Will, you need a big teet, don’t get a small one because even with a big one glued down, you will find that it could pull off, especially if you use silicone to glue it down.
gappy, i have found (maybe because of the forces/speeds of my canting keel) that the teet actually pulled off where i glued it on with silicon, i am still trying to work out how to keep it glued to the bottom of the boat
I see said the blind man to the crippled nudist who put his hands in his pockets & promptly walked away.
Well, the boots I bought are designed for axial motion rather than canting motion, but here is my plan:
I will glue the nipple low enough on the shaft so that it is fairly compressed. I will allow enough play so that it does not pull tight when at full cant to either side. The base of the boot is attached to the boat using the metal plate that comes in the kit rather than glue. That will make it easier to replace if it springs a leak.
I am a little worried that the boot I bought is too small. I just got done brazing the rudder post to the hinge mechanism. The final size of the hinge mechanism is a bit bigger than I had originally envisioned, but I may still be able to use the small boot that I bought to seal it. I need to build the hinge housing next. After that is done, I will know for sure. I plan to build the hinge housing out of a block of Nylon that I have in the shop. Nylon on brass has very low friction, but I also have a smaller block of Teflon laying around that I might use.
I still can’t post pictures here from work, but I can from home. So I will try to snap a few shots and post them here…
This basically focused towards USA2 but obviously anyone can read and comment. If you go with on deck moveable ballast, and your worroed about have a rig so larger that the boat might nose dive going downwind. What if you used a semi-circular(lateral) track for the ballast, this way when it is centered, the ballast would be further aft than when it is out to either side. This would probably add a dgree of difficulty in deisnging it, but it would allow for a monstrous rig, while retaining downwind stability. Let me know what you think, I just thought of this so if you see any problems let me know. Im also not the best at explaining things so it may need clarification.
Andrew Miller
There is another way to accomplish the same thing.
I have prototyped a movable ballast “skipper” similar to what is used on the Aquataur model. It uses a scissor type arrangement with two arms. The main arm is attached to the servo sticking through the deck near the front of the cockpit (I’m planning to use one of those monster servos) and swings through about a 160 degree arc (pointed aft in mid travel). The second arm is attached to the end of the first arm. The ballast is mounted on the outboard end of that second arm. The inboard end of that second arm extends inboard of the joint to the first arm. A second servo is attached to a line that is attached to that inboard end of the second arm. By pulling the inboard end of the arm forward, the outboard end moves aft. By swinging the main arm slightly aft, you can also move the weight aft. By a combination of the two, you have an impressive range of positions that the ballast can be placed in.
I hope to employ this system on an RC laser. I think I can cut the ballast down from 5 lbs on the keel to about 3 lbs in the skipper. This gives me greater righting moment through about 35 degree heel. I would also use a smaller daggerboard. to further cut down on the wetted surface area.
I also plan to employ a similar righting system (through the use of flotation in the skipper) to right the boat when it capsizes.
Like I said, I have prototyped this system (out of LEGOs) and the range of motion is very impressive. I can move the weight fore and aft with the ballast on centerline quite a long distance. I can also shift the ballast from side to side in a linear fashion by “scissoring” the arms. I have set it up so that that scissoring is automatic when the main arm swings and the second channel results fore aft.
Again, I will try to get some pictures of the prototype and post them…
Millrtme-
The type of track with ballast on it is what Im currently working on. I realized that the rig size may force the nose under while going dead downwind, so I thought that the curved track will allow me to adjust the trim of the boat fore and aft. This will allow me to carry the rig, which is probably by most standards grossly oversized, without forcing the bow under. The hull i has isnt strong enough to support a canting keel, so Im going with a very deep fixed fin and the on deck ballast.
USA2-
That sounds like a solid plan, good luck. I am still in the process of making the hull plug in which to build the build from so I have not come to the fork in the road where I have to decide on canting or not, but those are my only two options, I am not going to try moveable ballast, at least on this boat. I will keep veryone updated on the progress.
Andrew Miller
Let’s see - it would be about here that a bit of “fact” (courtesy of Sailing Anarchy) might be appropriate. Yes - it is big boats, not r/c boats, but seeing as how we all seem to “want” the canting keels to work, to be faster, etc. etc., and how many have pointed to their success (???) in big boat classes - I think the following reported comparison should be offered in the hopes of offering a non-biased and factual comparison that seems to have taken place. Something we have yet to achieve in the r/c world.
