First of all, to let things clear, not properly to you but to all, let me say that I love the Pogo design. That design is associated with proposing a boat with amazing performances at a price people can buy (at leat some:D). Other type of fast boats with more ballast ratio and more narrow are more expensive to build and also more difficult to sail near the limits, specially downwind.
That does not mean that the boat is perfect and has not weak points and strong points neither it is the best answer to all sailors or all sailing conditions, even considering speed alone.
No doubt, Paulo. If the boat has met most of our expectations so far, it’s is only because of our own and very personal sailing ambitions. Or because we have not yet had enough experience with it
But there’s absolutely no way this kind of design will please every sailor. Different programs, different priorities, different tastes, that’s what makes this thread so interesting to me
Those polar consider flat water. The Pogo type design will not have a problem going fast upwind on flat water, even if a bit more off the wind.
These VPP’s and polars are indeed very theoretical. It seems clear to me that we will never be able to keep up with an X41 upwind, even in flat sea conditions. If we ever do, there will be champagne for everyone
The problem of those designs has to do with going fast upwind with waves.
The bigger the waves the worse is the performance. That has to do with wave drag that is increasing exponentially in that boat when crashing through waves, making it lose more power than the one the boat can generate over other type of boats. Of course the big power needed to go on those conditions and the big wave drag make also the boat very uncomfortable in that particular case.
Our very first experiences in strong wind-against-tide conditions tend to confirm this. It needs quite hard work at the helm to keep the boat comfortable.
But we think we still have a lot to learn, about trimming as well as about steering, especially upwind. I’ll be glad to post the data as soon as we have become sufficiently confident.
I have saw that 40 class racers, that are a much more powerful boat than your Pogo, have not good performances when they got nasty weather upwind. On the last "around NZ race really nasty weather lead to the abandon of the Pogo 40 class racer that was having a bad performance, beaten even by narrow old boats, but that were really very bad conditions. Other boats with the same type of design also experienced difficulties and an overall bad performance. The guys on the Pogo were good, they are one of the main racing teams on that side of the world and the only one that races (for years) with a 40class boat on ocean races. It is the same team that had made several Sydney-Hobart with that boat.
These kinds of boats perform very differently in different kinds of races. No wonder, they are after all “open” designs resulting from so called “box rules”. But I still cannot explain why the 8.50’s performed so badly in the Transquadra and 10.50’s didn’t even compete, while the 6.50’s keep on killing everybody in the Mini Transat, since both are mainly downwind races.
Regarding this I have to disagree with you. A narrow foil with a torpedo has a better performance than your swing keel. It offers less drag (less surface) and it brings the CG lower.
Have a look at the picture on the JPK 38. The keel CG is marked on each one and you can see that is remarkably lower on the torpedo keel:
This is a similar keel to the one that you have in your boat. Highly efficient for a swing keel but not a match for a fixed top keel. That is why for the same ballast the Pogo has to have a bigger draft on the swing keel (kell down) than on the fixed keel.
I fully agree that in order to achieve the same CG a swinging keel has to be deeper than a fixed T-keel and that the slimmer design will indeed result in a larger wet surface and therefore more drag. I only hope the higher aspect ratio will compensate this with less drift upwind.
The point I wanted to make is that a keel with a composite foil and a lead ballast (as Structure does with the canting keels) will perform better than exactly the same design made in cast iron (as most other builders do).
JPK also offered this kind of high-tech, high-aspect composite/lead swinging keel option, but they have now dismissed it. I wonder why, because the ability to switch from maximum performance to minimum draft in only minutes can be a very valuable option in high tide and often shoal sailing waters like ours.
Regarding the weight of your boat, I would very much liked to see its "real" weight because I have some difficulty in believing in the 5500Kg that are given by the factory. The designer gives it more weight and I would still be waiting to see a boat that could be made with less weight than the one that is given by a designer like Finot. Normally the finished boat has more weight, not less.
I also wondered about these differences in given weight. Could this be because of different standards when considering weight and load (with our without certain items) between the architect and the builder, or are these measures always well defined ans standardised?
In my experience Structures has always been very honest with all their information. And I believe the infusion building technique results in much lesser weight differences than e.g. hand lay-up does.
But I will certainly inform you whenever I get the opportunity to weigh our boat. And of course only after our “weight watcher” Jim has removed all the completely useless gear Mum and Dad have accumulated
Regarding that less comfortable motion against the waves due to a "pendulum effect" I believe you are wrong. When there are waves there is wind and the boat will be strongly "tied" to a side by the wind force and there is no wave that is going to make it roll from one side to the other. As I have explained the substantially bigger beam on the Pogo will make him less comfortable on waves due to a superior wave drag.
What you saying related with the pendulum effect can happen downwind but not in a boat like the JPK that has already a considerable beam and a lot of form stability. That would happen surely on the Aspect 40 if the crew is not on top of it and by crew I don't mean a single guy;)
In any circumstances the boat has absolutely no tendency to roll, I can confirm that.
I only thought the 3m deep keel could induce more pitching when sailing upwind and against waves. I’m happy to hear this is no real issue, one more lesson learned Paulo!
The JPK 38 has not only a considerable beam but also a hull shape that don't allow great angles of heel, like the Pogo. The JPK 38 is really a mix between the hull shape of a Pogo and that for instance of an A35, trying to get advantages from both sides. Off course it will not be as good downwind as a Pogo, but will be more comfortable and better upwind (taking into consideration the different sizes of the boats) or at least is how I see it;).
I fully agree that the JPK looks like a wonderful performance cruiser and that it will make many a sailor very happy.
That could even include me, if only it hadn’t an interior with so many doors
Although it’s easier to replace doors by curtains than the other way
P.S. My first try at "multi quoting", I obviously didn't get it all right...