VOR 2017-18

[nkb]

"Do you think that the Volvo Ocean Race has a monohull identity? In a recent fan poll, the popular vote was overwhelmingly for a monohull

I dont think so. I think actually that it doesnt make that much difference one hull, two hulls or three hulls, it doesnt change the identity of the race. The object of the race is that a group of people race around the planet, fighting hard all the way.

There are ups and downs there are extreme periods and slow periods with no wind, and thats the same in either a monohull or multihull. Whether the boat is a monohull or multi doesnt change the identity of the Volvo Ocean Race for me, I think its all about the people that race it."

You could intepret that to be a vote for the camp that suggest the absolute speed of the boat isn't actually that important...

This quote struck me as odd. I think the number of hulls definitely defines the race event in every way as multis redefined the AC in every way. I'm a little surprised to read that he would dismiss an overwhelming majority in favor for monohulls. A key marketing misstep? We want monohulls! No you don't. You want speed over everything else.

Yet even there, he hedged...

We may have to consider downgrading the performance factor slightly in order to retain a certain levelof security,

This is not a one and done RTW. They stop, they race in confined areas so the idea of going multi, because "We have the technology" would also diminish the in-port experience. ACs, 32s, and other multi foilers may be nimble, but I cannot see making a 60-70 ft tri that may be great for long sprints in the SO, be enjoyable to watch as they try to avoid each other and minimize tacks. Foiling 65s would make more sense since the foils could be retracted for in-port racing, yet extend once the boats past the rounding mark for the next leg (if the boats are not close).

At the moment I am hoping they are truly able to field 8 boats for that will make it a great contest all around.

In 2011 they launched the MOD70 and in October of that year they did their first inshore event called the Krys Match, just outside of La Trinite Sur Mer. It was spectacular. In some races the boats were crossing the start line at 25 knots and with each race they had 3 sponsor guests onboard!


(sorry commentary is in French)

3 days of racing and at least three races per day.

As for berthing, its not that big of a deal. The 70ft MOD were 55ft wide. These boats are very light and easy to dock side-to on a floating dock. Or, in La Trinite (a very small town in Brittany) they have a T dock solution with tri's stern-to on each side of the T.

 

[DickDastardly]

"Do you think that the Volvo Ocean Race has a monohull identity? In a recent fan poll, the popular vote was overwhelmingly for a monohull

I dont think so. I think actually that it doesnt make that much difference one hull, two hulls or three hulls, it doesnt change the identity of the race. The object of the race is that a group of people race around the planet, fighting hard all the way.

There are ups and downs there are extreme periods and slow periods with no wind, and thats the same in either a monohull or multihull. Whether the boat is a monohull or multi doesnt change the identity of the Volvo Ocean Race for me, I think its all about the people that race it."

You could intepret that to be a vote for the camp that suggest the absolute speed of the boat isn't actually that important...

This quote struck me as odd. I think the number of hulls definitely defines the race event in every way as multis redefined the AC in every way. I'm a little surprised to read that he would dismiss an overwhelming majority in favor for monohulls. A key marketing misstep? We want monohulls! No you don't. You want speed over everything else.

Yet even there, he hedged...

We may have to consider downgrading the performance factor slightly in order to retain a certain level

of security,

This is not a one and done RTW. They stop, they race in confined areas so the idea of going multi, because "We have the technology" would also diminish the in-port experience. ACs, 32s, and other multi foilers may be nimble, but I cannot see making a 60-70 ft tri that may be great for long sprints in the SO, be enjoyable to watch as they try to avoid each other and minimize tacks. Foiling 65s would make more sense since the foils could be retracted for in-port racing, yet extend once the boats past the rounding mark for the next leg (if the boats are not close).
At the moment I am hoping they are truly able to field 8 boats for that will make it a great contest all around.

In 2011 they launched the MOD70 and in October of that year they did their first inshore event called the Krys Match, just outside of La Trinite Sur Mer. It was spectacular. In some races the boats were crossing the start line at 25 knots and with each race they had 3 sponsor guests onboard!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08EZFvdxMY4

(sorry commentary is in French)

3 days of racing and at least three races per day.

As for berthing, its not that big of a deal. The 70ft MOD were 55ft wide. These boats are very light and easy to dock side-to on a floating dock. Or, in La Trinite (a very small town in Brittany) they have a T dock solution with tri's stern-to on each side of the T.

