Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat - Page 9 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > On Board > Boat Review and Purchase Forum > Sailboat Design and Construction
 Not a Member? 


Like Tree245Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #81  
Old 04-20-2013
grumpy old man
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,716
Thanks: 1
Thanked 74 Times in 70 Posts
Rep Power: 4
bobperry will become famous soon enough
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

Wolf:
Other than the tack location for the staysail I see no differnce in those rigs. I like the upper rig with the staysail tacked to the stem. I likethe mast location. Not sure what you mean by " Camber" relative to the mast. Masts have rake but I've never seen one with camber. I like your rig. Yeah the boom is a bit long but if it balances then so what.

I thought you had a bowsprit. Am I mistaken?
__________________
Please visit my blog. It's fun to read.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bob's Blog ....

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Please also visit my new web site
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #82  
Old 04-20-2013
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,373
Thanks: 19
Thanked 33 Times in 32 Posts
Rep Power: 3
Brent Swain is on a distinguished road
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobperry View Post
Paulo:
Unless you can retract the keels twin keels have proven over and over to be very slow. There is a huge increase in wetted surface. I think there are places where a twin keel boat would be ideal so the boat can sit upright on the mud at low tide but for Puget Sound that is not very likey.

I would be interested in seeing the study that shows otherwise. I'd have to know exactly how they are defining "efficient". Can you provide a link to that study please? But if it is in French then I won't be able to read much of it.
Twin keels angled out 25 degrees leave the lee keel vertical when the boat is heeled 25 degrees doubling it's lateral resistance ,allowing it to be half the size of a single keel . Thus, properly designed twin keels have exactly the same wetted surface as an equivalent single keel. It is the huge mistake of putting on two single keels ,vertically ,which has given twin keels a bad name
__________________
Brent Swain, Boat designer, Builder, and author of "Origami Metal Boatbuilding"

Last edited by Brent Swain; 04-20-2013 at 05:41 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #83  
Old 04-20-2013
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,170
Thanks: 21
Thanked 96 Times in 80 Posts
Rep Power: 10
PCP will become famous soon enough
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobperry View Post
Interesting design Paulo and certainly not your typical twin keel boat. I know Lombard's work and he is very good. Is the boat designed to sit on the twin keels?

...
Yes,



This is not the boat on the drawing boat but one of the first where he developed the idea, the Randonneur 980. it is an old design (15 years?) and was a design for amateur boat building. This one was built in Canada, it is a nicer one:





Regards

Paulo
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by PCP; 04-20-2013 at 05:55 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #84  
Old 04-20-2013
grumpy old man
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,716
Thanks: 1
Thanked 74 Times in 70 Posts
Rep Power: 4
bobperry will become famous soon enough
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

Brent/Paulo:
Yes, I can see how that works. The Lombard boat looked familar to me. It should I reviewed it last month for SAILING magazine. Unfortunately in the material I was given there were no details of the twin keels and nothing to indicate the cant angle.
__________________
Please visit my blog. It's fun to read.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bob's Blog ....

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Please also visit my new web site
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bobperry; 04-20-2013 at 07:49 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #85  
Old 04-21-2013
PCP's Avatar
PCP PCP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal, West Coast
Posts: 16,170
Thanks: 21
Thanked 96 Times in 80 Posts
Rep Power: 10
PCP will become famous soon enough
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobperry View Post
Brent/Paulo:
Yes, I can see how that works. The Lombard boat looked familar to me. It should I reviewed it last month for SAILING magazine. Unfortunately in the material I was given there were no details of the twin keels and nothing to indicate the cant angle.
Bob, I think the cant Keel angle on that boat is a lot smaller than 25º. The optimal cant angle varies with different hulls. More narrow hulls will sail with more heel and will need a bigger angle while beamy boats will need a smaller angle.

That is the case with that line of designs from Lombard that bases the hull shapes on ocean solo racers that are beamy boats and sail with a relatively small angle of heel.

