• Untitled Document

    Join us on March 29rd, 7pm EST

    for the CBEC Virtual Meeting

    All EYO members and followers are welcome to join the fun and get to know the guest speaker!

    See the link below for login credentials and join us!

    March Meeting Info

    (dismiss this notice by hitting 'X', upper right)

AMRO TWO, Moviestar

Kevlarpirate

Member II
Recent racing boats: Let's look at them

Hulls break and delaminate………
Rudders break
Keels fall off
Low freeboard causes shipping green water constantly throwing crew overboard
Boats capsize and stay inverted (Fastnet 79)
Rigs break

All problems traceable to riskier design, minimal weight construction and the designers know it!

Why? The answer is speed and speed alone, and except for downwind, the gains over the years have been about zero. What is this mindlessness with surfing 30 kts anyway?
I was very happy with 12 meter racing. These new boats really don’t do it for me. I think they are ugly. Plumb bow pounders. Twin foil canting keel, water ballast does nothing for me, sorry. This last weekend I was on Pyewacket Kialoa III and America Eagle. Top to bottom, inside and out. Kialoa had a 40 lb vice in her workshop. Truth be told, these racers and the people behind that effort are going in the wrong direction. These new boats are unsafe in serious open ocean. When will they learn that the thrill of racing over the years has taught that relative speed, not absolute speed is key. Boat designs from the late 60’sand early 70’s are the safest and strongest. (I started big boat racing in the early 70”s SORC)
Who builds a strong upwind big sea boat now? Why don’t we have upwind racing with big boats that don’t come apart, so at least at the end of the race everyone finishes in one piece and we can see who the real heroes are?
What is driving this mindlessness??? Mindless people belong on jet skies!! I hope Volvo pulls out of this, maybe that will stir up some sense!
If I may send a message it would be to sail and enjoy a good safe boat which most of us already own. Don’t think that life safety equipment is a solution for compromised design and construction. At some point most of you will move up to a bigger or faster boat.
I have sailed and raced for 36 years and seen plenty. Recently I raced a TFCK 40 foot PH = -15 The boat was a pain! I have had more fun on boats that rated 150.. Fast is fun.
True, but know it can be done with a tough boat .Sail on!
 

Jeff Asbury

Principal Partner
Hear Hear!

Hear Hear! Well said David! I agree with everything you said, but none the less, I would still like to go down wind at 30 knots some day. I feel very safe in my 33 year old boat knowing I have reinforced areas in my hull that are 5/8" thick and a encapsulated keel.:egrin:
 

wanderer

Member II
Jeff Asbury said:
Hear Hear! Well said David! I agree with everything you said, but none the less, I would still like to go down wind at 30 knots some day.


jeff, come on down to san diego. i'll get you a ride on a 35+ knot DDG! (guided missile destroyer)

:egrin:


being a sailing infant compared to most of you, i still enjoy my old slow boat. throw out the genoa (which will play nicer once i replace my junky[and i mean junky] furler) and wham! like i fired a turbo...... she's flying. i feel safe because this boat is built like a tank and handles well.

as a former motorcycle racer, i giggled (inside ofcourse) at the thought of racing a sailboat. the concepts are the same. skill, engineering, design and the like. the same flaws rear their ugly head in ANY competition sport and eventually the one who suffers the most from these flaws is the racecar driver, motorcycle pilot, boat crew.. etc. the quest for perfection has it's price in any venue.
 

Chris Miller

Sustaining Member
design...

I agree that the racers shouldn't have to worry about the mechanics of their boat. Especially the whole sinking thing- that's just stupid.
I keep saying I want to see this race done in TP-52's or Swan 60's. Then I found this: http://www.clipper-ventures.co.uk/2006/... but it isn't quite as thrilling as the VOR. I guess I really do want to see the cutting edge- even if it does mean a little more risk. It's like the difference between Nascar and Indy-- or for the motorcycle crowd- flat track dirt and superbike.
I think the VOR does as much or more for sailboat racing than the Americas Cup (that always seems so snotty).
Just my feelings. But I think that the VOR has to really take a serious look at the design and build for the boats of the future.
 