La Trinité is à sailing town and makes quite a living from racers so is set up to berth plenty of multihull/ part of the ORMA fleet was based there once I think.

Setting up a race village with a temporary boatyard and dock for 8 15 metre wide multis in somewhere like Sydney would be a major issue if public acceess and proximity to transport, food etc were also a priority - and I'm sure those aspects would be on commercial grounds. Somewhat easier for 6 metre wide monos.

I'd reckon this is a factor in many potential stopover locations - plenty have berthing and dockyard space but it's not typically located in areas that are public-friendly.

 

[Rantifarian]

The comparatively shallow draft of the multi might open up a few more options. Putting them all on the hard to achieve any sort of work would be a tough ask in a lot of places

 

[jack_sparrow]

With the "we-build-you rent" business model durability and reliability has to be key consideration. With this and structural and watertight integrity in mind when dodging shit around the race track, it is difficult imagining any other option than something with foils that retract well north of the waterline....and can be brought within the beam of the boat for stopovers.......ala a canting Figaro 3 on steroids.

 

[Presuming Ed]

The comparatively shallow draft of the multi might open up a few more options. Putting them all on the hard to achieve any sort of work would be a tough ask in a lot of places

But without canting keels, the need to pull the boat must be much reduced? Do much more of the routine maintenance afloat.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

Something like the FIgaro 3 is probably the where the smart money would be.

It occurs to me that there may be options to make the boat more technical. Figaro and IMOCA being short handed are not as technical boats to sail as they might be. Adding a range of tweakable bits - like adjusting foil components might mean that there is more scope for differentiating the quality of crewmanship between boats. Foils plus centreboards would be my call as well. No reason to limit the number of foils, and it also provides a bit more resilience to breakages.

A full on foiling multi on the other hand is plenty technical.

Second order design aspects deliberately affecting sailability were something that Farr tried to put into the VO65. I think they did a brave job, but in the end it didn't work out as well as they might have hoped. But the idea was good.

 

[Sailbydate]

Something like the FIgaro 3 is probably the where the smart money would be.

It occurs to me that there may be options to make the boat more technical. Figaro and IMOCA being short handed are not as technical boats to sail as they might be. Adding a range of tweakable bits - like adjusting foil components might mean that there is more scope for differentiating the quality of crewmanship between boats. Foils plus centreboards would be my call as well. No reason to limit the number of foils, and it also provides a bit more resilience to breakages.

A full on foiling multi on the other hand is plenty technical.

Second order design aspects deliberately affecting sailability were something that Farr tried to put into the VO65. I think they did a brave job, but in the end it didn't work out as well as they might have hoped. But the idea was good.

What was not good was OD, period.

 

[nkb]

"Do you think that the Volvo Ocean Race has a monohull identity? In a recent fan poll, the popular vote was overwhelmingly for a monohull

I dont think so. I think actually that it doesnt make that much difference one hull, two hulls or three hulls, it doesnt change the identity of the race. The object of the race is that a group of people race around the planet, fighting hard all the way.

There are ups and downs there are extreme periods and slow periods with no wind, and thats the same in either a monohull or multihull. Whether the boat is a monohull or multi doesnt change the identity of the Volvo Ocean Race for me, I think its all about the people that race it."

You could intepret that to be a vote for the camp that suggest the absolute speed of the boat isn't actually that important...

This quote struck me as odd. I think the number of hulls definitely defines the race event in every way as multis redefined the AC in every way. I'm a little surprised to read that he would dismiss an overwhelming majority in favor for monohulls. A key marketing misstep? We want monohulls! No you don't. You want speed over everything else.

Yet even there, he hedged...

We may have to consider downgrading the performance factor slightly in order to retain a certain level

of security,

This is not a one and done RTW. They stop, they race in confined areas so the idea of going multi, because "We have the technology" would also diminish the in-port experience. ACs, 32s, and other multi foilers may be nimble, but I cannot see making a 60-70 ft tri that may be great for long sprints in the SO, be enjoyable to watch as they try to avoid each other and minimize tacks. Foiling 65s would make more sense since the foils could be retracted for in-port racing, yet extend once the boats past the rounding mark for the next leg (if the boats are not close).
At the moment I am hoping they are truly able to field 8 boats for that will make it a great contest all around.

