Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 111

Thread: Design Challenge III

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    In my opinion, the accommodation needs for a coastal boat crossings are not limited simply to sleep in a tent when the ship is stopped.

    Is important for me, a space inside while you are sailing, also in the contest rules require a port-poti, so it must be a minimum cabin with headroom to sit.

    You think that 4ft is the minimum correct measurement?

    This does not eliminate the need for a tent or awning on deck for camping, cooking and resting.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    West Boothbay Harbor, Maine
    Posts
    22,062

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by robert666 View Post
    I'm no boat designer, but has anyone considered a 20ft traditional long keel hull based on scottish herring lugger with sand/gravel/stone ballast that could be found on the beach after trailing and dumped for rowing, beaching and trailering. ]
    The amount of removable ballast to get such a boat down to good lines (before boating a load of fish) could be as much as 750-1000 pounds. That's a lot of weight to find, load and unload, if you can find it at all and can just dig up/carry it away/dump it, which would be largely an unpopular move around here.
    "Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates." ~ Mark Twain


  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Wellesley, MA USA
    Posts
    8,836

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    I'm thinking of a new business opportunity-
    A stand at launching ramps offer ice, beverages, hot dogs and ballast stone rental.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    304

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    For a proa that fits the bill give or take an inch, HarryProa maxi trailersailer:

    http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YG2pTJw...erspective.jpg

    I think the answer to a fair number of the questions so far in this thread, is Muffallo which is the boat they chose to illustrate the design competition rules with. This is actually the plastic version of the Kurt Hughes tri that I built, and much nicer looking it is with all it's curves. But obviously as an existing design, it captures their sense of what could be. It goes to windward like any tri, it is very slow to de-trailer, not a folder for instnace, but certainly can take to the road. the boat is mostly known from it's youtube video, which shows a crane being used to launch it. So the actual individual capabilities are not extraordinary, it's the synthesis that musr have recomended it.
    Last edited by Tomcat; 10-04-2010 at 01:27 AM.

  5. #55

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Although Wooden Boat has been selling my Pixie and Quattro 16 catamaran plans for 20 years I have only just joined the WB forum and this is my first post.

    Like many of you, I have been concerned about the last requirement in the competition. I wrote to Carl about it a couple of weeks ago but have not yet had a reply.

    This is an edited version of what I wrote:

    "I know I didn't win your last competition (I entered a 24ft powercat, see the ecocat thread), but that won't stop me from trying again.

    However I have a problem with your list of requirements. Specifically the last one ie "And, finally, the boat must have good seakeeping attributes with the ability to sail to windward in a gale (34-47 knots)."

    That means over 50 knots apparent if the boat is to make any forward way. You know that neither of the two boats used to illustrate your competition can sail safely and effectively to windward in those conditions, even in flat water, never mind at sea.

    Even 60 ft non-stop-round-the-world race boats have problems, see a recent XSRacing report ""We took a beating with 45-50 knots of wind and strong seas," Van Liew reported via satellite email", while of course the America's Cup races are not started in that wind, nor are any dinghy regattas. I suspect that no Raid event will start if a true gale is forecast, the liability problems for organisers would be huge.

    I am sure that others have commented on this as well, so could you please clarify what you mean. ie is the competition for a genuine "to windward in 50 knots" boat, or for a "can survive 30 knots if desperate and caught out" boat. I suspect the latter, but I'd like confirmation before drawing anything."

    Now obviously WB can set whatever rules they like, but as some of you have pointed out, drawing a new boat is a major undertaking and if it is drawn only for this competition then designers need to feel they COULD win. And thus they have to be very sure that their entry is not going to be rejected because it doesn't meet all the terms of the competition. And as I say, neither of the two boats illustrating the competition announcement do. Nor would a boat like a Macgregor 26 (for example) even though it could easily meet the other requirements.

    All the requirements have equal billing, so if one can ignore the last one, why not the 40ft length, or the 3500lb max displacement? Where does it end??

    In fact I can't think any boat of this type which can be considered to be DESIGNED to sail to windward in 50 knots (which, remember, is what the rules require) unless it is a pretty awful/uncomfortable/slow boat the rest of the time. Flush decked? Massive spars yet small sail area?? no cockpit? etc. 50 knots is a serious wind, especially when bashing to windward into it.