Seth

Sustaining Partner
Had to weigh in here!!

kEV,

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY. The late CCA/early IOR b oast of the late 60's and eaarly 70's were certainly not the greatest sea boats. The beautiful Columbia 50's and 52's were all but unmanageable downwind in 25+ knots with a kite up-the only solution was to get the kites down, and watch the lighter guys sail away in comfort and control. These boats, being quite heavy, has HORRENDOUS loads on the sheets, blocks and gear in general. I know MANY MANY professional race boat captains (we had another name back then, but not very PC), the guys who sailed boats like Kialoa, Passage, etc. and lots of them are missing fingers-some arms, too. These boats all had their own flaws.

Later, when the 70's IOR boats came out, a buddy of mine had the top half of his skull taken off during a round down abourd the S&S 46 Obsession in the St. Pete-Ft. Lauderdale Race (76 I think). He died.

The year before when "Terrorist" the awesome Bruce King Bilge Boarder came out for the 1 Ton Worlds, and SORC, she could not keep a mast upright for a complete regatta. She lost rigs while leading both events and never made the podium, but was the fastest of them all. After a few tries, Sparcraft finally came up with a riog that would stay in the boat, but it was a lot heavier, and impacted performance.

I can go on and on, but the point is that whenever there is a new evolution in boat designm, rating rules, etc., the first generation boats have ALWAYS had failures. These were rectified after seeing the actual design at sea. Another example is that some of the early 70's IOR boats often carried a LOT of the lead ballast not in the keel, but under the cabin floor. This made for boats that were unstable, and more than one had a few thousand pounds of lead go through the cabin ceiling after a hard knockdown-the lead was not properly secured....And..NOT seaworthy.

The next generation of V70's will be fine. They will be uncomfortable,at speed-just like many race boats, especially the big cats and tris, but they will hold together, and they will be seaworthy.

The point is that these complaints:

Hulls break and delaminate………
Rudders break
Keels fall off
Low freeboard causes shipping green water constantly throwing crew overboard
Boats capsize and stay inverted (Fastnet 79)
Rigs break

have been made every time there was an evolution in design-lots and lots of boats have lost rudders going to Hawaii in the 60's and 70's. Keels have always had a tendency to "depart", the early CCA boats has very low freeboard (remember the famous "Finnestere"?), and crew have always been lost when tings get bad for the unprepared, Rigs have always come down on race boats-no matter what the design, and at each epoch (CCA, IOR, MORC, IMS, etc.) there have been some boats who don't come back up after heeling too far. These things always get corrected eventually, but it is part of the evolution.

If you have raced late 60's early 70's boats, where a typical 45 footer weighed nearly 30,000 lbs, you learned NEVER to sit in front of a loaded block, and just feeling them settle in as they began to "surf", but not quite-they mainly just dug holes in the water-increasing displacement and loads...yuck! Give me a boat that can surf!!

These boats are no more dangerous than the early iterations of every change in racing rules-and thes things always get sorted out eventually-just part of the process

But fortunately, I have no opinions on the topic!!;)

S
 

Geoff Johnson

Fellow Ericson Owner
Chris, funny you should mention the (amateur crew) Clipper race because those boats have been frought with problems. As I recall two boats had their headstays fail on the first leg across the Atlantic and then they developed serious keel bolt problems that required the race to be suspended while the keels were removed and the hulls reinforced (all the boats were gutted and rebuilt). In fact one captain (Mark Taylor, the consummate skipper of a boat I sailed on), quit over safety concerns. So I guess you never really know what you are going to get into. As Captain Ron (another great skipper) said: "If it's going to happen, it's going to happen out there".
 

Guy Stevens

Moderator
Moderator
Opnions Differ.......

Hmmmm, Lets see, Ericson 46, 1972 Displacement when trucked across the country...30,500 lbs.......

Interanal storage, unbelievable.
Ability to handle a seaway, incredably good.
Ability to handly cruising gear aboard without severely comprimising the boat, Great.
Steerable by windvane yep.....
Comfortable in a seaway Yep,
Comforatble at anchor Yep....
More than 20 Galloons of water.... Yep......

