard chined boat named "Five-Ply" built out of..well I guess it's obvious, but i've always admired its simplicity. Your design looks very nice.

Thanks for sharing the thought process with all of us!

#30 Antony

Antony

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location:Northridge, California

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:38 PM

Without asking "what will it cost", have you figured out an estimated percentage savings, on the hull construction alone, by going to the flat panels? With only a 1% increase in wetted surface, any significant savings, along with the simplified building technique, could be interesting.

I the Marblehead area we have an older hard chined boat named "Five-Ply" built out of..well I guess it's obvious, but i've always admired its simplicity. Your design looks very nice.

Thanks for sharing the thought process with all of us!


No we haven't yet got a hard number on the cost differential. However, we'll probably have a good idea in the next couple of weeks.

Thanks,
ab

#31 VMG Custom Sails

VMG Custom Sails

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Location:So. Cal
  • Interests:sailing "duh"

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:48 PM

congrats antony! looks like a cool project. i dont think jim could design a slow boat if he tried.

#32 Carboninit

Carboninit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:01 PM

Pearlessence finish. pricey but nice.The silver pearlessence changes to black, Wicked

#33 Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,670 posts
  • Location:Saquo-Pilia Hensha

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:04 PM

Very interesting. I have always had a soft spot for hard chine boats. I am with all the other runnner naysayers though. If there was one thing I could change on the Ross 40, it would be a different rig with no-runners and swept back spreaders.

#34 _DB

_DB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Location:LA

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:17 PM

Interesting question. We looked at the Sydney 41. However, I recall that they are not quick in long runs offshore, downwind. They are relatively heavy at 14k+. Yes, they are a great boat, but they are a great 1992 boat. Frankly, I didn't want another 10 year old boat that was not really good for Transpac. I felt the Ross 40 and Santa Cruz 40 were more of a direction in which I wanted to head...reasonably light and comfortable.



So why not just put a new deck, keel and interior on your ilC 40? A strip built deck and interior would be easy.

#35 Carboninit

Carboninit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:18 PM

Pluss fluffy carpet in the cockpit.

#36 Nonsense

Nonsense

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Location:Seattle (Vashon)

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:30 PM

Bieker did the same thing with Rocket Science the Riptide 55 he designed many years ago - carbon pre-fab panels tabbed together was to keep the costs low. Of course the costs got outta hand during the build....

The boat had a short rig and never really lived up to expectations... Sailed on it a few times and it was comfortable and relatively fast, but would have liked to see what she could do with the taller rig...

#37 poopie pants

poopie pants

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,033 posts
  • Location:the Bu

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:48 PM

you said you looked at the schock 40

will this boat have a cant keel?

cant wait to see the local/regional PHRFer board mess another one up when you get done

#38 samsonite

samsonite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 07:10 PM

I don't know whether this has been discussed or not... Who's the builder?

#39 Hobie Dog

Hobie Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,791 posts
  • Location:Chesapeake Bay

Posted 10 February 2006 - 07:23 PM

Antony,
Awesome project, have fun and keep us posted.

My kayak is a hard chine boat whereas my wifeís has a rounded hull and yep definitely more initial stability with the hard chine boat. We have an Antrim 27 and not only is the boat just a blast to sail there are a lot of nice design elements. You are going to end up with one sweet ride and as stated Jim Antrim designs will be fast that is for sure.

#40 Pokey uh da LBC

Pokey uh da LBC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 10:18 PM

Amazed it took 41 posts to reach Ragtime!

#41 SoCalSlacker

SoCalSlacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts
  • Location:Deep in parallel hell
  • Interests:good old fashion competion

Posted 11 February 2006 - 01:40 AM


Interesting question. We looked at the Sydney 41. However, I recall that they are not quick in long runs offshore, downwind. They are relatively heavy at 14k+. Yes, they are a great boat, but they are a great 1992 boat. Frankly, I didn't want another 10 year old boat that was not really good for Transpac. I felt the Ross 40 and Santa Cruz 40 were more of a direction in which I wanted to head...reasonably light and comfortable.



So why not just put a new deck, keel and interior on your ilC 40? A strip built deck and interior would be easy.


I think the best discription of the old boat was, "A 7 knot keel on a 6 knot hull."

#42 Wash

Wash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,254 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, CA

Posted 11 February 2006 - 02:50 AM

Thanks for sharing the project------ What's it rate? :)

Seriously------ I agree with you on the custom projects---- always fun and interesting---- hopefully will spark some interest in SoCal again in the 38 - 42 foot range.