In 2011 they launched the MOD70 and in October of that year they did their first inshore event called the Krys Match, just outside of La Trinite Sur Mer. It was spectacular. In some races the boats were crossing the start line at 25 knots and with each race they had 3 sponsor guests onboard!

Disagree. I'd say the boats are a lot more simple and no need to haul at each stop. The tris all sit in the water at La Trinite.

 

[nkb]

Would

Something like the FIgaro 3 is probably the where the smart money would be.

It occurs to me that there may be options to make the boat more technical. Figaro and IMOCA being short handed are not as technical boats to sail as they might be. Adding a range of tweakable bits - like adjusting foil components might mean that there is more scope for differentiating the quality of crewmanship between boats. Foils plus centreboards would be my call as well. No reason to limit the number of foils, and it also provides a bit more resilience to breakages.

A full on foiling multi on the other hand is plenty technical.

Second order design aspects deliberately affecting sailability were something that Farr tried to put into the VO65. I think they did a brave job, but in the end it didn't work out as well as they might have hoped. But the idea was good.

Would a Figaro not be too small and too slow?

Why a full foiling multi? The MOD70 were/are simple to sail and fast without being full foiling.

The comparatively shallow draft of the multi might open up a few more options. Putting them all on the hard to achieve any sort of work would be a tough ask in a lot of places

But without canting keels, the need to pull the boat must be much reduced? Do much more of the routine maintenance afloat.

exactly

 

[GBH]

It's known that MT was trying to roll up the 60's with the Volvo for dual purpose boats, so standby to see that idea refloated and a big pitch to the 60s for their upcoming meetings. Would be a disaster though I reckon and end up with boat designed by committee.

Have to remember they only have three years between races and time is already too short to design and develop, build and debug a suitable fleet of any untried technologies whether multi or monohull - they've wasted way too much time already dithering on the assorted design proposals.

Could be the 65 ends up up doing another lap after this one!

 

[F18 Sailor]

On the routing, doesn't matter if you get rid of the software, the navigators will write there own...I've been running home brewed nav software at the amateur level that was written in the 90's that would do most everything you need except maybe the optimal routing function which is a bit of effort but I promise someone will throw $500k at it and roll their own if Expedition, Deckman etc. were banned. That's a fruitless path and IMO it is also a dangerous path given the boats are becoming more and more shorthanded and you need the software to help keep you safe, i.e avoid islands on the C-map and keep the boat in 25 kts of breeze or less. If you make the boats faster there will be bigger splits in the fleet as if one boat hooks into a weather system and another doesn't they can be 500+ nm ahead in under 48 hours...we've seen this already with HB and BP, BP leapfrogged a weather system that HB couldn't get to being just a few miles behind the leader. In the volvo there won't be 7,000nm to try and claw back that deficit.

I don't thinking docking multi's is a real issue at any of the major stopovers currently, Lisbon, Cape Town, Melbourne, Auckland, Itajai, and Newport can all handle them, Hong Kong/China can build a river for them, so that leaves the last Europe legs as a potential concern but some creativity can be managed. As pointed out above, all foils can be made retractable so total draft is way down, width manageable, that leaves mast height as a potential concern but the stops are already in places with tall bridges. I would be making this decision based solely on two factors:

1) What boats are we confident building structurally to take the loads imposed by the VOR? Multihulls don't like slamming upwind in heavy sea state, and Persico has more experience building large offshore monohulls and almost none in the offshore multihull world (though I am sure they are capable, this decision leans mono).

2) What boat travels at a speed we can manage logistically? Again tends to point mono as any MOD70 or faster multi puts you into territory that makes it tough to keep the shore crew ahead of the boats. Also, a longer race is better for everyone involved except the sponsors $$ wise...

 

[Francis Vaughan]

Would a Figaro not be too small and too slow?

Why a full foiling multi? The MOD70 were/are simple to sail and fast without being full foiling.

I think you can assume we mean something that has been scaled up appropriately. I rather hope they get the length back to 70ft. The overall design concept from the FIgaro looks good.

Multi need not be full foil, it was just an observation about the relative technical qualities of the boats.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

On the routing, doesn't matter if you get rid of the software, the navigators will write there own..

One would assume that the ban is not done by naming software, but is blanket. Could be done by just by locking down the computers and banning any adding of software at all. Just include the basic nav packages and don't permit any routing components.