    Over 20 years ago I sailed a 24ft Strider catamaran singlehanded from Plymouth, UK to the USSR (in fact three of us did the trip sailing in convoy). We daysailed the whole way there and back over a three month period and enjoyed seven countries enroute (the ultimate raid perhaps?). While in the USSR we met an owner of a 45ft monohull, also from Plymouth, who said "I got here in 5 days, my boat goes really well to windward in a gale" But his boat was an awful design for the gentle sailing conditions that most people actually want to sail in. We pitied him. He missed out so much.

    Bottom line is: I'd like to enter this competition, but I won't and to be honest cannot advise anyone else to until this requirement is clarified.

    Richard Woods of Woods Designs

    www.sailingcatamarans.com

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    San Pedro, CA
    Posts
    804

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Whew! That's a bracing rush for a first post here. I'm kinda wondering, though, if thumping on the boss is such a good call.

    Carl is a very reasonable, but busy, guy and would have no-doubt gotten around to a solid answer once all the hoopla with IBEX was concluded on September 30. It might also be prudent to consider that perhaps Carl took a bit of a well-earned vacation after such an intense stretch?

    Welcome to the Forum


    PS: Richard, you have a Private Message
    Last edited by Chris Ostlind; 10-07-2010 at 02:31 PM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    889

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Perhaps the intent is not a boat on which one would want to go to windward in a gale, but one that, well handled, could keep off a lee shore if caught out in a gale and make its way to safety.

    We are supposed to be having fun, aren't we?

  8. #58

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    I have to agree with Richard, and I think I've said it before, that the "get to windward in a gale" requirement is a very odd one. I say that not just because it doesn't seem to fit with a raid-type design, but also because of its very nebulous nature. How can you accurately predict which boats will go to windward in what are fairly extreme conditions? What it comes down to is the opinion of the judges, which of course is the point of the exercise, but different judges will have very different opinions on what sort of boat can pass this test.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Southern Maine
    Posts
    16,561

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    I think Carl has a case of "what if my boat were a bit bigger", take a 210, stretch it to about 37 feet, put a small lid on it and make the cockpit self draining and you'd have a boat that would be underballasted, but could meet the requirements. Welcome aboard Richard, I've admired your cats for years.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    San Pedro, CA
    Posts
    804

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    To me, it's really simple; this argument about a boat going to windward in whatever wind speed. This is a contest for design submissions. The rules have been put forth and now we have whining about the rules. You get to decide if you're going to submit under these rules, or you can pass. It's not your contest, not your magazine and you don't get to set parameters. It's just like this Forum, so graciously supplied by the publisher of Wooden Boat... Abide by the rules, or take a hike.

    You guys who are whining right now, have a big ol' dilemma in front of you as I see it. Either get it together and take your best shot, or walk away and look for something within your grasp at a later date. Chuffing on the publisher is not going to get you to the promised land. You guys act like Carl and his staff have no idea at all what is going on with boats. Take one look at the publications and additional activities within the family to which Wooden Boat Magazine belongs. It may just give you pause.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Shore, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,900

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    In reference to the "to windward in a gale" requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Noyes View Post
    I think this is simply a criteria to weed out freekish boats with ridiculous cabins and exceptionally high topside... basically the boat must be a real sail boat, not a floating house or party barge with a sail.
    Guys this was post #33, three weeks ago...

    the to windward in a gale is simply to introduce a hint of seaworthy/ sea keeping ability and eliminate extreme machines in either the racing direction (as in an over canvased boat that has no means of reefing or shortening sail effectively) or the house boat direction (big picture windows and lots of boxy superstructure)

    certainly will not keep me from entering, these requirements are taylor made for my ideal racer/cruiser dory designs.

    nuff said

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,021

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    So Chris, sounds like you have a design in the works.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    West Boothbay Harbor, Maine
    Posts
    22,062

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by Hwyl View Post
    I think Carl has a case of "what if my boat were a bit bigger", take a 210, stretch it to about 37 feet, put a small lid on it and make the cockpit self draining and you'd have a boat that would be underballasted, but could meet the requirements.
    That design could be 'Nantucket Splinter' by Bruce King at 38'.
    "Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates." ~ Mark Twain


  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brooklin, Maine
    Posts
    1,352

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Hi, Richard. I'm sorry I overlooked your email. Things have been just a bit frantic....

    Great thread: You don't need my clarification(s) at all.

