Canting Keel Trainer

Rcsailing.net New Classes
81

Doug, Doug, Doug …

It is all irrelevant … ALL the boats will be the same - like bathtubs !

It’s trainer. It’s an exercise to put something on the water to compare. Since you can’t/won’t do it, some of us might.

A Blackhawk - one with moving keel and one without. That is what we want to compare. (or similar). Let’s see, if we had to pay you $50 for each post for analysis, - why hell, we couldn’t afford to build the boat - and there STILL would be no specs, no boat, no comparison.

It’s a $90 (US) boat - why does this have to become a project that can’t be started? Why so many concerns, questions, etc. <u>IF</u> <u>you</u> had demonstrated, what all of us have asked for over a year, we all would have seen and known the benefits, and most that were interested would be building an F-100 (or not) because an on-water comparison would have been done a long time ago.

Let’s not be throwing out “issues” this late in the game - remember, you were the one hyping this technology. Now that it is about to take place it seems a little “late” for your concerns. Where were they three - six months ago? I’m not saying the information isn’t helpful - it just seems the closer we get, the more “issues” you seem to have with what we are trying to do.

Correct me if I’m wrong with my BASIC supposition… If we take any two boats - to heck with their size, and one has a moveable keel ballast and one doesn’t - and we put them in the pond and Roy sails one and Rob sails the other - one of them should be ahead at the end of the race. Kind of like we asked you to do - many times over. Show us that one idea will beat the other. Who cares if the keel only cants 45 degrees instead of 55 degrees. Will it be faster around the course than one that doesn’t move? <font color=“red”>That’s the question that I am looking to have answered</font id=“red”>.

If I can get that question answered for $90 dollars - why would I want to spend $250? If I can get the answer by spending $50 dollars, why would I spend $90? If we can demonstrate the canting keel is measurably faster between to rather identical boats - then all those classes that don’t allow them would have something of objective performance to consider - not your subjective posts.

Is this being too basic? I don’t think so. We are trying to accomplish what we asked you to do before. Instead of being negative about canting keel ideas, you really need to embrace this new technology. After all, it will be the fastest thing on the water - or so we have been “told” - we are simply looking for the cheapest way to prove - or disprove what you have been saying.

So come on - place your order with George Dornis at Victor Products, keep the same sail area (and sails) provided in the kit - and come up with YOUR idea of what will work. After all, if we all purchase the same kit from the same supplier, it will be as close to a one design as possible. PLUS, it’s cheaper and has less building than the XL25 ! This leaves you with money and time to develop a keel system. It <u>IS</u> OK if it doesn’t work, by the way! That’s why it is being called a “TRAINER”.

82

Since there are at least a few US1M sailors in this discussion, I have a proposal.

Perhaps the Blackhawk can be turbo’ed up with a US1M rig and sails. That should provide the adequate SA to Disp ratio for a canting keel boat. It is probably simpler to replace the stock rig with another already existing rig than it would be to reduce the keel ballast.

And for $90, I think it is well worth considering the Blackhawk. Heck, maybe Victor would like to market it as the TurboHawk. I think that using an existing sailplan and a fairly simple canting system would make it possible to put this thing on the water for well under our target price of $400.

Certainly, it would be very inexpensive to find out if it would work…

  • Will

Will Gorgen

83

If you guys don’t read some of the stuff about canting keels you can’t possibly create a viable high performance trainer. And a canting keel boat that is not high performance is just another boat.
You absoloutely CANNOT take two identical hulls and two identical rigs put a canting keel on one and expect it to be faster!!! Cain’t be done!!
Canting keels are used in the first place because they allow a design to be lighther, narrower, carry more sail area or a combination of all. If the boat isn’t designed to do this it won’t be competitive with another boat the same size. Please ,just do a little reading! I know some of you have a hard time understanding the concepts but the simple fact is if the boat does not take advantage of the DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES offered by a canting keel and is just thrown together with no design effort on a hull designed for a fixed keel the canting concept will be a simple -and slow-gimmick.
Lets stay at 30" or under and do the job right!!!