<font color=“blue”>[i]"We recently saw a fixed vs canting 30 footer ‘showdown’ at at Geelong in Australia.
At Geelong Week two new Robert Hick designed canting keelers (of two quite different designs) lined up against the leading fixed keel boats such as “The Cone of Silence” and Robert Hick’s own Hick 32 fixed keel boat “Toecutter” plus a host of other fast 30’s. Conditions ranged from 0 to 22 knots. In short, the canting keel boats did not do well. “The Cone of Silence” took “30 ft line honors” in every race - by a lot. The fixed keel “Toecutter” was mostly second and the canting keel boats were mostly a long way behind both “Toecutter” and “The Cone”.
Perhaps with more time on the water, the canting keel boats will improve but on the results so far, in fully crewed thirty footers, you would have to wonder whether the big dollars for a canting keel actually result in a faster boat? "[/i]</font id=“blue”> <font color=“blue”><font size=“1”>(copyright Sailing Anarchy)</font id=“size1”></font id=“blue”>
As Gappy said … “one day” … so it will be interesting to see if canting keels or moving ballast make their way into organized r/c class racing - or if they remain on the fringes - similar to multihulls, foilers or spinnaker equipped boats.
canting keels tend to make a bigger difference on anything over 50 feet. anything smaller than that and the increase in performance tends to be marginal.
You may be right. I also think (personal opinion) that if used, canting keels make sense for long distance races, where the keel can be moved to windward and left for long periods of time.
The low tech approach of moving “rail meat” from one side to the other is definitely much faster than moving the keel and while a moving crew is low-tech, simplicty and hydraulic/electrical/operational failures are much less - except for the occasion when a crew might fall overboard from too many beers. [:D]
No doubt an experiment with a canting keel could be a “fun” type of effort in engineering design. Perhaps, it would be appropriate (at this time) to remind most that the use of spinnakers, foils, moving ballast and any other ideas and designs can be tried, demonstrated and actually <u>USED</u> in the Formula 48 Multihull Class. At least if you want to design and build, there is a platform and opportunity to put the ideas to use. We still do have an exemption to kites - but once ISAF can provide solid, working sailing rules for kite use, we would probably open up that avenue of design opportunity as well.
I readed the same article that you have copied in but what you have not put in from the article that all of the boats were sailed with the same amount of crew been 7. the benefits of having a canting keel is that you sail with less crew and have the same leverage and on bigger boats it stands out more as you do not have so many people for rail meat. lets not forgtet that Wild oats the RP 60 and the new wild oats the RP66 has done very verty well against boats up to 90ft in length with fixed keels. So don;t go and dispell this on one little article because it follows what you think about them.
We are currenlty building down here a 35ft full on race boat which we intend to sail with 6 people. The boat does have a canting keel and a forward board but now we have a couple of 50ft race boats down here which are new to the water one been the Cookson 50 and there is a new elliot 50 lauched last week which is very quick out of teh box. Both of these boats beat the other fixed keel 50 footers down here which are very competitive boats other wise.
Any don’t take it on one article that canting keels are not any good.
a small canting keeler will destroy any similar sized fixed keel competition in an ocean race or a short race that does not require a lot of tacking. These boats lose a lot of speed when tacking because of the weight being shifted. When you start getting into the 60 foot and over range, those CBTF boats have enough of an actual speed advantage over the fixed keelers that they can make up any lost time in tacks. I think it was the new Wild Oats that narrowly lost a race-by 200 yds-to Konica Minolta, a 98’. That was a short race, and when they were going upwind in the relatively light airs, the fixed keel KM was staying even with Wild Oats. The race was won by KM when the wind went even lighter on the final run. I would think that nearly all the canting keel boats can sail at least the wind speed in anything under 10 knots, but the bigger the boat, the more faster than the wind you are going to go-i.e. Nicorette doing 13 knots up the Derwent in 6(!!!) knots of wind.
I didn’t mean to imply that I thought canting keels were no good. Apologies if it came across that way. I guess my point was that this is the FIRST definitive comparison of identical sized boats and crew that I have ever seen being sailed in light to heavy air conditions. Nothing broke (that I am aware of) and there were no lost keels, no broken cant mechanisms, no busted masts or rogue waves, etc. etc.