This is a more modern Lombards design. We can see that the hull is designed to sail with s small heel angle, maybe 17º and the twin keel canting angle is proportional to that.



regards

Paulo
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by PCP; 04-21-2013 at 08:46 AM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #86  
Old 04-21-2013
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 661
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 6
lancelot9898 is on a distinguished road
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

Very interesting thread. Thanks. As I was reading through the discussions and seeing Bob's comment about all boat are designed to sail flat, my first thought was a twin keel. I have a friend who sailed with his wife from New Zealand on such a boat and commented about it's performance through the many gales they saw. They spent a summer on the Cheaspeake and when I took Alex out for a day sail on my Tayana 37, he commented that he was glad his wife was not along because she did not like a boat that heeled. I never did think that I was giving up that much performance by heeling but apparently I am.

One other comment about sail plan that Bob has made concerning the T-37. It is claimed that a ketch rigged Tayana will out sail a cutter rig, however for me to believe it I would have to see that in person. I can understand that the ketch will offer more options for sail reduction, but I'll "race" that ketch any day of the week. If it is true that the ketch is the superior rig in performance then why not consider imcorporating that design. My 2 cents.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #87  
Old 04-21-2013
grumpy old man
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,716
Thanks: 1
Thanked 74 Times in 70 Posts
Rep Power: 4
bobperry will become famous soon enough
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

Lanc:
I have sailed both rigs of the Tayana 37 and I was very impressed with the speed and balance of the ketch. I was less impressed with the speed and balance of the cutter. This is based on "in person" experience and I have a lot of faith in my own observations.
I was a surprised as you. I'd love to have that race with you. Perhaps off the wind the cutter would have the advantage but upwind I'll take the ketch. Over a triangle course the cutter might have the edge. I probably should have been clear on that originally.

Any boat gives up performance when heeled. Keel and rig are just not working optimally. This is why the truly high performace monohulls have been going to canting keels when rules allow them. This is why all race boats pile crew members on the weather rail when beating in any breeze. In some cases in very light air some heel angle can reduce wetted surface and provide better boat speed. Some dinghies sail downwind with a strong heel angle to weather in order to bring the center of rig pressure directly over the center of resistance for the hull. But you only see this on small boats. But you have to balance the need for horsepower with the need to sail a boat flat. In many/most (covering my fanny) cases the horsepower gained by pressing the boat hard overcomes the negative effects of heeling. I sailed an Ultimate 20 owned by a client in a race. The client was insistant that we sail the boat flat and this required some depowering of the sail plan. It didn't work. We were not fast. I finally got my turn and I sheeted everything in hard, tipped the boat on it's ear and we took off.
__________________
Please visit my blog. It's fun to read.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bob's Blog ....

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Please also visit my new web site
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bobperry; 04-21-2013 at 12:30 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #88  
Old 04-21-2013
wolfenzee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: S/V Waltzing Matilda, Port Ludlow, WA (NW Puget Sound)
Posts: 497
Thanks: 2
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Rep Power: 7
wolfenzee is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to wolfenzee
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobperry View Post
Wolf:
Other than the tack location for the staysail I see no differnce in those rigs. I like the upper rig with the staysail tacked to the stem. I likethe mast location. Not sure what you mean by " Camber" relative to the mast. Masts have rake but I've never seen one with camber. I like your rig. Yeah the boom is a bit long but if it balances then so what.

I thought you had a bowsprit. Am I mistaken?
The difference between the two rigs is the tack location, the headstay can be detached from the stem and reattached or shipped completely to allow a large sail to be flown off of the top of the mast.

The mast has a noticeable bend in it, this was achieved during the manufacture of the mast, but tuning adds a bit more, lowers pull forward while intermediates pull back (because the original boom was so long it was not possible to have a fixed backstay).
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #89  
Old 04-21-2013
grumpy old man
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,716
Thanks: 1
Thanked 74 Times in 70 Posts
Rep Power: 4
bobperry will become famous soon enough
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

Wolf:
Ok by "camber" you mean "mast bend". Nothing wrong with mast bend so long as your mainsail luff curve has been built to match it. If not you can pull the camber out out of the mainsail and get a very flat luff.

More terminology:
By " headstay" I mean the stay that goes to the head of the mast.
I use "forestay" to describe the stay inside the headstay.
Are we on the same page now?