In 40,000 miles give or take we sailed Pneuma an Ericson 39, a yucky boat according to Seth, we outsailed and outslept anyone out there in a flat bottomed pounding surfer boat of the same size, then again we worked on knowing how to sail. We also broke a LOT less gear.... Then again that could have been prep and maintainance.......

I was extreamely privileged to have been able to sleep for 5 nights aboard a Dashew boat, the boats behavior at anchor was really bad, even the owner, (whom I consider one of the finest humans on the planet) commented that it would Roll gunnel to gunnel in the flatest anchor on that wonderful surfing bottom.

If you want to go fast, surf and win races, don't look at monohulls their days are numbered, multis are much faster, as long as you remember to cut the handle off of the toothbrushes, and limit your total gear to one small bag for your circumnavigation......

Then again if you want to go cruising, maybe you should look at one of those yucky boats that is built solidly enough to get you where you are going and back, and maybe you can afford. (Everyone how would love an Able Apogee raise your hands.....) Now everyone on this list that can aford one.... Where did all the hands go.

Good to know that I can avoid asking Seth out on a sail.... :) :) As there is no way this 46 foot "Yucky boat" is going to surf......

Watch the audience Seth... You know better than that........

Friendly and not upset... Just drawing out the other points of the argument.

I have to go now, although I would love to write more, Jury duty, an imense waste of time awaits my day.....

Guy
:)
 

Seth

Sustaining Partner
Missundastood

Hold on friends-:confused: :confused:
I am a HUGE fan of both the 39 AND 46-and never called either of them Yucky. All I was saying was that new steps in yacht design have always had teething problems-most of which ultimately were solved.

If my post suggested otherwise I apologize-but I won't be hurt if you don't want to take me sailing...

The one paragraph where I used the term "yuck" was simply how a boat like that feels and loads up when hard running or reaching compared to boat that surfs more easily.

Trust me, if I did not have a deep and abiding love for these boats, I would not spend so much time here.

Read the post again-all I said that whenever there was a new direction in design, there were problems at the extremes-which are usually solved.

Sorry if I offended, :confused:
 

Guy Stevens

Moderator
Moderator
No worries Seth

This internet stuff is a little hard with the humor, especially sarcasim.... I should know better.

I was a little ruffled though by the comment that seemed to indicate the 46 was yucky. Little defensive pride of ownership their. So my sarcasim was a bit cutting, sorry Seth.

Seth you are invited out for a sail anytime that you are in the San Fransisco area.... Your help on the questions that I have asked has been wonderful... Unless you bring along an anti-gravity machine, we probably won't surf... :nerd:

In most racing the rules have always been the same, the newest boats, with the most money to spend generally win... It has to be that way... Afterall, what would happen to the industry if a pearson 20 won the race everytime???? What would keep the productioni yards in business, who would pay the designers...

Taking my huge heavy, non-surfing warhorse racing would be a good lesson in frustration, and very expensive if I were trying to win. Not to mention the crew needed. I can come up with 4 or so every weekend, but 8-12 to really sail the boat.... No way....

On an around the bouys racing team I, like Seth, like to get out there and go with the boats that are light, responsive, surf downwind. If you get a big testestrone storm brewing aboard, and it can be a ton of fun..... I am still trying to get on one of those wetsuit wearing, trapeese leaning tiny fast boats..... However everyone I ask looks at my 240+ pounds, and walks away...

Heading off around the world.....Well I guess you all know what I would choose. e-39, e-46.....

Again Seth, anytime you are out this way, drinks, and dinner aboard are on us..... Just holler, you have the phone number.... :) :egrin:


Guy
:)
 

Kevlarpirate

Member II
I knew this would get exciting!

Seth and all

You have valid points, however, I stress my message
which is: Racing boats are headed in a direction driven by absolute speed. And that is downwind speed only. I personally feel that is very sad. Upwind performance, where by the way, I feel is more exciting, has been sacrificed. The fact that upwind racing is not as popular is based on the downwind excitement factor being greater. Downwind racing creates lighter, more flimsy boats, many are un-seaworthy. Upwind racing creates stronger safer boats with higher freeboard.