#43 No Rumours

No Rumours

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 05:17 AM

Great project, Anthony. I think you guys may be well ahead of the curve; first, stripping the "old" boat for the new. Your old boat was no slouch, rig-wise (I've got no problem with the runners and checks, especially as they're the ones you've been sailing with. It ain't about easy; it's about fast. Imagine buying a new boat with a rig you already KNOW, hands down)

I also think you (and Jim) may prove trend-setters with the chined, table-built hull. Not because it's good, but because it allows you to buy/build a superior boat, overall. I'll bet if you take the cost savings as a proportion of hull length/weight, (i.e.; for a given dollar cost, you can get either a 40' chined hull or a 3X' round hull; the former is going to be faster, roomier and flasher than the 3X' hull), I bet you'll find the chined hull *much* faster than the round one.

Frankly, I can't imagine a better example of cost/efficiency/speed potential. Hats off to Jim Antrim for suggesting it, and to you and your family for taking the plunge. I see a real winner here, both on and off the race course. Best of luck!

NR

#44 West to East to West

West to East to West

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD; San Francisco, CA

Posted 11 February 2006 - 01:20 PM

Yes.

#45 West to East to West

West to East to West

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD; San Francisco, CA

Posted 11 February 2006 - 01:23 PM

Very interesting project. Always like to see people thinking outside of the box, even when the thought is more, well, box-like. I think that you'll have a great time with the project, but am curious- have you looked at a full-on race boat and adding lightweight interior? Might save you a lot of cash and increase re-sale. Also, lots of new boats coming out right around now around the world. But still- if you're in it for a good time in the build process I think that you'll get that, and a boat that you will anjoy and be personally proud of. Thanks for keeping us posted!

#46 JayP

JayP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 01:50 PM

Congrats,
I like it....as far as hard chines go...Force 5's were fun, so are Lightnings (real stable on a plan), the Cheetah 30 goes like hell and is PHRF. (as do all of Bob Ames designs). But my favorite boat of all time is the Tasar for simplisity/speed through water and is also hard chined. So you see, its good to be hard. All you fat/leadboaters can't think outside the box.
Good luck to you sir, and to hell with the naysayers!



The Cheetah 30 goes like hell? It goes like a Melges 24, according to its rating.
This mania for chines among so many of you is hard to understand. It's interesting to think out of the box, but I wouldn't do this with my money unless the savings were substantial, like 40 percent of project cost. at the end of the day, its likely to not save a substantial amount compared to all the other things you've got to buy, sails, etc. that sometimes don't get rolled in. And is it really a savings if you make the whole project, say, 8 percent cheaper but lose half your resale? And is it a good idea to build a race boat with an obvious impediment to speed?
The notion someone had of adding more chines to making it more like a rounded boat will add to labor, not sure that's the solution either.
One thing is certain, this thing will be slow in light air. You need to reconcile yourself to that and to less resale than you saw even on your ILC40.
PHRF may deal with the lack of light air performance eventually, but your initial rating will almost certainly be the same as a rounded hull boat of the same specs.
On the other hand, I guess, if you can do a boat, why not do it your way?
You get double points on that score, pretty bold move. Hope it works out well for you.

#47 j_dirge

j_dirge

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,196 posts
  • Location:outer sunset
  • Interests:long walks on the beach<br />and oil changes

Posted 11 February 2006 - 04:21 PM

I like hull concept but why use runners & checks in rig? Seems to add an unnecessary level of complexity to an otherwise refreshingly simple design.

I'd do the same as Antony.

More range.

#48 Buckie Lugger

Buckie Lugger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location:Delft

Posted 11 February 2006 - 06:05 PM

Julien Marin has a similar design for a Class 40 racer, but using wood composite panels, rather than anything more exotic. He lists the benefits of a chined hull as:
  • Wetted surface area similar to round-bilged hull.
  • Coursekeeping upped from 15 to 20%.
  • Planing occurs 1 knot earlier Ė 11 knts instead of 12.
  • Hull rigidity to weight ratio optimised.
More details can be seen at:

http://www.julienmar...lire.asp?num=14

Other ocean racers with hard chines are the Lombard 60s Sill et Veolia and Bonduelle, and the Artech Open 60.

#49 fdsailor

fdsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:The bonnie Clyde

Posted 11 February 2006 - 06:40 PM

There have been plenty of chine hulled yachts over here in Europe over the years. In Britain we had the David Thomas 'Quarto' racing and 'Quartet' (cruiser racer on same hull), Toledo 30 (which cleaned house on the East Coast a few years ago), Intro 22 (again very successful racing boat) and E-Boat (Everitt design sim. to Intro). These were all 1970s and 80s, but are still successful in club racing.