I like that arrangement at it gets the center of pressure forward on your smaller jibs and staysails. This helps helm pressure,
__________________
Please visit my blog. It's fun to read.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bob's Blog ....

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Please also visit my new web site
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #90  
Old 04-21-2013
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,582
Thanks: 5
Thanked 95 Times in 71 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about
Re: Bob Perry's take on Wolfenzee's dream boat

I had hoped that this thread would trigger these kinds of “what if’s?” and “howz abouts?” that help explain how design decisions are made. In that regard I like where this thread is going but I also think that some of these discussions, if they continue into a lot more detail, may deserve their own threads. But the two topics currently running interspersed appears to be questions about 1) the choice of rig, and 2) questions about the choice of keel and rudder configuration.

Speaking for myself, since I have not discussed this with Bob and he may have his own point of view that it in a different place than my own, here is my take on these points. (I apologize in advance that I feel a very long pair of answers coming on.)

I will spit this into two separate discussions and posts. The first is on the choice of rig....

Choice of Rig:
As I have often said around here, I see well designed boats being developed as a system of decisions with each decision informing the other. If we start out looking at Atkin’s original design for Wolf’s boat, relative to what we now know about hyrdrodynamics, we see a boat with a lot of wetted surface, an inefficient hull and keel shape, and comparatively little stability for its drag. Wolf’s descriptions of how he sails his boat, basically support these descriptions, which can also be ‘read’ from the drawings if you have a trained eye.

Atkin’s rigs somewhat respond to the realities of that hull form. They are comparatively low aspect ratio, spread out horizontally, for example aft of the transom by the long boom, and so carries its sail area in a way that can generate a lot of power reaching, but which is not optimized for its about to use that sail area efficiently.

And that leads to perfect example of a decision loop. The boat cannot carry a tall rig since it lacks the stability to stand up to that rig so it gets a lower aspect rig. It would not benefit from a more efficient rig, since even with a more efficient rig, its ability to point would still be limited by the high wetted surface and inefficiency of its keel. Therefore the decisions made sense one to the other.

But as we are improving the hull, and keel, reducing drag, increasing stability, and improving the lift to drag characteristics of the keel, if we kept the original rig, it would be the rig which would be holding the boat back from being able to point, or reach efficiently. So the next step is to move to a more efficient rig.

To gain that efficiency the rig got taller, and the large overlapping sails, were designed out of the sail plan. The changes being made to the hull and keel (and which are still in progress when I get a few minutes to draft Bob’s latest comments), are greatly increasing stability, especially a small heel angles, so the boat can carry this bigger sail plan with less of a heel angle.

Considering, the suggestions to consider retaining either a Cutter or Ketch rig, The while both rigs have virtues in some applications, both would be inconsistent with the hull and keel as it is evolving. It is important to go back to the decision loop thought process. Both cutters and ketches are at their best in boats with lots of drag for their stability. These rigs allow the sail plan to be stretched horizontally, and to deal with changing conditions by reconfiguring the sail plan, (i.e. increasing wind- Ketch: going jib and jigger or Cutter going staysail and reefed mainsail, decreasing wind: both adding big genoas and in the case of the ketch, maybe adding mizzen staysails). But these rigs start out with performance limitations in terms of the relative inefficiency requiring a lot more sail area for the drive than a more efficient sail plan, and limitations on pointing ability.

So seen in a decision loop, the high hull drag means that the boat will have limitations on pointing ability, and so the inefficiency of a cutter or ketch rig does not hurt all that much, and besides, the comparatively small stability compared to drag, limits the ability of the designer to design a more efficient rig and expect the boat to stand up to it. And if the boat cannot stand up to its rig, it will be reefed more frequently, and once reefed the rig will once again be reduced to a slightly less efficient sail plan.

But as the boat design evolves so that it has less drag, more stability and more lift out of the keel, then it cries out for a more efficient rig. Because Wolf sails in both coastal and offshore conditions he needs a rig which can sail well in a board range of conditions and which can quickly respond to changing conditions. It needs to sail well in light air, and it needs to weather a storm.

Perhaps as an associated goal, the rig not only needs to be efficient, but be able to adapt to changes in wind and sea state without actually make sail changes (i.e. putting up down wind sails or big genoas at the lighter end of things, and changing to smaller jibs and dousing deep wind angle sails as the breeze builds.