Doug Lord
–High Technology Sailing/Racing

84

doug did you just say “high performance trainer”
a trainer should not be “high performance” it should train the person. we have trainer at my club. they cannot sink . they are made of foam
cougar
i cant believe you said that. it must be a misquote

85

Your point is a good one Doug - a canting keel boat generates more righting moment. So you need to take advantage of that righting moment with either less ballast (lighter boat) or more sail area. Otherwise the gains will be minimal.

That’s why I think it would be an interesting demonstrator to take this hull and turbo it up with a bigger sailplan and the canting keel.

Picture this, two boats sailing side by side - one is a standard Blackhawk 32 and the other is a Blackhawk with a US1M rig (substantially more sail area) and a canting keel. The standard Blackhawk is heeling over to say 25 degrees and doing pretty well sailing to windward. The TurboHawk right next to it (in the same wind) is heeling only 10 degrees despite the extra sail area because of the extra righting moment of the canting keel.

That alone would be an interesting comparison. But the net result of that is that the TurboHawk is probably going to be a bit quicker than the Standard boat - Upwind and downwind because of the extra sail area and extra drive that it can carry.

I don’t see a problem with conducting this exercise. It looks like the Blackhawk is a decently high performance machine - certainly a lot higher performance than a Soling (no offense towards Solings intended) or a Fairwind. At 5 lbs, she is not heavy for a 32" boat. So you are not dealing with a hull speed limited machine.

I would think that given the cost, it would be worth buying one and building it as a standard boat before we discard it as an un-usable hull.

This is supposed to be a trainer boat to learn how to sail canting ballast boats. This pre-existing hull would certainly allow us to accomplish that goal for the price range we set as our target. If it can also serve as a demonstrator boat, then great. If Victor likes the finished product enough, they might be interested in selling a turbo package for this boat that someone could supply the parts for. Seems like a win-win-win scenario to me.

We should at least take a closer look at the hull to see if it would be suitable. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

  • Will

Will Gorgen

86

Greg and Dick-A canting keel is BY DEFINITION high performance ; why in the hell else would you want one?
A trainer should reflect the high performance nature of the technology at a smaller size and less cost or else it is no trainer at all.
You’re not putting a canting keel on a boat just to be able to rock it back and forth with the transmtter stick- the only reason to add a canting keel to any design is to INCREASE PERFORMANCE??? It doesn’t matter whether its a trainer or a maxZ86- performance is inextricably linked to a canting keel design or there is no point in using it.
Will, taking that same scenario yu have two identical hulls with identical ballast and the canting keelboat with more sail area. It alsohas more wetted surface and misses out on a great benefitof a canting design-narrow beam-but its worth the experiment…

Doug Lord
–High Technology Sailing/Racing

87

ok . I am out of here. this is too wierd
cougar

88

Using the logic that Doug just put forth, no one in their right mind would build a spinnaker equiped boat that was slower than a conventional boat of the same size…

On the other hand someone here has suggested that the issue with “new technology” isn’t about speed, its about “fun” and new “challenges”…

The answer for this “trainer” if there is real interest in making it happen would seem to be simple–replace the Victor Blackhawk’s standard wood fin and hollow bulb with a canting keel module that includes a new fin and lighter bulb. All the rest of the kit stays the same; the “trainer” would at least have lesser weight and people could see if it were faster.

On the other hand, everyone could wait for Doug Lord to develop this latest project, that would mean that this “trainer” would only be behind the following:

F100 CBTF Monohull
X3 Retractable Foil Multihull
F150 Class
MicroMoth
Multione One Meter Multihull
Spinnaker 36/600
Max Z Monohull Class
Aeroskiff (full size)
“Mini-12” canting keel boat (full size)

(And I’m sure I’ve missed a couple…)

P.S. It will be hard enough building a viable light weight, low cost canting keel module system; a minor “detail” …

89

I think Greg is on to something. The blackhawk or even the V-32 are available as kits. 32" gets you past that “small boat” issue.

There are ~5000 V-32s already out in this world, what a way to compare performance!

90

Will,

I am worried that the US1M rig may be a bit much for the Blackhawk. What about a 36/600 rig? I understand what Doug is saying about the advantage of the canting system partially being the ability to carry more sail. This would take us from 444 sq in to 600 sq, a 33% gain in sail area.

A secondary thought: the Blackhawk is available as a 24" kit as well:

http://www.victor-model.com/blackhawk24.html

George would likely sell these WITH the Blackhawk 32 rig. This would assist in cost reduction too.