The french have done a lot more recently; Elie Caninvenc built a chine open 60 a couple of years ago which is reportedly fast and very light, although the budget has hindered the results more than anything. There are also the Bepox shipyard boats which are Open class derivatives and look great.

For the RC specialists out there, Graham Bantock has designed a chine hull 1 metre which looks great and reportedly sails very well, whilst there are numerous examples of designs around the world of Van de Stadt, Roberto Barros and Marc Lombard designed fast cruising boats with chine hulls (I should point out that by chine hulls I mean panelled construction like Antony's boat, not like the 'round-bilge-with-chine' Volvo boats).

As the panels are built on a flat surface, they need minimal filling when fitted, as they are very fair, so you save weight. Also, vacuum bagging is easier, and as the panels are stressed slightly when they are bent around the hull, you gain a bit in stiffness too.

Like most other things, the multihull boys got there first with composite panel construction - Derek Kelsall was doing it in the 60's and is still doing it today, along with Richard Woods and others.

I reckon a well designed chined hull should do just fine. It may be a tad slower in light winds, but then any sensible designer will take account of that (a VPP helps here) so the result should be negligible. The upper chine should help clear water from the hull when travelling fast (Antony's boat looks light enough for this to be a useful feature) and some of the E boat owners I have spoken to reckon that as the boat heels the chine acts almost like a rail that the boat sails on, which could help explain the Quarto's upwind dominance (she wasn't so good downhill I think but then that was probably down to the rocker distribution which also helped make her so fast upwind - the usual design rules seem to apply!).

John Corby has done a couple of 'conversions' of old raceboats - see www.johncorbyboats.com and look for Incisor which started life as a 2 tonner and is now an ultralight, racing boat, and he wrote about the process in Seahorse a few years ago. I think Syd Fisher also recycled his old IOR 50's into his current IMS 50s, also featured in the same article, as did Heaven Can Wait (IOR to IRM 50). These boats all used the old decks, rigs and interiors to a greater or lesser degree, changing the hulls with a few other bits and bobs.

I reckon Antony's idea is great, and can't wait to see what happens next.....

#50 Buckie Lugger

Buckie Lugger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location:Delft

Posted 11 February 2006 - 08:44 PM

Mark Mills recycled an IOR boat into an IRM boat:

http://www.mills-design.com/irman.htm

#51 Marko

Marko

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK

Posted 11 February 2006 - 09:19 PM

I just can't see why you would go with something as un-IRC friendly as runners and checks on a boat which will be used for handicap racing.

One of the conversion projects in the UK was Cracking Rosie, a 44 foot IOR boat (fractional) which ended up as 41 foot IRC matheaed racer.

Managed ot keep the kites and jibs from the original boat, and the boom and pole as well i think, but replaced the metal rig with carbon one.

Modern race boats have carbon rigs, which don't really need runners and checks, so why have them ?

#52 Choppergun

Choppergun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 11 February 2006 - 10:56 PM

Good on you Anthony for going ahead with this great project and sharing it with us, but I think what you'll find at the end of the day is going with a hard chined hull will cost significantly more in labour (thats how we spell it in Canada) than a round hull.
- Either way, you have to set up hull stations on a jig
- Either way, you still have the same square feet of Core (Corecell, PVC......), and glass/epoxy
- Either way, you still have to sand and fair
- Either way, material cost will be the same
Hard chined will take longer because:
-You now will cut tapered sections of core and then cut and fit on your stations, as opposed to installing Corecell's bead and cove strip planking system directly on your frames like hard wood flooring.
- You now have to scarf long sheets of core together on a 40' table and hope they fit
- If you desire a well finished hull, british racing green metallic, you now have about 240' of hard chine edge to shape sand then glass and fair (this may add an extra eight weeks of work) No matter how good the shop is, the boys on the floor will curse you to your grave for the extra work needed to make your lines look right.
- With the hard chine, you will only be able to fair with a longboard in a very thin band, as opposed to a broad area (not so bad on a round hull, logged a few hundred hours myself)

Not intended to discourage, just to give you some more insight.

#53 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,007 posts
  • Location:Richmond, CA

Posted 12 February 2006 - 12:16 AM

Maybe someone will remember or maybe have a pic. Wasn't Summertime Dream (1/4 tonner) a chined Schumacher design?

#54 Antony

Antony

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location:Northridge, California

Posted 12 February 2006 - 02:31 AM

I just can't see why you would go with something as un-IRC friendly as runners and checks on a boat which will be used for handicap racing.

One of the conversion projects in the UK was Cracking Rosie, a 44 foot IOR boat (fractional) which ended up as 41 foot IRC matheaed racer.