    And very funny about the Nantucket Splinter.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,291

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ostlind View Post
    To me, it's really simple; this argument about a boat going to windward in whatever wind speed. This is a contest for design submissions. The rules have been put forth and now we have whining about the rules.
    It's not whining. The boats Carl used to illustrate the possibilities are NOT capable of meeting this requirement. And one experienced designer (Richard Woods) doubts that ANY boat could meet both this requirement and all the others.

    Someone who designs boats as essentially a "hobby" can certainly have at it without worrying about the issue. Someone who does it for a living has to be more protective of their time. It's perfectly legitimate to question this requirement. If the stated rules aren't both clear and achievable, what's the point of entering the contest? And, as Richard suggests, if WB will ultimately let designers fudge on this point, why have rules for the contest at all? The whole thing becomes arbitrary, and not worth the time of talented designers who are busy with other work.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    West Boothbay Harbor, Maine
    Posts
    22,062

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    A boat that COULD meet all those paramaters would be something to see and sail!! I hope something comes out of the comp that approaches that.
    "Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates." ~ Mark Twain


  17. #67
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cummington
    Posts
    4,518

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Lofting Theresa II and knowing the other Albert Strange midsize yawl designs, I think I should enter one for him.

  18. #68

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    I have to say that probably WB means what it says, and the requirement to sail to windward in a gale is not just a way to eliminate freakish boats.

    Are there any trailerable boats in existence now that meet the requirement, under 3500 lbs.? I can't think of any, offhand-- maybe the F-32? Maybe WB is trying to scare a previously unknown kind of boat out of the woodwork.

    The only possibility that occurs to me is a large folding multihull, but what a nightmare to trail. And to engineer.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,021

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    I have a hunch the F-27 could pull it off. I used to have a Brown Searunner 25, but never had it out in 50-knot winds. But it would sail to windward in 35, and I beleive the F-27 is more capable in such conditions. It does meet the weight requirement -- they run 2,700 pounds empty.

    superfox.jpg

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    San Pedro, CA
    Posts
    804

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Paskey View Post
    It's not whining. The boats Carl used to illustrate the possibilities are NOT capable of meeting this requirement. And one experienced designer (Richard Woods) doubts that ANY boat could meet both this requirement and all the others.
    Whining, complaining, pitching a hissy fit. It's all the same thing. As for Carl's illustrative examples... does everything in this world have to be so literal in order to set a tone? What if the images were chosen to specifically twist your head just a bit, so that you’d maybe get rolling on some outside the box solutions? There are marching orders in place and one has their imagination, combined with technical knowledge and talent. If one is pushed away by the task, then step aside. Simple.

    It's interesting that the Detroit auto makers of a few years ago, whined their butts off when California instituted strict emission controls. Not wanting to miss-out on the huge market, they got their act together and produced vehicles that could meet the rules. Same thing happened when strong mileage requirements were put into place. More whining and ultimately, the cars that the authorities said could never be done, appeared in showrooms and flew out the door.

    Remarkable stuff, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Paskey View Post

    Someone who designs boats as essentially a "hobby" can certainly have at it without worrying about the issue. Someone who does it for a living has to be more protective of their time. It's perfectly legitimate to question this requirement. If the stated rules aren't both clear and achievable, what's the point of entering the contest? And, as Richard suggests, if WB will ultimately let designers fudge on this point, why have rules for the contest at all? The whole thing becomes arbitrary, and not worth the time of talented designers who are busy with other work.
    Last time I checked, Steve, working pros had an equal chance at utilizing their creative potential as any guy who does design work for a hobby. By having this contest open to working professionals, doesn't that put amateur designers behind a very big 8-Ball, already? Yet, I don't seem to sense that any amateurs were feeling like they had to hide in the bushes for any of the previous Challenges. After all, the amateurs that I know also have regular jobs and have to work on something like this in their spare time... just like a pro would if he were interested.

    I suggest that it's not legit to question any of the requirements as they have been presented. Simply assess the value based on one's criteria and skills and either get into it, or leave it alone. Telling Wooden Boat that their contest is bunk is tantamount to someone walking by a neighbor's house and suggesting the owner get off his butt and paint the thing another color.

    It's none of our business how they (WB) want to configure their Challenge. If, after gathering together your energy and penciling every thoughtful solution you can muster to the challenge, you still feel that the rules are too restrictive, then my experience suggests that working from within a typical organization is the best way to effect change and not chomping at it from outside the walls. Let’s just say that one's wife, or girlfriend, has very specific rules about washing one’s hands before sitting down for a meal. Does anyone here really believe that whining about that rule is going to get any traction… at all?