The other Matt

91

you guys have me interested[:-bonc01] and are at the same time killing me[:-banghead][:-banghead][:-boring]. i would like to see this project go forward and experience for myself what all of us have been told we are missing. since doug asked (in a private email) for my thoughts on the subject, (rather than my attempt at humor earlier in the thread) here they are:

forget about the design-build hull and go with the V32. You cannot and will not beat $90 (unless we all use styrofoam and hot knifes). stay with the standard rig and sails (once again, price…not everyone interested may own an IOM). Collectively decide on keel foil and put in PDF version so it can be printed by individuals. Keel bulb design has no restrictions. Keel canting mechanism has no restrictions. Three channel maximum. No spinnakers.

What we end up with is a group of (95%) OD boats, with multitudes of ideas on canting mechanisms and bulb designs. Should leeway be an issue, a fixed forward foil could be designed by one and placed in a PDF (along with exact location in the hull) for printing and building.

so lets all make it easy on ourselves (as easy as possible) and use the power of democracy…

Item#1: V32 - Y or N
Item #2: No mods to kit in regards to rig, sails/sailplan, rudder, etc. Only mods allowed are canting keel, its operating mechanism, bulb, and forward foil (if deemed necessary and voted by majority) - Y or N
Item #3: 3 channel radio only - Y or N
Item #4: Fixed forward foil - Y or N

plain and simple, and as easy to get started on as signing the check to george…what do the masses say?

cheers

92

this will go on on on on on.
i like the iade of a trainer. but everybody and thier dog will be putting thier 2 cents worth. so here is mine
v32 y
no mods
3 channels
no foil
simple yes
but on this post
i doubt it
cougar

93

Matt,

You may be right that the US1M sail plan may be too much.

A set of 36/600 sails would be fine with me.

Victor also sells sails for the Cup class boats at 598 sq inches which might be cheaper.

To skiffy: Do you mean the V32 or the Blackhawk 32? I think the V32 would be hard to put a canting keel mechnism in because of the relatively long low aspect ratio keel. The Blackhawk with the bulb and strut keel looks more suitable.

So here is my vote:

Item #1 Blackhawk 32 - yes
Item #2 No - use the Victor Cup or 36/600 sails instead but keep the keel ballast the same as the standard Blackhawk 32
Item #3 Yes on the 3 channel radio
Item #4 Yes on the fixed forward foil

  • Will

Will Gorgen

94

will-
sorry, brain fart…amend the V32 to B32 (Blackhawk)

multi-tasking is usally not an issue for me, but this topic (and site lately…no offense chad) seems to make my head numb and brain dumb.

thanks for pointing out my error.

cheers

95

One more thought re: V-32 vs Blackhawk 32 (then I will shutup regarding the V32):

The V32 has a low aspect fin. Wouldn’t lengthening it (going high aspect) and reducing the weight be the right thing to do when adding a canting mechanism (thinking along the lines of Doug’s arguement here). I’m thinking V-32 with a deeper, lighter fin/bulb combo.

V-32 has an 8" beam, B-32 a 6.75" beam.

Now, all that said… the Blackhawk “looks” more appropriate. Not really sure what I even mean by that, but still.

Doug - I know you are groaning about this design process… :slight_smile:

The other Matt

96

Someone has to build the canting module anyway. The desire is a one design. So–

  1. Keep the Victor kit, including sails.

  2. Design and sell a canting keel module that includes a stronger fin, lighter bulb, daggerboard strut and modification instructions.

  3. Limit to three channels.

  4. Go racing.

97

you see matt and greg
you go out on a limb and make a decision. 4 item and 4 yea or nay
i like roy idea too
cougar
or we go cup crazy and do an iacc style boat. they are plenty strong
:slight_smile:

98

OK, OK…

Blackhawk 32: Y
Mods: N (only consider larger rig, like 36/600, but try to use something Victor could supply in kit)
3 channel radio only: Y
Fixed forward foil: N, unless beta shows necessity (K.I.S.S.)

More on rigs: As the rig goes up, the weight is more of an issue. Victor’s stock rigs on many of its boats are a bit heavy. This area requires some careful thought. I bet George might be able to gin up a rig that meets our specs.

We need to get David Goebel in on this. He has a good relationship with George Dornis!