And those are the factors which resulted in the design being shown with the fractional rig. (I don’t want to speak for Bob, and I have to admit that I drew that rig without consulting with Bob, but I knew that both Bob and I sail fractional rigged boats and so rightly or wrongly believed that we would both probably be on the same page regarding the virtues of a fractional rig. )

But there is the theory on this decision seen through the filter of the decision loop. To begin with, the rig became taller and with a little more sail area. As the rig gets taller, and sail are increased, it generates more drive with less aerodynamic drag. This comes at the price of greater side forces which disburse as leeway and heeling forces. The lower resistance hull can actually take advantage of that greater drive and move faster through the water, the greater stability, allows the boat to stand up to the heeling forces, and the more efficient keel, reduces leeway so more of the force can be used for forward motion.

In light air, the combination of a bigger taller sail plan with its minimally overlapping headsail, and reduced hull resistance should allow the boat to move better than the old boat even with its big genoas. There was some mention of fractional rigs needing downwind sails more frequently than masthead rigs. I am not sure that is really true. In very light air, even with a spinnaker up, it makes no sense on almost any boat with a reasonably efficient hull form to head dead down wind. The apparent wind speed when dead downwind becomes so low, that it becomes much faster to sail on broad reach, which the apparent wind speed is much greater, and on that point of sail, a fractional rig gives nothing away to a masthead rig, and frankly typically does better since most of its power is in its mainsail rather that in its jib which on deep wind angles act in the dirty air of the mainsail.

As the wind picks up, better sail shaping gear and the geometry of the fractional rig, allows the sail plan to be easily depowered. This ability to depower easily results in less heeling, a balanced helm and increases the wind range before a reef needs to occur.

But at some point there is too much wind for any rig. It is at that point that the merits of a fractional rig come into their own. Almost all boats develop increased weather helm with increased wind speed. That weather helm is generated by the lever arm between the forward force on the sail (drive) versus the aft force of the hull (drag).

In a typical cutter rig, dropping the headstay sail, moves the center of effort aft increasing weather helm. To offset that and balance the helm, the typical heavy air strategy results in mainsail needing to be reefed when ever the Headstay sail is doused. Because of that, the typical sequence of dealing with heavy air on a cutter is to reef the mainsail, then if more sail area reduction is needed douse the headstay sail. That results in a nice snug rig.

What happens on a fractional rig, is that the location and size of the typical fractional rig AP jib is such that it effectively is sized between the size of the forestaysail and a combined headstay sail and forestay sail. Because of that, the first reef on a fractional rig is typically slightly bigger than on a cutter, but the fractional rig remains more effective because the frac is still able to carry more sail area with less weather helm and heeling. (bigger vertical and horizontal change in CE in the right directions.)

The idea that the Cutter’s forestay sail is its storm jib, can work, but generally doesn’t. The Cutter’s forestay sail is usually too large and of too light a cloth to properly perform in those extreme conditions where a true storm jib is required and so for ocean crossings, a true storm jib would be required on both rigs.

The Ketch rig comes into its own on relatively high drag, low stability boats in venues which are predominantly reaching. They do not do well upwind and downwind, or in lighter air. Therefore a ketch rig would not have the broad range of virtues that would be consistent with our design brief to develop a well rounded design, one that would sail well on a broad range of conditions.
skygazer likes this.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Curmudgeon at Large- and rhinestone in the rough, sailing my Farr 11.6 on the Chesapeake Bay and part-time purveyor of marine supplies

Last edited by Jeff_H; 10-29-2013 at 09:54 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bob Perry's Tragic Loss smackdaddy General Discussion (sailing related) 16 07-09-2013 10:57 AM
What's your dream boat? dovetailnj General Discussion (sailing related) 58 07-08-2013 12:48 PM
What's your dream boat??? DavidB.UK General Discussion (sailing related) 4 06-22-2013 04:06 PM
Perry's new Sunday blog bobperry General Discussion (sailing related) 12 11-07-2011 06:05 PM
A boat dream! pjboots Boat Review and Purchase Forum 28 03-22-2007 03:10 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:27 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.