Managed ot keep the kites and jibs from the original boat, and the boom and pole as well i think, but replaced the metal rig with carbon one.

Modern race boats have carbon rigs, which don't really need runners and checks, so why have them ?



Marko, there is no IRC racing in Southern California. Thus, if I am going to spend a lot of time worrying about IRC, I should probably throw IOR into the mix.

#55 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • Location:Orkland

Posted 12 February 2006 - 05:32 AM

Amazed it took 41 posts to reach Ragtime!

I count 33 :P

But in this thread, post 11?

Go on go the black route.

Or was that just a plea for carbon?

#56 chriscarrera

chriscarrera

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:Bellingham WA

Posted 12 February 2006 - 06:45 AM

A boat I have noticed that goes quite well is the Jesperson 30 "myrhh" up here in the northwest. Always did like the chines.

Oh, it also won its class in the van isle 360 last year.

#57 Serge A. Storms

Serge A. Storms

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 659 posts
  • Location:RI, USA

Posted 12 February 2006 - 02:17 PM

Seems to be a cool construction technique- I'm guessing no molds or plugs and associated cost- just a jig to hold the frames. Lay the panels up on a flat table and stick them on.

There was somebody building boats awhile ago using a similar technique- flat panels but with wedges taken out and bent into curves- he was doing multihulls and I think I recall him saying a Whitbread boat this way.

Anyway this was a long while back, and the boats looked pretty good. Nice curves, no chines.

Serge

#58 SoCalSlacker

SoCalSlacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts
  • Location:Deep in parallel hell
  • Interests:good old fashion competion

Posted 13 February 2006 - 03:24 PM

Modern race boats have carbon rigs, which don't really need runners and checks, so why have them ?


VO70s, IACC, most new maxis.....

#59 Marko

Marko

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK

Posted 13 February 2006 - 03:52 PM

I stand by my comment.

TP52s, Farr 52s, Farr 40s, Mumm 30s, DK46, DK40, Ker 11.3, IMX40, IMX45, X-35, X-37 etc.

Mainsteam performance race boats do not have runners or checks.

#60 Antony

Antony

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location:Northridge, California

Posted 13 February 2006 - 04:04 PM

Marko,

Here's my problem: your use of the word 'mainstream'. In the same way that IRC doesn't apply in the discussion of this boat; nor should the word 'mainstream.'

I once worked at a 'mainstream' camp, as a counselor. That was a camp in which kids with mental disabilities were placed alongside normal kids. Is this the same context, only applied to race boats, that you seek to use in this description? Secondly, this is not a 'race' boat in the same context as a Farr 52, Farr 40, Mumm 30, etc. We'll have all the comforts of home...hot water, showers, refrigeration....

This boat is, at most, a racer/cruiser.

#61 hdglightning

hdglightning

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts

Posted 13 February 2006 - 04:10 PM

Yes and no. Each of these boats ere desined for either a rule (IMS, etc) or for a specific purpose. For example the Farr 40 was designed initially to not use runners, that was part of the design specs. Same with the Mumm30's ,etc.

Runners/checks, etc all add signifigantly to the performance of a boat IF in the hands of skilled persons. The adustment of the main and headstay is WAY more than with a simple backstay boat.

But the downfall is that it requires quite a bit of skill to do right. And when a part breaks, the rig falls down. Add to it that many rules penalize the boat for having this adjustability (or reward you for not having it)...designers tend to lean towards the simpler for a better rating.

IT is not as simple as equating "mainstream" performance race boats with not having runners or checks. You have to look at everything involved in the decision.

Even the technology (carbon, etc) of the masts has allowed more performance from a simple rig setup.

Generally owners right now are leaning more towards less crew, less skill needed, and less complexity. While you could go .05kt faster if you have perfect adjustment of your rig with runners, why worry? The added costs, added crew numbers, added skill level, etc...all are pushing owners and designers away from more complex setups.

I stand by my comment.

TP52s, Farr 52s, Farr 40s, Mumm 30s, DK46, DK40, Ker 11.3, IMX40, IMX45, X-35, X-37 etc.

Mainsteam performance race boats do not have runners or checks.



#62 Mid

Mid

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,409 posts
  • Location:long way from the poles
  • Interests:T 'n A ,

    S D 'n R&R

Posted 13 February 2006 - 04:11 PM

Thanxs for letting us share the fun ... with out the bills !!!!
re : runners n checks , will you be mostly inshore ( ditch 'em ) or off shore ( keep em and add a removable baby stay )

That 'orta to raise a comment or two !!!!!