    It looks like Carl has apologized to Richard for the tardy response. He also addressed the point as to a need for clarification.

    With the depth of knowledge of the boating industry that these guys at WB and its connected businesses have, one may wish to consider that the rules were specifically created to push the thinking curve and see what might come forth. And who really wants to suggest that WB is fudging on their own rules at this point when the submission date hasn't gone flying by? Rather presumptive, if you ask me and sure to win hearts and minds.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    So would the requirement of 'sailing to windward in a gale' be met if the boat can make ground into 34 knots of wind? Or only if it can do it in 47 knots?

    I used to sail in the North Sea every weekend for 4 years, a pretty windy spot generally and I only saw 47 knots of breeze a couple of times. The 45' decent cruiser-racer I crewed on could make progress upwind with its 8' draft, full hoist No.3 blade and deeply reefed main but none of the other (smaller) boats could - if it had been any lumpier we would have been struggling too. 34 Knots on the other hand was a fairly frequent occurence and provided exhilarating sailing, especially with the masthead kite up! That would be a stiff challenge that a wholesome small boat could take up but something to beat into the higher windspeed is going to be pretty freakish IMHO.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    I totally agree with the words of Clarkey, and I like the guys of WB respond the cuestion by Clarkey (34 or 44 Kntos?)

    I am convinced from my own experience that many boats under 30 feet can can make ground into a storm of 35 Kntos, but the navigation in these conditions will never be normal and placid.

    Only in one occasion I sailed upwind against winds above 40 Knots, I did in a solid cruiser-racer over 50fets sailing at 7 knots with just a small sail on the bow about of 22 sq ft. This happened in very distant waters to waters that run tests weekend raid.

    I want design an extremely seaworthy boat with which to reach port if at some point I must be face to a storm.. But do not get a design storm eater, this would lead to extremely radical designs in shapes and sizes that barely fit into the other requirements of the competition.


    I think that the guys of WB should clarify that is for them to navigate in a storm of windward, and what is the exact scale 37 or 47 Knots?

    Sorry for my english.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Here you have a good and classic example of a small safe boat to sail with winds of more than 35 nkots. Cruising with a very similar philosophy to what I think.


  24. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Flattop Islands
    Posts
    1,791

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    The nature of design means that each designer will give a different weight to each requirement.......The inclusion of a sailing/seakeeping requirement is (IMO) meant to force entries to at least address the issue......it will then be up to the judges to decide if you have addressed the issue adequately, inadequately, or at all.........

    In the old days we would design a boat with what we thought was enough sail area and enough ballast to stand up to it, and a reefing system and maybe some storm sails. Beyond that designers trusted the prudent mariner to have the skill and wisdom to deal with storm conditions. In today's more sophisticated design environment we have access to reams of data on resistance increases in waves, righting arm data coupled with heeling arms and sail area vs windspeed will prove adequate stability with various loads in various weather conditions. It will remain up to the designer to stipulate a sea condition and show how his or her design performs in those conditions.

    I would view it as another layer in the design process, not only do you design the boat, then you must theoretically prove how she performs. Racing boat (and many cruising boat) designers have been doing this for years with VPP (velocity prediction program) software, though I don't know of any that work in 47 knots of wind.
    ___________________________________
    Tad
    cogge ketch Blackfish
    cat ketch Ratty
    http://www.tadroberts.ca
    http://blog.tadroberts.ca/
    http://www.passagemakerlite.com

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    I think the polar diagram for almost all trailable boats at 47kts of wind would show best VMG with the 'deploy large parachute sea anchor' option ticked :-)

  26. #76
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL
    Posts
    2,681

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    This should be interesting. I like that the windward in a gale performance has been included in the design brief. It insures that this boat will push the envelope of what is possible in a trailerable boat. The real trick will be getting the comfort level of the crew at an acceptable level while making that progress to windward. Of course the comfort thing is not a requirement of the contest rules but it has got to be a consideration in the back of the designer's mind if he or she ever hopes to make a profit off the design. I imagine that the market for trailerable boats able to go well to windward in a gale is quite small. If you're looking at gale force winds in the forecast, why would you launch the darn thing? Still, it will be interesting to see what the designers and designer-want-to-be's come up with.