My statement that CCA and early IOR were the best designed boats, I say is correct. The small rudders were bad, true, and that can easily be changed, but that was measurement thing, and again makes my point that wrong directions can have consequences. The “Terrorist” issue, another case in point you point out. I should modify my statement to read; the best boats were CCA-early 70’s designs with larger rudders. There is no argument that earlier boat designs were more seaworthy than today’s racers. Yes, CCA boats had low freeboards aft, but they had sheer and high bows. The concept of a foot deep of green water shooting down the deck was almost impossible. You mention that blocks exploded on heavier boats, well I am seeing some really flimsy blocks on today’s boats, using line for fastening! Certainly as loads are decreased, hardware follows. As for the loose ballast, that was a rating level thing and to not have it tied down is again a risk that was taken and lost on.

Tell me seriously, would you take one of this latest breed boats around the world? I certainly wouldn’t. And I don’t have much faith they will improve in these areas of concern. Kialoa, with her 40 lb vice, will give me all the thrill I need. I hope these young guys on VOR are aware of these design and construction issues,

As for ultimate static stability, Fastnet 79 said it all, and where has it gone from there?? Guess what, it got worse! When you take ballast out of the keel and then make up the righting moment with excess aft beam, you bury the bow going up and pull the rudder out of the water. That is just unacceptable period. Then wait until you trip on that leeward rail and flip on a wave just a third the length of the boat!

With every advance in materials and process technology have come improvements in capability, and that’s a good thing. Most, which made it to market have proven useful and safe, and if applied to those earlier hull designs; results would be awesome! The problem, as I see it, is that these new designs are being driven by unchecked adrenaline. Even the new Swans look compromised. We are lucky that Boeing doesn’t operate that way. As for the new and useful designs in hardware, sails and stronger materials, myself and people like Guy will apply them to our (well designed) battlewagons, and we will go up in style! I guess I’m just an upwind kinda guy.
I’m actually very glad however, most others have their downwind camp, and I respect the excitement it delivers to them. I have done it too. But speaking very selfishly, downwind racing has thrown boats like ours on the market, and we were there to gobble them up at very good prices.
KEV
 

Mindscape

Member III
It's racing - let them race

If a bunch of guys that work out how to afford it want to build extreme boats and sail them until they almost break, or in some cases do break, who are we to judge. As Seth says they'll work out the bugs and maybe go even faster. With a little luck we'll all learn from their experiences, doesn't mean we are going to go buy boats like V70's. Car racing goes thru the same process, as the formulas change to control safety, which in car racing is often associated with speed, the designers develop new ways to go fast. The trickle down to the cars we drive benefits all of us.

I vote we sit back and enjoy the show, watch the cool video on the web and learn from what these guys are doing. I don't vote for everyone to go out and buy V70 style boats, but if I get a chance I'm gong for a ride.
 

Martin King

Sustaining Member
Blogs Author
It's sort of funny that you used Terrorist as an example of a cutting
edge race boat of her time when her ilk (bilge boarders) were my
dad's protest to the rule writers of the day. He felt that the architects
of the IOR were headed in the wrong direction-basically encouraging
boats that were unsafe in a sea way and like to invert...and stay that
way. Racing boat designers are forced to shave the safety margins
on everything down to nothing. Yeah the 79 Fastnet was bad but
to me, the classic example has to be 1Australia folding up like a
pocket knife and sinking like a stone. There is a line from Top
Gun that I think is appropos-"that was some of the best flying
I ever saw, right up to when you got killed!"

Martin
E 31C
 

bigtyme805

Member III
The designs will never be perfected, they will always have weaknesses. Wait until the next big low developes and they are caught in that. The men who race these boats understand the risks, it's all part of the sport. Remember they all have a choice, just like those men who crab fish off the coast of Alaska.
 

ted_reshetiloff

Contributing Partner
My $.02 here so please take it for what its worth...

