Yes we do, Paulo. Let me know whenever you would be in the neighbourhood of Nieuwpoort and we will have fun together
Finer entries are linked to better or at least more comfortable upwind performance. Although David Raison (what’s in a name?) surprised almost everybody with his “scow” bowed mini TeamWork Evolution, which only dislikes oncoming waves but otherwise outperforms every other 6.50, even upwind.
Look at the boat, can anyone understand how Ola could miss this huge opportunity to promote their Magnum ice-cream lolly by sponsoring David Raison
? But that’s another story and probably out of thread.
Anyway, the bigger the boat, the easier it seems for the architect to give it a fine entry. This certainly has to do with internal volume, but I am sure there are many more good reasons why smaller boats have more bulky lines in the forward sections.
I ‘ve seen VPP and VMG figures that suggest the Pogo 12.50 should even be able to keep up with a racer such as the X41 upwind (fastsailing.gr - The crazy polar diagrams - VMG at all angles - The yacht , Stunningly fast!
When I look at our actual upwind GPS tracks on the screen, I find this very hard to believe. But as we learn, especially about trimming, we definitely make progress. Who knows, one day… As soon as we can collect reliable data and have made sensible comparisons on the water, I’ll certainly let you know.
But as Paulo stated, even apart from handicap considerations (horrible for any Pogo, designed without any consideration for any handicap rule), racing results indicate we will very probably never be able to stand out in an upwind course.
Concerning B/D ratio, I think the draught should also be taken into consideration. There must be a big difference in righting moment, and thus in both security and power, between the same ballast weight in a 2m deep massive cast iron keel or in a 3m deep composite construction with all the weight in lead and in in the bottom section. As far as I know only Structures is offering this latter kind of build for cruisers and I understand they want to keep the details of this design for themselves.
On the other hand, the much lower centre of gravity will act even more like a pendulum which, together with the overall light weight design, should result in a less comfortable motion against waves. That’s probably also why we should not try to sail close-hauled but concentrate upon keeping up both speed and power by bearing down a little.
I couldn’t tell if the more modern design of the 12.50 performs better upwind than the 10.50. When sailing the 10.50 our upwind tracks were also quite lousy and the speed also quite exhilarating. I’m sure Structures will very honestly answer that question, Mr. W.
But I can assure you that a deep keel and a big beam do give you tremendous power. When we hit 18 knots without surfing but against a light swell, we had about 25 knots of TWS on a broad reach and only the (full) main + solent up. I don’t think we will ever try the asymmetric spi or even the code 0 in these conditions, after all the 12.50 is only a cruiser.
Even so I wonder why the 8.50’s did not do well in the Transquadra, while the 6.50’s took the first eight places in the Transat 6.50, both mainly downwind races. And why nobody chose a 10.50 to compete. These are absolute facts I cannot explain but I’m confident Paulo will.
Weight is indeed a major issue on this kind of boats. That’s why our son and most fanatic sailor Jim has been appointed as our “weight watcher”. Being the youngest, he has the best chances to resist Mum’s urge to fill up the boat with stuff we don’t even use at home. And to persuade Dad to drag the dehumidifier and the folding bike back to the car bunk before we go out sailing. Or to keep a sharp look at the water tanks, since they must not be filled up as long as we can take a shower ashore. Kids…
I personally feel very secure about the swinging keel, Mr. W. It will certainly much better absorb the loads when running aground than any fixed construction. The hydraulic overpressure valve will let it cant, instead of having the hull take the full impact. Be it on sand or on rocks, at speed you will need to repair the outer damage to the GRP (in fact it is GR vinylester) shell anyway. I have also no worry about lateral loads, since the keel is designed to sustain a quite huge righting moment. It is designed to bend, which it even does in normal sailing mode.
The space is big for a 40 footer, inside and outside, as you can expect with a 4.50m beam. At our little “housewarming” reception the main cabin hosted 17 of us, albeit sitting and standing in all possible and impossible places. This would have been much easier in the cockpit, if it weren’t for the cold and heavy rainfall.
All the classic (and my opinion impractical) storage space beneath the bunks is taken up by water tanks or by foam to make the boat unsinkable, but this leaves sufficient stowage to completely overload the boat. The capacity of both the starboard technical/stowage/spare sleeping cabin and the cockpit locker is simply huge.
Apart from headroom, the volume was the main reason why we chose for the 12.50 instead of the 10.50.
So Jim’s job is absolutely essential to prevent us from loading and keep TriMen planing