  27. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Shore, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,900

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    to me it is simply a question of
    A. robust rig design
    B. limitting the windage of the hull/cabin

    Like I said it will not be a problem for the design I have in mind, wide, low, powerfull mono hull with a 7' lifting bulb keel

  28. #78

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    [QUOTE=antoniv;2738604]Here you have a good and classic example of a small safe boat to sail with winds of more than 35 nkots. Cruising with a very similar philosophy to what I think.

    That's a beautiful little boat, but I don't think it would make ground to windward in 40 knots.

  29. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Dear Friends

    Today was the day to sharpen my pencils.

    I established the basic dimensions of my design. This, surely, be one of the smallest among the contestants.

    The first limiting factor in size that I have proposed is the maximum weight on the trailer: 500 kg

    The length between 5 and 6 meters with a maximum width not more than 2 meters, so this is really effective boat in sailing and rowing.

    The accommodation will be the minimum necessary, utilizing overhead elevating roof and tends.

    Two masts and apropiate for Gaff and lateen rig.

    Canting keel for easy access to the beach.

    As soon as the pictures are ready I will show you. I do not design to win, just to enjoy and build my boat.

  30. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    106

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    What about a Chesapeake style working sailboat, moderate deadrise, say 24-32' rigged bermuda ketch? 3/8-1/2" ply.....heavy centerboard.....

  31. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,021

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    What about a Chesapeake style working sailboat, moderate deadrise, say 24-32' rigged bermuda ketch? 3/8-1/2" ply.....heavy centerboard.....
    With the traditional pushboat, yep, it would go to windward in a storm.


  32. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    St. Charles, IL
    Posts
    1,126

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by Woxbox View Post
    With the traditional pushboat, yep, it would go to windward in a storm.

    A bit above the weight limit....

    Dan

  33. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Waterbury, Connecticut
    Posts
    1,517

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ostlind View Post
    [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=3]...It's interesting that the Detroit auto makers of a few years ago, whined their butts off when California instituted strict emission controls. Not wanting to miss-out on the huge market, they got their act together and produced vehicles that could meet the rules. Same thing happened when strong mileage requirements were put into place. ...
    --- Excellent analogy! And I would like to add, when the Psychohistorians were exiled on their resource-poor planet (Asimov's Foundation novels) they invented great stuff because they had to. OK, that's extreme fantasy, but half of what we think about is fantasy. Fantasy is the first step toward something somebody will soon be taxing. I for one am looking forward to what you folk can do toward this design fantasy. Keep at it! -- Wade

  34. #84

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Yeah, maybe the next challenge should be a flying car, and then we'd finally get them.

  35. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    304

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Ray +1, should run on water as fuel.

    "It's interesting that the Detroit auto makers of a few years ago, whined their butts off when California instituted strict emission controls."

    To me that catches it perfectly. You can understand why WB wanted efficient power boats, and in this case wants a do everything trailer sailer. There is a public spirited element to these challenges, and also a challenge element. But it falls flat if the aim is impossible or stupid. If it does err in those directions, then it is all part of the plan to generate discussion, and the discussion may then center on a poorly designed contest. My experience of the people at Wooden Boat is that they may not be designers themselves, though some have been, but they are big people who admit fault and deal very plainly. If they have made a mistake they will acknowledge it.

  36. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lexington, MA
    Posts
    698

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    The LADY B boat by JR Watson on page 21 of the latest WoodenBoat (Nov/Dec 2010) magazine is close to perfect for this challenge.
    See: www.westsystem.com/ss/lady-b-launched.

    It has the following particulars:
    LOA 28
    Beam 7'6"
    Draft <1'
    SA 290
    Disp 2500
    A ballasted dagger board
    Self-bailing cockpit
    9.9 HP 4-stroke outboard motor in well with fairings.
    Two free-standing demountable carbon fiber masts
    Self-tending sails
    A nice cabin and cockpit

  37. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Waterbury, Connecticut
    Posts
    1,517

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by spirit View Post
    The LADY B boat by JR Watson on page 21 of the latest WoodenBoat (Nov/Dec 2010) magazine is close to perfect for this challenge....
    --- Yes! Handsome and effective looking. That is the mystery boat I think I saw in some advertisement, maybe in WB, and I wondered who done it. -- Wade

  38. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    San Pedro, CA
    Posts
    804

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomcat View Post

    But it falls flat if the aim is impossible or stupid. If it does err in those directions, then it is all part of the plan to generate discussion, and the discussion may then center on a poorly designed contest. My experience of the people at Wooden Boat is that they may not be designers themselves, though some have been, but they are big people who admit fault and deal very plainly. If they have made a mistake they will acknowledge it.