The big boats you cite seem to be one-offs, and not similar in design, size or crew. I think the public in general, and I in particular just would like to see identical boats, one with, one without a canting keel sail around a short legged r/c course in “fluky” winds. Hate to put so many conditions on such a series of races, but for most of us that I am aware of - long windward/reaching legs aren’t the norm for r/c racing - and downwind legs may be 50% of a race if the committee sets just W/L courses.
And yes - I do agree we shouldn’t base overall feelings on only one article - but hey - it’s a start at being honest and moving away from the publicity and hype, and I think that is all any of us are seeking - definitive proof that the idea and complexity warrant the effort to build. I also see where the Moths and a couple of I-14’s are doing OK on foils - but it was also nice to see someone finally admit foils aren’t so hot if the winds are too light to effectively use them - and they were with people sailing <u>on board</u>. Standing on shore with an r/c version, and at a distance away from the boat and you have added in more factors which can effect performance.
Hi no offence taken. it would be interesting to see two boats of the same hull design one with fixed and one with a canting keel and see what the performance differences were. i would say that depending on conditions each would have their day but it could be different and how do we know until some one trys.
hmmm, just look at the 2003 Canon Big Boat Race, the old wild oats were winnin the race from skandia, both of which have canting keels, till like 60ft from the line, it was all in light airs, he he he, the managing director of the company i work for helms wild oats, the new one.
I see said the blind man to the crippled nudist who put his hands in his pockets & promptly walked away.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the keel (canting versus fixed) is only one variable in the speed equation. For example, the boat that took line honors - Cone of Silence - has a HUGE gennaker. I bet her downwind sail area is 30% or more greater than any other boat in that fleet. Plus that boat is a very light weight carbon can with a large amount of her overall weight located in the keel bulb. At least one of the canting keel boats was built much more durably and hence weighted a lot more (despite being able to shave weight with the canting keel). So when considering speed, you would also want to factor in sail area and boat weight. Really these boats are hard to compare because of all the differences in those factors.
When people shell out that kind of money for a “race” boat - they do so with the intent of winning. They will keep buying and building even lighter until they break - and then make adjustments for that. Now - if one was going to have a cruising boat - it might be a valid argument.
The “CONE” represents the ultimate in racing craft at 30 feet. Perhaps those building the canting keels read a bit of hype about how fast a canting keel was (or how much fun, etc.) and they simply forgot about the other variables. The canters that did show up certainly knew about “CONE” and her penchant for wins. Having too small of a spinnaker was a choice the canter’s made - as I assume (only my guess) they figured to be much further ahead - so sail area was overlooked or decided upon as less important. Again - if you are going to spend that much money on a boat - why not spend a bit more (it only costs a little bit more to go first class) and show up and win? I would equate the canters as showing up at a gun fight with a knife - but also as knowing it was a gun fight.
Someone on the SA forum likened the “CONE” as an F-1 compared to an Indy car. Granted that it may well be - but then the question - “How many Indy car owners are foolish enough to enter one in an F1 race?”
As previosuly stated - wins by canters are generally by-and-large done on long legged, open ocean races, where having to swing keels on every wind shift (as in around-the-cans-racing) isn’t needed/required/done. Someone else is trying to suggest that perhaps (?) canting keels work better on longer boats that are greater than 30 feet. (50 feet was my recollection). Some suggest weight was a factor, some point out a full crew on the canters, when we (here) were once lead to believe there was less weight, and a need for less crew. If true, the “detail” question being begged for on SA might be the questions …
Why the full crew?
Why the overweight boats?
Why the small sail area?
But - as I agree with you - a single race doesn’t make a series or a year-end result. More races will tell the tale, and if canters win and they continue to win, they will have “earned” their reputation - mainly because of on-the-water proof, rather than one person’s claims about how fast they will be. Now if they don’t, will we hear all of the excuses why they didn’t? In the end - it really comes down to who crosses the line first…waves, weather, bad luck, broken masts, torn hulls, broken fittings are all foregotten or dismissed.
Quote from movie - Big Fauss & Little Halsey
<font size=“1”>[Michael Pollard - I believe - about motorcycle racing]</font id=“size1”> “I was going faster than I ever did before - until I fell off!”
That is an awefully simplistic view of why people buy boats.