I'm with Martin here in that IOR produced some of the worst boats ever from a stability perspective. Static stability is completely meaningless unless you plan to sail your boat with a dock tied to it. It's dynamic stability that matters. A.J Marchak's book "Seaworthiness The Forgotten Factor" tells all the horrors of IOR. As for race boats being designed for down wind sailing that is only partially true. VOR boats sail a downwind course. Designing an upwind optimized boat for that race would a really foolish idea, it is a race afterall. In general I would say that since the 79' Fastnet things have gotten better. There are far fewer tradgedies in offshore racing today than there were in the IOR period. Hulls plane now for one thing. The IOR produced boats that had righting moments and stability ratings that would permit them to remain in a turtled position. Offshore race boats today need to pass capscize screening tests today that IOR boats never would have passed. Dont get me wrong I own and love my IOR influenced Ericson 38. But its no blue water boat and I have no problem accepting that.
 

Seth

Sustaining Partner
Thread beat to death?

Maybe so....
Martin, you are right of course about the "statement" made by Terrorist, Hawkeye, and Aggressive II. But BOY were they cool boats-ESPECIALLY upwind. I loved them-even if they were different-my example of Terrorist was definitely not to illustrate any failure of design, rating rule or anything-they were brilliant-my only reason to bring it up is that they were new, cutting edge, and as such had some early problems-that generally got sorted out-like most things.

The V 70 go upwind at about 14 knots, so it is hard to say they don't go uphill. What can be said is that when sailing hard, they are very uncomfortable, but certainly very quick on all points of sail.

I am going to check out of this thread by saying that SOME of the late CCA/early IOR boats were GREAT seaboats, and some were not. This will always be the case. SOME of the Fastnet 79 boats had real issues, some did not. Some new boats are great, and some are not.

When we talk about bad behavior of a boat at sea-always consider the big picture. When sailed HARD downwind, most of those CCA/IOR boats were no fun at all to steer and be aboard-just the way it was, and this includes the lovely 39 and 46. BUT, for cruising? Great! Why? Just back off a bit on the gas pedal and they became sweethearts. If you don't need that last knot of speed, take that kite down and wing out a jib, and now you have a GREAT seaboat. Upwind, they are more comfy than the newer sled boats without a doubt, but not as fast.

I personally enjoy the modern boats very much as well as the older ones-they all have their good and bad traits-it is what makes the world go round.

Ted-SOME of those early IOR boats would not pass today, true, but many would-there were good ones and not so good ones-it is hard to generalize or paint with a broad brush. Many old IOR warhorses have made great world cruisers-they do great when sailed appropriately, and finally, although the 38 was not designed strictly to any rule, it sure has some genetic material from the IOR, but I would consider the 38 a very good blue water boat-at least as far as the hull shape and construction go.

Finally-when looking up that rig tuning document, I found the POLARS for the 38-under the Performance Package US Sailing. Print it out and keep a copy on board-it should be a great help to give you best angles for VMG upwind and downwind, and target speeds at different windspeeds and angles..


Happy Trails,
S
 

ted_reshetiloff

Contributing Partner
Seth once again you have summed up my thoughts. I probably did over generalize in my earlier post. As for the 38 Polars, I was the one who sent those in to get on the site. I have not yet started using them as my boat is still a bit out of tune. But soon my friend very soon...
 

Seth

Sustaining Partner
Ahhh, so

It was pretty neat to see them (the Polars). For those of you will any version of the 38 series, and the newer 34 (BK), 35-3, and even the 32-3, I would bet that while speeds are not right, the boats are similar enough that you could use the angles from the 38 polars-meaning you could tell the best True or Apparent wind angle for optimal upwind and downwind VMG at the various windspeeds. If you are trimming reasonably well, you will be in ballpark-it is better than nothing. Heck, you might even use the waterline length differences from the 38 as a percent factor, and apply them to your boats (if the 35-3 has 8% less LWL than the 38, the speeds may be ROUGHLY 8% slower-ROUGHLY).
Like I said, better than nothing, and the price is right!!:D

S
 

Kevlarpirate

Member II
Sorry one last msg.