I seem to remember that Wouter had some of his own software as well as the issued suite of software.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

Something I was going to mention about in-port races. I think even the most naive spectator can appreciate that these races are a bit special. Special in that the boats are clearly RTW racers, and that the in-port race is explicitly a race where the boats are out of their element. Sort of like truck racing on a motorsport track. Everyone can appreciate that the boats are not designed for easy round the cans sailing and that what is being witnessed involves crews working really hard to muscle the boats about.

Once one takes that attitude, it might becomes reasonable to look towards making the in-ports more flexible, and perhaps with an eye towards a more spectator (and sponsor) friendly round of activities. Heck I wonder if you couldn't run a match racing tournament. More time with boats on the water, and lots of incentive for close racing. Doubt it will happen, but the scope is there for something along these lines. It does free up thinking about the in-port activities if they went multi.

I think the race does suffer a lot from a very traditional regatta mindset. The scoring for instance.

 

[CrushDigital]

Wouldn't match racing just exacerbate the issue you were highlighting with regards to muscling boats that are clearly out of their element around a race course?

Furthermore, any sort of fair match racing competition would either have to be spread out across each of the inports or else the stay in each port will need to be significantly lengthened. Even if you use a seeded bracket and each round is a single race (which is likely what would end up happening), you're still talking about 6x as many races being held. The extra time on the water would really eat into the time they have to get the boats ready for the next bout of actual racing.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

Wouldn't match racing just exacerbate the issue you were highlighting with regards to muscling boats that are clearly out of their element around a race course?

Furthermore, any sort of fair match racing competition would either have to be spread out across each of the inports or else the stay in each port will need to be significantly lengthened. Even if you use a seeded bracket and each round is a single race (which is likely what would end up happening), you're still talking about 6x as many races being held. The extra time on the water would really eat into the time they have to get the boats ready for the next bout of actual racing.

Yup to all of the above. I'm just throwing out odd thoughts here. If they did match race you could go back to allowing more crew aboard. My point is more about trying to think a bit more freely about the options for in-port activities. In the past they have been very traditional. The nature of the VOR has changed, and this frees up possibilities - there really is no need to stay with a simple rounds the cans routine. Longer in-port stays may be something that happens anyway. Allows sponsors more opportunities to milk their involvement as well.

 

[Alcatraz5768]

I still think there's room for 2 divisions, vo65 OD and an open IRC division. That would lead to flyers and lots of different routes as different boats have have different speeds at different points of sail. Heaps of existing boats and opportunity for new builds.

 

[sow1ld]

The last volvo was boring as shit not because of the boats but because of the ais making everyone sail a follow the leader style and because of the course. A more traditional course more wind more waves more speed more excitement. Its hard to get excited about any boat crossing the equator sticking to each other like glue and doing x3 ×4?? Times in the last volvo. My pick.... a stronger volvo 70 with a foil more traditional course, less talk of how its the toughest race on earth & more film of it being the toughest race on earth

 

[shanghaisailor]

In port racing in multis (as per Francis Vaughan's idea) may be exciting but not exactly unique.

ESS, AC and WMRT all perform close inshore racing, what the ESS first coined as "Stadium Racing"

So another of the VOR's USPs would disappear.

sow1ld's choice is remarkably similar to what I would prefer - 1) mono, 2) foil assisted (like the IMOCA 60s) and just a but longer - 70 might need too many crew so I would stick at 65

No guarantee they would be much, or any faster, than the Open 60s as they would have to carry 7,8 or 9 people instead of 1 plus all the additional gear and food

SS

 

[bucc5062]

Good lord folks are really trying to put the square peg in the round hole to create a faster = more exciting formula. Why not just take the crew off and make them drone mulit's because the only thing important is speed speed speed.

I watched that video and stopped half way through. They did pretty much what I thought it would be, very big boats that cannot afford to get close, that do long legs, because tacking takes time and one mistake and the boat should just head back for beers. Yeah, a Tri with two hulls out of the water is an adrenaline junkies wet dream, but for spectator interest? Ever watch a NASCAR Cup race? These guys do 200 mph and after 10 laps one can switch to hallmark for the amount of interest in the race...till a crash.

The other things is 5 ft. If the choice was between a 65 that could make it around the world and a 70 that couldn't, I'll take a 65 for the racing should still be about the sailors.

My suggestions was remove all routing software, even home grown. You can have electronic charts that allow manual plotting, but nothing predictive. AIS does not make them match in line, Expedition does for when the computer says go here, these guys have been trained to follow.