The Other Matt

99

<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>Originally posted by lorsail

Greg and Dick-A canting keel is BY DEFINITION high performance ; why in the hell else would you want one?
A trainer should reflect the high performance nature of the technology at a smaller size and less cost or else it is no trainer at all.
You’re not putting a canting keel on a boat just to be able to rock it back and forth with the transmtter stick- the only reason to add a canting keel to any design is to INCREASE PERFORMANCE??? <font color=“red”>It doesn’t matter whether its a trainer or a maxZ86- performance is inextricably linked to a canting keel design or there is no point in using it.</font id=“red”>
Will, taking that same scenario yu have two identical hulls with identical ballast and the canting keelboat with more sail area. It alsohas more wetted surface and misses out on a great benefitof a canting design-narrow beam-but its worth the experiment…

Doug Lord
–High Technology Sailing/Racing
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>

Do you even read what you post - or just post whatever your fingers type.

The highlighted part of your quote is EXACTLY what I have been saying - whether you put the moveable ballast on a 24 inch boat, a 30 inch boat, a 36 inch boat, a 39 inch boat … if two boats are identical, we would find ourself with two basic things that YOU HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE THUS FAR …

  1. WE would have identical boats so WE can sail next to each other to see if the canting keel is really that big of a performance difference over an <u>IDENTICAL</u> boat but without a canting keel.

  2. WE would get to use the Tx to control the keel to see if it <u>even makes sense </u>to try to race one of these where a lot of upwind tacking takes place - or if it’s only place of performance is on a reach. This is why we would call it a “trainer” - it would allow US to determine how valid your claims are about being a faster boat just because it uses a canting keel. Does it matter if the boats are sailing at 2 knots or 8 knots of top speed? Not to me, because they are both identical with the exception of the canting keel.

Again - since you are unable to grasp the “concept” of two boat performance testing, tuning and side-by-side sailing, you should read (and perhaps) reserve your comments or posts so you don’t look quite so silly. If two cars of 80 HP are racing each other - or two cars of 400 HP are racing each other, if one beats the other because of a new technology, it proves the point. If the one with the new technology <u>CAN’T</u> beat the other “stock” car - why would you pay for the idea?

HAVE YOU HAD A SIDE BY SIDE TEST OF A CANTING KEEL VERSUS A FIXED KEEL BOAT RACE AROUND A FIXED COURSE?

HAS ANYONE HAD EXPERIENCE RACING A CANTING KEEL BOAT TO DETERMINE IF THE CANTING KEEL MAKES SENSE FOR A SHORT RACE, MULTI-TACKING COURSE … or … IF IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO RESERVE FOR RACES OF LONG DISTANCE ON THE SAME TACK?

100

matt- less beam (B32) is good for a canter (whether we get 55 degrees out of a 6 ?? beam is irrelevant) and i?m not sure on the V32?s price, but the Blackhawk is sooo inexpensive, i think it cannot be outdone.

roy- i like your idea regarding manufactured foils and bulbs. i also agree (from a cost standpoint) with your point on victor supplied sails (although i do have a 36/600 rig i could use). pure OD is the best idea. but who would design and manufacture (in regards to foils and bulbs)? and what amount of time would design and fabrication take and at what cost? maybe you could use some of your influence with the designer/builders you know and they could be persuaded to join in.

sorry to do this to you all, but i think the vote should be amended to the following:

Item#1: Blackhawk 32 - Y or N
Item #2: No mods to kit in regards to hull or rudder - Y or N
Item #3: 3 channel radio only - Y or N
Item #4: Fixed forward foil - Y or N
Item #5 ? OD Manufactures Keel strut, bulb, and daggerboard ? Y or N
Item #6 ? Individual design build Keel strut, bulb, and daggerboard (DB placement fixed and placed by majority if accepted) ? Y or N
Item #7 ? Kit supplied sails/rig ? Y or N
Item #8 ? Alternate sails/rig (TBD) ? Y or N

to all interested, please re-read and re-vote. if it?s acceptable to you all, i will volunteer to track and tally the responses.

not trying to steal anyones thunder (just trying to help move the topic along and produce results), but this could be a very cool and enlightening project. besides, would be great to have an excuse to use up some frequent flyer miles, head out east to meet, drink, and race with you all.

cheers