Mindscape: Of course technology moves society forward and it is borne out . As an example similar to our racing the autobahn is claimed responsible for moving German engineering forward) . Problem here is that our test bed is the nasty big ocean. Boats sink, people drown. Airframe and auto manufacturers have agencies overlooking them. The last thing I want is an agency restricting us. The direction we are headed in may produce regulations made by idiots that don’t understand our sport and ruin a lot for us. It is more than an issue of working out bugs. I am addressing a design direction based on ultimate speed that compromises seaworthiness and safety. You say you would like a chance for a ride. But I ask again, with your own and the others experience reading these posts , would you commit to sailing around the world in one of these tea cups? When we were young
we thought we were invincible, as I believe these young VOR crew feel. We watch and cheer them on from the sidelines. I just hope they actually do know the risks.

Good point Martin on 1Australia, good that the chase boat was near, would have been different had it been in 1000 miles out. My other point: fine for protected water, Not good for open ocean. BTW that was a dark day for me, as being in-front of cameras, it sent a really bad message.

Ted: I would guess your static limit is in the high 120’s. Lets compare: A J-35 is 105… Hmm, was that an IOR boat? Static stability IS very important. A high static limit allows very bad dynamics (waves) and still survive also vive versa. You also say an upwind designed boat would do badly on “that (downwind) race” Yes, my point; that racing courses are now predominantly downwind!
How about an upwind around the world race That would evolve a very different design.
A stronger , higher freeboard forward and of course deeper forward entry.
But of course that would be boring and tedious.

Seth I know you are out and so am I . I have made 2 points, more than once.
BTW you need over 100 feet on waterline to do14 kts. unless you are planning in which case your BAW goes forward. You can only sheet in so far, so the heading you fall off to is a lower bearing and your VMG may actually be hurt or minimally better. Upwind VMG may be greater or not than a boat like Kialoa or Sorcery (M84) but you will be sailing lower over ground. In the case of clearing an obsticle like land you would have to tack. Of course it’s faster so it’s more fun. And the rig loads are greater uh oh ! I would love to see the upwind polars on these boats.

I thank all of you for the very interesting responses. Sail on!
KEV
 

Seth

Sustaining Partner
No worries

J-35. Not an IOR boat at all (J34 and 41 were), and the 1 or 2 that had IOR certs could never sail to the rating-which is not to say it is not a fast boat-it was just a clean sheet design with great all around performance-although it is more of a Long Beach/San Pedro boat than a Newport Beach boat-check out the PHRF ratings-it gets a credit in lighter air regions, rates faster in breezy locales. . And that Static Stability thing is funny for the J35-which happens to be considered a VERY stable, and stiff boat. The J35 was the design used to demonstrate that this was not aways indicative. These boats were banned from one of the Major Offshore events (I think it was Bermuda), while other boats, which DID have stability issues were allowed....

As for the 70's, the 1.34 X sq.rt of LWL does not apply to these boats. Not because they are planing (of course at broader angles they do surf and plane), but because there is so much excess horsepower. They will will jib reach (not surf, just sail straight) at 18 knots in 18 knots of wind. For days on end. And they can get off a lee shore just fine, other than giving a very bouncy and uncomfortable ride-which is really the issue with these things. The motion is so violent at times that off watch crew have been bruised up-and this is no fun, but they will blow any of those Kialoa/Sorcery types going upwind any time. And the rig loads are MUCH less than on a similarly sized IOR boat....

And as Chris said, the Clipper Race, with boats much more similar to the Kialoas and Sorcery's of the world, had worse structural problems than the V 70s-and ALL of them are hauled out while they try and figure out how to make them safe enough to go back to sea..This does not mean they are bad boats-any more than the 70's are bad boats-but both need some refinement..
But we should stop this, right?:)
 
Last edited:

Martin King

Sustaining Member
Blogs Author
The E38 influenced by IOR? In what way? I remember asking my
dad why he hollowed out the waterlines forward near the stem? He
told me he felt like it on that particular day! Hardly the criteria for
some rule beater! I clearly remember some of the design brief from
upper E management for those later 34's, 35's, and the 38 and it
was to make the interiors more conducive to getting laid! The exact
wording used was "make them more f*able!". How's that for some trivia?
That's what I call market influence. LOL!

Martin
E31C
 
Top