There are many factors that can lead people to buy one type of boat or another. For one thing, the type of racing they intend to do. If they plan to do long distance ocean races, then they would likely opt for a safer and more “overbuilt” design. In shore racing might be willing to push the design envelope a built more and risk major structural failures (by the way, that applies to not only the safety factor of the hull laminates but also the choice of canting keel). There is also cost, longevity and resale value to consider.
It is important to note that none of these boats was actually racing boat for boat - they were all handicapped. When you buy a boat, you look not only at the outright speed characteristics of the boat but also how well it conforms to the rating scheme you plan to race under. Right now, PHRF, IRC and several other rating systems are still struggling with how to rate canting keel boats. So in some situations, ,this can lead to a generous rating that will allow you to out-sail your rating under certain conditions. The Cone was specially built to outsail her rating downwind in a blow. When they get that kind of race, they can beat boats twise their size (I have heard that they have experienced boatspeed numbers in the mid 25 knot range on some of their windier downwind races). The canters will tend to do better than their rating in some conditions and worse in others.
Another thing to note is that at least one of the canting keel boats at Geelong was brand new - this was the first time it had been sailed. So there is a good chance that the owner and crew had not had a chance to tune the boat or tto get familiar with how to sail it. There was also some substantial differences in the sailing capabilities of the various crews. The Cone is sailed by a dedicated group of guys that most would consider pros. I’m not sure about all the other boats, but at least a couple of boats were sailed by pretty amatureish crews.
I agree that with boats 30 foot and under, the movable ballast of the crew is probably a better way to gain extra righting moment than a canting keel. As the boat size increases, the crew weight becomes a smaller and smaller portion of the overall boat weight and as such the canting keel becomes a greater part of the performance equation.
And as I have said in the past, a canting keel boat tends to outperform its handicap in certain conditions and underperform its handicap in other conditions. This is just the nature of the beast. I think you are always going to have events where canters do poorly (becuase the conditions were not in their sweet spot) and events where canters shine (because the conditions were favorable).
What is interesting to note is how a canting keel boat rates relative to boats of similar size. Most canting keel boats fall into rating categories with boats that are 15% - 20% larger (LWL and Sail Area). Whether that is a fair rating remains to be seen, but the rating comittees do consider them to be faster than comparibly sized fixed keel boats…
Will - I have, on a few occasions, been called “simple” so yes, perhaps it is a bit simplistic ! [:D] [:D]
If you read the first post relative to this specific part of the topic (Geelong Race Week) I don’t think I tried to inject any viewpoint at all - I simply noted it was nice to see real results on boats of a similar size, racing in a variety of wind conditions (0 to 22 kts.). Up to now, we had conjecture, and strong feelings - and this post seemed to show that finally we are getting boats to line up and go at it that all have about the same waterline.
From there we all could inject “reasons” why one was a winner the other wasn’t.
Another person posted here some time back with similar “simplistic” comment/views - “canting keel boats are lighter, they carry more sail area so they are faster”. Many were taken to task for questioning such a statement. It now looks like both sides with strong views might have to readjust their views.
While “simplistic” I still think that when people purchase a boat, that they intend to race - I don’t know anyone who buys one that is the slowest. So my point is that the guys showed up to race - and trying to give an excuse why they lost is immaterial. There is always next time so I hope they come back with better trained crew, more time on the boat, bigger sails, less weight, more canting angle, or whatever the reason - and continue to demonstrate the benefits. Please keep in mind, that even in a race of all one-design boats - someone is last, regardless of how fast the boat is. So up to now, it seems it was the boat speed that would cause one to win races - it doesn’t appear to be the only factor.
Cheers - and let’s see some on the ponds this summer.
I think its great that those experimenting with moving ballast and rigs let others know what they are up to and what problems and solutions they have found along the way.
I am also looking forward to the day when their are posts discussing the results of real races between fixed keel and moving ballast r/c boats of similar size.
But really, isn’t it time to stop all these posts expressing opinions on how fast or slow canting keel r/c boats may be in the future when they are actually sailing and racing?
Potential performance is just that–“potential”. Believing in boatspeed without real world proof is just “opinion”. I am much more interested in what is going on in the real world than on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Suggestion on sealing the hinge point of the canting keel.Why not seal it with silicone they use for molding.You can get this from TAP plastics.It’s very felxible enough to not hinder any movement.I too am thinking about making an open 60 style sail boat with canting keel.And my idea of sealing it is the silicone method and using sail winch and cable system to move the keel left or right.