On another thread I posted this about a surprising boat for the time, the Fiery Cross, the first canting keeler.
Originally Posted by PCP
This certainly comes as a surprise:
In his book Sensible Cruising Designs, L. Francis Herreshoff promulgated the concept of a slim, canting-keel, 45-foot cruiser as the "ultimate sailing machine." In 1957, Kiwi designer Jim Young built the boat out of kauri wood; with Herreshoff's permission, he made some slight alterations to the design. "He added a foot of beam, fortunately, expanding it from six feet to seven feet," says Gary. "It made her somewhat habitable down below."
Though Fiery Cross was New Zealand's first canting-keel raceboat, after only a couple of years the boat was given a fixed keel to comply with the racing rules of the time.
On "modern" times the concept was reinvented by Pascal Conq that was the one to use it successively in racing boats, I mean canting keels as we know them today. Him and his senior partner Finot (and some other French designers) were the ones that developed a reliable system as we know it today, working on Open60, that were much the testing boats were was made all the extensive testing to make them reliable.
Looking at Fierry Cross system I have some doubts regarding its reliability but then at the time they do not have the technology to do better than that.
I agree that the boat is not only a breakthrough in design as it is very modern even if it escapes completely the concept of a planning boat. I am quite sure the boat is still a very good boat upwind.
It certainly deserves its place on this thread. The boat:
some more interesting information on the words of the designer, Jim Young:
In L. Frances Herreshoff’s book Common Sense of Yacht Design, he advocated the system of canting the keel to windward to get the stability of a beamy boat, but in a narrow hull and without the drag of wide beam.
I thought that a great idea. It would add greatly to the sensation of sailing, great for cruising or reaching up to Kawau Island and up the northern coast. So I built her with that set-up in mind and you can see in the photograph of the hull being turned over of a hollow where the keel fin was recessed.
I knew that if you wanted speed then the boat would have to be long. And to keep costs down the hull would have to be narrow, plus having light gear with a light rig and everything else light and inexpensive. And the type of hull itself was the same as Herreschoff had advocated in his book, a double ended hull.
I had some correspondence with him because the boat he drew was the same length, 45 feet, but had only 6 foot (13.7 x 1.8 m) beam with 6.5 foot (2 m) draught. And I wanted to make this boat 7 foot (2.13 m) beam and so I wrote to him saying I was interested in his ideas but wanted to increase beam and asked him what he thought of that. He was full of enthusiasm and pleased to see someone carry out his ideas."
Jim Young was one of the greater NA of the XX century and if he had lived in Europe he would have been much more well known.
It is very interesting to hear him talk about the evolution of modern boats, from Fiery Cross to his more modern and faster hull forms. Lets hear what he has to say:
Jim Young: A Contrast in Hull Forms
In this article Jim examines the transition from the first canting keel boat 'Fiery Cross' through to the modern ultra light displacement boats (ULDB).
Fiery Cross. Not only a New Zealand first but the world's first with a canting keel. Although that distinction hadn't entered my mind. It took another 50 years for the ban on it's use while racing to be relaxed. Fiery Cross was meant firstly for coastal cruising. Fast and with no vices. She never once broached although she broke more than one rudder stock. But that was another learning curve.
Started building in 1945. Launched in 1958. LOA 45ft (13.7m) LWL 41ft (13.5m) Beam 7ft 2in (2.18m) Draft 6ft 4in (1.93m) Disp 4.6 tons SA 550 sq ft (51 sq m) Accommodation 6 berths, galley and toilet. Max disp. hull speed 9 knots. Construction 18mm glued double diagonal kauri on 40 x 22mm stringers on edge. I was building her alone spare time so it was much easier to use short diagonal planking.
The hollow mild steel faired fin had a 2.2 ton lead semi bulb. It was attached to the hull by two massive steel hinges and controlled by a vertical steel tube with a bearing at the deckhead. The tube was joined to a 100mm diameter stainless steel shaft that passed down through a 100mm diameter gland. The shaft was then bent aft to the 22.5 degree Max. When heeled at 22.5 degree and the keel canted to the maximum it was at 45 degrees.
The extra speed generated meant the fin retained it's resistance to leeway even at an angle so there was no need for the additional retractable fins as they do now with keels canted by hydraulics to windward so far that they are close to horizontal when at maximum power. Just like aircraft and birds the faster you go the smaller the wings.
The first YOUNG 11 was Honeywell, built by my brother Alan for Ross Field. Ross had the first Young 88 Paddy Wagon (Ross was then a cop). Roger Land saw the Young 11 as a logical step up from the Young 88 and Honeywell became the plug for the fibreglass moulds. With her beamy, dinghy type lines with flared sides Honeywell could hardly differ more from Fiery Cross.
I don't know of any boats with that hull form before 1980 but now they appear the most common hull form. In fact I wrote a piece published in Sea Spray in 1980 suggesting two designs of that hull form as ideal to exploit the spectacular weight savings with added strength in the new light weight structural system. Unidirectional glass laid over both faces of a strip planked core.