#63 Marko

Marko

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK

Posted 13 February 2006 - 05:01 PM

In English-English mainsteam mains tending towards the norm. Nothing else was meant by it.

I hope you have tons of fun, success and joy with this project, for many years to come.

I'm a fan of IRC, thats all, and I was a little distressed to see the sort of project that I thought fitted the spirit of IRC (race boat with good accomodation) being designed away from the rule. But if you don't see yourself racing under the rule (and thats a whole other discussion) then its a moot point.

#64 Antony

Antony

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location:Northridge, California

Posted 13 February 2006 - 05:08 PM

In English-English mainsteam mains tending towards the norm. Nothing else was meant by it.

I hope you have tons of fun, success and joy with this project, for many years to come.

I'm a fan of IRC, thats all, and I was a little distressed to see the sort of project that I thought fitted the spirit of IRC (race boat with good accomodation) being designed away from the rule. But if you don't see yourself racing under the rule (and thats a whole other discussion) then its a moot point.



Marko,

As I speak both English and American, I was only playing with the word. Nothing was meant by it.

And yes, we do have a plan to move the boat towards IRC should a class appear. However, I am not going to hold my breath on that one.

cheers,
ab

#65 Trov„o

Trov„o

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,218 posts
  • Location:south of the equator, west of greenwich
  • Interests:sailing (pretty obvious, uhmm)preferentially on boats with more than one hull ;D

Posted 13 February 2006 - 05:17 PM

Yes and no. Each of these boats ere desined for either a rule (IMS, etc) or for a specific purpose. For example the Farr 40 was designed initially to not use runners, that was part of the design specs. Same with the Mumm30's ,etc.

Runners/checks, etc all add signifigantly to the performance of a boat IF in the hands of skilled persons. The adustment of the main and headstay is WAY more than with a simple backstay boat.

But the downfall is that it requires quite a bit of skill to do right. And when a part breaks, the rig falls down. Add to it that many rules penalize the boat for having this adjustability (or reward you for not having it)...designers tend to lean towards the simpler for a better rating.

IT is not as simple as equating "mainstream" performance race boats with not having runners or checks. You have to look at everything involved in the decision.

Even the technology (carbon, etc) of the masts has allowed more performance from a simple rig setup.

Generally owners right now are leaning more towards less crew, less skill needed, and less complexity. While you could go .05kt faster if you have perfect adjustment of your rig with runners, why worry? The added costs, added crew numbers, added skill level, etc...all are pushing owners and designers away from more complex setups.


I stand by my comment.

TP52s, Farr 52s, Farr 40s, Mumm 30s, DK46, DK40, Ker 11.3, IMX40, IMX45, X-35, X-37 etc.

Mainsteam performance race boats do not have runners or checks.


if you read the whole thread you'll see that the rig is coming from the previous boat as it came from the one before that. the guy is building his second boat around the rig (third one to use the same rig), so he is very, i mean very used to it.

#66 sailcalifornia

sailcalifornia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 14 February 2006 - 12:53 AM

what about the riptide 35 designed for the McKee's which used a hard chine design so i could be built using compostie panels from boeing

#67 40grit

40grit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 17 February 2006 - 03:26 AM

I am curious how the pannels have been designed to go together, will the build table layup full thickness and tab each together.
Or will the pannels be skined then assembled on the jig and re laminated inside and out.

Currently we are talking to Tim Kerney about building a very similar boat for Trans Pac,

The project will use the male plug process, and we will build a female deck mold using coated particle board.

That said, the savings using the build table will save the male plug building, and the build table will save sanding effort,

#68 Wash

Wash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,254 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, CA

Posted 18 February 2006 - 03:29 AM

Excited to see some SoCal interest again in building boats in the 40' range for offshore and point to point stuff-----

40 Grit -- Bit by the TransPac bug? Fun stuff for sure!

#69 tuf-luf

tuf-luf

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,571 posts
  • Location:xyz

Posted 04 March 2006 - 03:28 AM

Mark Mills recycled an IOR boat into an IRM boat:

http://www.mills-design.com/irman.htm


And it ended up racing very successfully as Madrake under IRC rulw in HKG and SE Asia. Lovely racing yacht.

#70 Ken S

Ken S

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 11:21 PM

I noticed its not a masthead rig, therfore runners and checks are essential in sailtrim with overlapping headsails, in a masthead rig this can be tuned using backstay, but with fractional tip does nothing to forestay tension or genoa slot, GO THE RUNNERS.The chines should give a good solid stance when hard beam reaching, we found you will plane off the chine when the heel and wind is right up there. :) Great concept go with it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users