    I could be totally wrong about this, but I have this foggy idea that the folks who run this magazine and their sister mag., Professional Boatbuilder, have somewhat decent access to a fairly significant slice of very creative designers who have been known to push boundaries. Really, what would it take to sit down over a BLT with one, or more, of these folks and do a little scheming session with regards to this iteration of the Challenge process? While a collection of folks are arguing over particulars, the PBB/WB staffs may already have some very interesting, roughed-in examples sitting on the hard drive to use as reference.

    Since we're not dealing with dumb people here, I tend to see this the way a lawyer sees his opportunity to cross-exam a key witness in court. First off, don't ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. That would have a reasonable assumption attached that Carl and his gang have already danced with the concept and feel that it's a doable proposition. That the Challenge pushes the boundaries is a very good problem, as the typical commercial enterprise tends to shy away from dramatic sea change types of expressions. What do you say we go from that position, instead of assuming that these guys have all blundered badly in a very public way? We might just get our peepers opened.

  39. #89
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL
    Posts
    2,681

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by spirit View Post
    The LADY B boat by JR Watson on page 21 of the latest WoodenBoat (Nov/Dec 2010) magazine is close to perfect for this challenge.
    Does that mean Iain Oughtred's Haiku could be a contender too? What do you think?


  40. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    St. Charles, IL
    Posts
    1,126

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by kenjamin View Post
    Does that mean Iain Oughtred's Haiku could be a contender too? What do you think?

    Not if it needs to be a new design.

    Dan

  41. #91
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL
    Posts
    2,681

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Opps! Right! I was just thinking of the windward in a gale requirement. That Haiku certainly seems to have enough reef points to get the job done.

  42. #92

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Somewhere in my enormous crapload of uncatalogued books, I remember seeing a Beaufort Scale explanation that included information dealing with the handling of small sailboats in increasing wind and sea conditions. You know, something like "Force 8, small craft reduced to storm canvas..." That sort of thing. I can't find it-- I've checked my ancient copy of Adlard Coles, and I'm looking for the new one, which I recently reviewed.

    Anyone know what I'm talking about?

  43. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Shore, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,900

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    I generally object to a cabin design if it looks blocky... it almost looks like Haiku has excessive swoop to her cabin sides... too much of a good thing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Clarkey View Post
    So would the requirement of 'sailing to windward in a gale' be met if the boat can make ground into 34 knots of wind?
    34 Knots on the other hand was a fairly frequent occurence and provided exhilarating sailing, especially with the masthead kite up! .
    Now thats using your head! sure it says to windward in a gale and if gale starts at 34 then sailing to windward under those conditions should satisfy the requirements just fine.

    still doing thumbnails and looking at sail plans, I'm trying to decide between all water ballast or water and a small bulb (tending toward just water) and between a sloop or schooner rig (thinking sloop)

  44. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    With my pedantic systems engineering hat on I would certainly try and argue that the requirement has been met at 34 knots!

    I am quite intrigued by a 'raid boat' approach to this which would give up entirely on light wind sailing ability and row in those conditions. Then I would go for a supremely low drag sailing set up with a very small rigid wing, efficient foils and the crew tucked behind the windward gunwale out of the breeze. The wing would either be small enough to stow or just left up, feathering, when not needed where it should cause less drag than a bare mast. My doubt is whether this approach could generate enough raw power to punch upwind in anything other than flat water.

    Out of water ballast (pumped to windward) or a canting bulb, I too would try the water - increasing the mass of the boat might be quite beneficial going into the seas. Surely a sloop has to be the choice? A schooner would suffer from the drag of the second mast and you might be down to one sail by then anyway?

    I don't think that the cabin of the Oughtred sharpie is as designed, along with some other aspects. I remember being really taken with the first drawings published and then extremely disappointed with how that first one turned out in practice.

  45. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,021

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Check out what these guys have been up to if you didn't catch the thread I started yesterday.

    Their boat is a bit too heavy to pass inspection for the current challenge, but not by a whole lot. But it is much shorter than allowed. If you browse around their website and videos, I think you'll find that they had little trouble making progress in gale conditions for days at a time. And as you'll also see, they did launch the boat from a trailer.

    As far as I'm concerned the case is closed that this challenge is completely valid.