The Young 88 and then radical Rocket 31 were ideal for the new technology which offered great strength with spectacular saving in weight. It is now popularly known as Cedar Core construction. The Y88 plug was built by Greg Elliott and the Rocket 31 was built by Terry Cookson. They were the first yachts to be built using the technology....
Camp Freddie, a Rocket 31 built and sailed by Greg Peck in the UK won every regatta she entered. She was the overall winner of Class One Cowes week in the UK in 1994. In strong winds. Her slightly lower spec. sister Zapata won Class Two. Camp Freddie then went on to win the Round Isle of Wight race against 1800 starters. The only New Zealand design to make such a coupe. Yet the local yachting press didn't even notice!
The concept of the light, dinghy type, high performance keel yacht had never been seen in the Northern Hemisphere. Nor had it been seen in New Zealand before 1980. I believe it was the astounding performance of Camp Freddie (one UK yachting scribe describing her as looking like a squashed jandal) that inspired the now globally popular production sports yacht.
I think Jim Young is too modest: "The concept of the light, dinghy type, high performance keel yacht had never been seen in the Northern Hemisphere. Nor had it been seen in New Zealand before 1980. .I believe it.. inspired the now globally popular production sports yacht".
Not only production sports yachts but also cruising boats. Look at this hull designed in the late 70's and compare it with modern production cruisers:
Some of the new ones are even more what he calls "dinghy type" than the rocket design. A truly great designer, one that was incredibly ahead of its time, one that brought to the modern sailboat design a huge contribution and yet a not very well known one. That's quite an injustice!!!
For the ones that have an hard time looking at drawings the real thing is much more revealing. This one that looks a brand new design is just a 25 year old design from him:
and as you can see the performance is a very good one:
It looks like a modern boat till you have a better look to the winches that are not even self tailing
I hope this post contributes a bit for a better knowledge of one of the great NAs ever: Jim Young.He certainly deserves that.
After having lost a huge amount of time on anchor having its generators fully reviewed and repaired, being racing fast and overtaking other boats, he made contact with something that just ripped off his port side hydrogenerator and put the second hydrogenerator out of order. He is going to the Horn to stop again and try to repair the only one he has now. If he can he has to give up since these boats cannot work without electric energy.
Well they can but at a such a slow pace that would not be racing anymore.
On Sunday morning, around 3.30AM (French time), Bernard Stamm informed his shore crew he had hit an unidentified floating object, which ripped off his port side hydrogenerator. Is second hydrogenerator seems to be out of order too and it is apparently impossible to recharge.
Because of previous energy-related issues, there is not enough fuel stocked on board.
Bernard therefore explained his team he was shutting down all energy-consuming devices to save the little energy he had left for the autopilot. Since then, the Cheminées Poujoulat Sailing Team has not heard from the yacht.
He was 1060 miles away from Cape Horn at 7.30AM (French time).
We are currently studying all available solutions, like finding a sheltered area where Bernard could consider getting fuel as the yacht safety is jeopardized.
Possible shelters seem to be located after the Cape Horn rounding. Weather conditions are tough with changing winds, rough sea and cold temperatures. Ice has also been detected in the area.
Here is what Bernard Stamm needs energy on board for:
- The autopilot, a capital tool when sailing solo
- Water maker (The team has no idea how much water he has left)
- Reception of weather files (the current conditions are difficult) and ice data (ice has been detected in the area)
- The central navigation computer showing wind direction and speed, boat data (speed, heading, position) and maps
- Position lights
- The AIS showing marine traffic
- The radar
- Moving the keel
- The VHF
- The mini-lab
Régis Rassouli (Cheminées Poujoulat team communication manager) during the Web TV Live show:
We’ve been in touch with Bernard and last night, he told us he had to shut down everything because there is very little fuel left on board.
He was a little bit more than 1,000 miles away from the Horn when it happened. The weather is bad, there is ice in the area, it’s a very tricky situation. So we’re working on several possibilities to find a shelter or get additional fuel. We’re checking the weather and it’s stressful because we know Bernard has no way to receive weather data any more. The boat and Bernard’s safety are clearly jeopardized.
This Sydney Hobart will be remembered not by racing but mostly by controversy. on the news the controversy become bigger than the race
Some pretty unusual things happened this year: One of the main contenders, Ragamuffin Loyal, clearly made a false start but wasn't penalized because the procedure for recalling the boat was not followed by the officials????? and wild thing (ex Skandia) other of the main competitors, was ruled out 3 hours before the start of the race???? allegedly because it had not deliver all paper work related with the boat safety, namely regarding a recent modification.
"‘The wording here on this report says quite simply, that the information provided in the assessment undertaken, (as per) that the modification falls within the minimum scope of the ABS guide.
'The wording is pretty simple and clear in our opinion, in so far that it falls within the guide. It doesn’t pull up short of saying it is designed in accordance with the guide. It is all in the words, so I am not quite sure where they are coming from. I am dumbfounded’, Wharro added. "
In fact if it is only this is pretty ridiculous because something that is inside the minimum scope is made according with the ABS guide, but it seems that there is more to it and that most of these boats are old and cannot simply qualify inside class A EC category that today is mandatory for offshore races (for boats made recently), furthermore it seems that the alteration was not projected by an NA and that only later one was called to say that what was already made was OK and inside ABS rules.
Anyway all this is quite odd because if a NA certified the boat saying that it was made according with the rules it is his responsibility and the race direction has no power or authority to put that in question. Furthermore no clarification was made by the race direction except to say that the needed documents were not delivered.
Face to the skipper statements regarding all needing documents to have been delivered and taking into consideration that Wild Thing was a main contender, the direction should have made clear what was the problem and what was missing. Not having done so made all this subject suspicious and gave some credibility to the conspiratorial theory that was suggested by Wild Thing skipper, Grant Wharington.
This ones will not interest anyone in what regards having one, unless that there is a billionaire following this thread but interests me and I hope some more because they are just beautiful. I rather much prefer to have very rich guys sailing this beauties and given us the pleasure to look at them then to see them on those monstrous and ugly gigantic motorboats, not even mention pollution.
Most of this beauties are made in Italy were it seems that rich men have a better taste and choose in a considerable number sailing Yachts instead of Motor yachts. This shipyard is not an Italian one, it is on South Africa. South Africa producing luxury sailing yachts? Well it makes sense when you discover that the owner is an Italian
The owner, Guglielmo Persico, and yachtsman himself as a great taste and just had some of the best world Architects (Farr, Reichel-Pugh and Nauta) for designing the boats under his specifications that turned out where just what rich man wanted. Not difficult for him, since he is one of them:
Our aim is to meet the needs of our clients who consider their yachts as vehicles to a better life.
Our vision is to deliver yachts that are designed and built to enjoy sailing and the marine environment to the full.
Our goal is to allow our clients to be able to choose where and when to enjoy their sailing with no compromise on safety or comfort, regardless of destination or weather conditions.
Our desire is to build yachts for fast ocean passages, competitive racing, thrilling exploration and relaxing cruising in remote locations where very few other yachts can venture.
We make a special effort to provide information about our yachts in a rigorous manner, so as to assist our owners through the challenging process of choosing the best compromise between blue water capability, comfort and performance.
We want our owners to enjoy the build process and to contribute their ideas so as to produce the semi-custom yacht most suited to their needs.
We strive to accomplish our goals through coherent analysis of our decisions by weighing up the pros and cons of every solution.
We wish to share our philosophy with our clients, as they are the source of inspiration behind its principles.
Great stuff, I'd give my left nut to sail that SW110 single handed for an hour or two. Can you feel the power or what just from the videos.
Nice to know that someone besides me really loves that boat
You know, even on this type of yachts is starting the debate in what regards to what is the best hull form. Take a look at the designs and dimensions of the SW 110:
We can see that it is a narrow hull. Bigger boats can have narrower hulls but even so it is pretty narrow and very elegant. We can see also that it has a modern keel the kind that some insist it is only for racing boats.
Now take a look at this one, slightly smaller 30.48m to 33.60 but with more beam 8.30m to 7.30m and a completely different hull design, a Jean Marie Finot design that will be in the water this year:
The boats have similar designed keels but the one one the Finot design is a lifting one giving a better smaller draft and a better deep draft 5.4m/3.0m to 4.2m. The B/D ratios are 29% for the Finot and 37% for the Farr. In the end those 1,2 more meters on the Farr draft would almost balance the effectiveness of the two ratios and then the Finot has much more hull form stability and also two 9.5T lateral water ballasts.
This would make the Finot a much more powerful and stiff boat and we can see the difference in the sail they carry upwind, 690m2 for the smaller boat and 592m2 for the Farr design. Off course the narrower and bigger boat would have less drag upwind and will need less sail for the same speed and it has also a bigger LWL so I would not be surprised if the Farr would be faster upwind, but downwind Jesus I am very curious the see the speed they can get out of that baby and I would not be surprised if they could go nearer or at 30K. They can carry 1400m2 of sail downwind.
But the main difference and the one that I think it is more important is in the crew that is needed to sail both boats. 3 or 4 on the Finot and a at least the double on the Farr boat.
Depending on the Finot Maxi designed performance, that I think it is going to be smashing on a transat and less so on more traditional races, we are probably going to see more of the type of Maxis appearing: One of the reasons a big sailboat is so expensive is the need to maintain and pay a big crew all year long.
With this one the costs regarding that would be cut in half not to mention the pleasure of having less crew around on the sailboat. The Finot type of Maxi will allow not only less crew but also more passengers , about the double regarding crew/passenger and as these boats are also chartered this can turn out to be a really improvement in what regards boat costs versus boat income.
Seems Gabart made the better decision, it's 80miles and rising...
103NM now but even if it is not showing yet I believe Armel is recovering: He has now a better angle and more wind but I don't believe he can recover 50nm and probably it will recover just a bit over half of that.
The only option for Armel now is not following François in what regards the passage of the Doldrums, that are ahead, and hope its choice is better than the one from François. If they come out of it with a 50Nm difference I don't think Armel can pull it off, unless François got in mechanical troubles.