  46. #96

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    In the "good old days" if one felt strongly about something in a magazine one would write a letter to the editor. It wasn't considered necessary to write some sycophantic letters first.

    Furthermore, I am not whinging, I am simply trying to clarify the competition rules. I know that WB can write whatever rules they like, that is exactly what I wrote in my first post. 25 years ago I entered a Yachting World design competition for a 35ft performance multihull. One of the calculations requested was for the ballast ratio.

    Just because a boat has three sets of reef points it doesn't prove it can go to windward in a gale. It might mean it is so tender it needs them in 20 knots of wind, although I agree, the last requirement might have been intended to rule out high freeboard, low stability boats. But to me it also rules out all open boats and all lightweight boats that have enough sail to be fun to sail in light winds.

    One of Dick Newick's most famous designs is the 31ft Val trimaran. Designed as a trailable day sailer with basic accommodation for two, it gained fame when Mike Birch raced his to third place in the 1976 OSTAR. So a Val might be considered a multihull that complied with ALL the competition requirements. Except that after the race I asked Mike how he did so well. He said he kept full sail up during the day but deep reefed at night. I then asked "how does it go to windward in a gale?" "It doesn't" he replied

    One multihull that does fit the rules is QAB, the ex F40 catamaran that won a Round Britain race and competed in the 2STAR. 40ft long, 3000lbs, trailable, limited accommodation for two people, 1000sq ft of sail. And it does go to windward in a gale. But surely it is not a Raid boat?? I must say I find it interesting that 40ft is now considered a "small" boat.

    So, sorry, but, despite carefully reading all this thread, I am no nearer to understanding the actual rules, although I do understand their intent.

    Best wishes

    Richard Woods of Woods Designs

    www.sailingcatamarans.com

  47. #97

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Quote Originally Posted by Woxbox View Post
    Check out what these guys have been up to if you didn't catch the thread I started yesterday.

    Their boat is a bit too heavy to pass inspection for the current challenge, but not by a whole lot. But it is much shorter than allowed. If you browse around their website and videos, I think you'll find that they had little trouble making progress in gale conditions for days at a time. And as you'll also see, they did launch the boat from a trailer.

    As far as I'm concerned the case is closed that this challenge is completely valid.
    Wox, was that progress to windward? Unless I'm misremembering, the rule was that the boat must make progress to windward at the top end of gale force winds. To me, this is not only an impractical design brief, it contravenes what most good small boat sailors would (and should) do in those conditions. Unless the sailor is embayed or otherwise restricted, sailing in a gale, prudence would dictate some other point of sail, heaving to, or lying ahull.

  48. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,021

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Ray,
    Of course a cruiser wouldn't normally beat himself to death fighting wind and waves in a gale unless he had no other choice, but that's beside the point. The contest rules don't consider that. The guys sailing that F31 around the Arctic Ocean had to keep going to get home before the icebergs moved in. In one video, it looks like they are making way to windward in a gale, and the helmsman suggests this. But the specifics on wind speed and direction aren't there. There is a long blog from the trip, but I haven't had time to go through it to look for performance numbers.

  49. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    3,225

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    Well Carl,

    You have certainly stirred up the crowd with the new Challenge. In my opinion, the last two Challenge requirements were rather easily met, while the latest one should tax a designers brain cells a bit harder. I see nothing wrong with that. I do think the range of 34 to 47 kts is rather broad with the wind force at the upper end almost twice that at the lower end. So, you might specify which is the controlling one to avoid confrontations about what was intended.

    Most of the available monohull boats that I think of that meet the performance rules are heavier than 3500lbs although I see no reason that it cannot be done. That may drive designers more to folding multi's. Haven't had anything like that in the other five design contests WB has run so it should prove interesting.

    One boat that I owned, an S2 Grand Slam 7.9 could do it all but weighed over 4500lbs. The smaller sister at 6.9M should do the job if part of the inside ballast was moved to a bulb on the lifting daggerboard.

    My point is that you are not asking for the impossible.
    Tom L

  50. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brooklin, Maine
    Posts
    1,352

    Default Re: Design Challenge III

    We love "stirring up." Thanks for all your great comments and questions.

    My approach -- if I were an applicant -- would be to view this as "ability to get off a lee shore under sail or other power."

    Don't agonize: create.

    And I'm not being authoritative here; just my interpretation.

    Thanks. I can't WAIT to see your imaginative submissions. I think this is a great challenge. And: It has the scope to bring out the best you can throw at it.

    Carl

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •