Hi!
Under the post Lame Forum I promised to get some action. All boats in the Loui Vitton Cup had water inboard, in order to get a longer sailing waterline length. The Kiwis found out this to late. They did not have time to test the concept properly in time for the final. And the rest is history.
Regards,
Booster
Wow! That was a big build-up for such a small piece of “action”…
I feel like I just sat down at a fancy resturaunt and had the waiter bring out a huge plate with one of those silver domes on it and then when he removes the cover and the steam clears there is a single pea on my plate. Is this just an appetizer, or is this the “main course”?
Do you have any other info on this? It seems to me that adding weight like this (by adding water inboard) would have a pretty weak effect on sailing performance. You get a bit extra length, but you would also have to carry that weight around the course with you. I assume that the water would fall to the leeward bilge, so it would not add anything to the righting moment. Did they have any mechanism to “hold” the water to windward (lengthwise ribs that would act as dams to trap the water to windward or something like that?
Is this considered a way of cheating the IACC rule? I.e. you measure your boat in with a measured waterline and ballst that is a bit skewed to the rule so that you can buy yourself more sail area. Then you “let” the water come in to add waterline length?
And what are you saying - that the first race where the Kiwis started taking on all that water was an attempts to do the same thing? They sure didn’t seem to be wanting to let that water in given the way they were bailing and so on.
By the way, do you have any source for your info?
- Will
Will Gorgen
Old trick, supposedly first used by Dennis Connors in the 12 meter days, helping him earn his “Dirty Dennis” nickname[:-angel]
Cheers,
Earl
i thought the hula was an ampendage near the stern that acted like a down wind flap. keeping the bow down. and adding to the waterline. but downwind it would bring the bow under the water. like in race 1 and 4. but on the upwind runs it would add a false lenght maybe even 3 feet? but i dont know. and that make more sense than adding wieght.
cougar
long live the cup and cris dickson
Hi again!
Will Gorgen, in order to get some action I could answer that the source of information is: Lord. However, during the 2.4mr Swedish Championship i Gothenburg a guy resembling Richard Dreyfuss measurued the sails on my both (and found them OK). During his measurments I tried to distract him by talking about all the water in the Kiwi boat. He stated “all boats had water inboard”. Moreover, I tried to disract him by saying that the sailbags of the Kiwis should have been made of anti-sloshing material absorbing the good water and keeping it at the stern. Thus, the amount of water acting an a lever-arm should give the biggest effect (and avoiding wet conditions for the guy taking care of the sails under deck). Furthermore, I stated that the Kiwis should have adopted an over-sized quadrant for the trim-tab (or similar) in order to squeeze the water fast out of the sailbgas, when the wind got lighter. And then pump it out of the boat. The guy looked at me like Dreyfuss in the Spielberg movie “Close encounters of third degree”, and I hade to admit to him that the Kiwis probably was OK and just late in their development of the water concept. It should be possible to trace the Dreyfuss look-alike by the club GKSS arranging the Championship. Cougar, the freeboards (sides) of the Kiwi boat was low compared to rest of the boats. Probably the Kiwi-designers initially intended to go straight (without exploiting the grey-zoon of water inboard). It is quite possible that speed measurments from the Louis Vuitton Cup started to puzzle them: Why are the other boats having so high measured freeboards on shore and low free-boards off shore, something is going on, something must be done, and so on. The taking in water over the sides in race 1 and 4 probably was a result of having no time to increase the free-boards for the final. On the other hand, the Kiwvi boats had been on shore for some time so something probably was done. The Kiwi designers probably got concerned about the increased wheight of the boat if water was to be talken inboard. The stresses of the hull and gears would increase. As an attampt to increase bending stiffnes of the Kiwi boat probably the cabin floor was raised. In fact, the Kiwi helmsmen had to stand up steering! A benefit from (the supposed) raising of the floor was that the water could be “tanked further” aft keeping the stern down without increasing the wheight of the boat too much. As we remeber the Kiwi-supporters were shocked by the fact the “heavy on the stern trim” had not been tested properly. Probably revealing the lack of time the initially going straight Kiwis had to deal with.
Regards,
Booster
Hi again!
So far the subject of the post hasn’t been dealt with. The Hula was a perfectly legal way of increasing the waterline and moving the stem-wave aft. However, it probably distracted the Kiwis. They had to increase the gap between the hull and the hula in order to please the measurment guys. In the hula water was brought along with the Kiwi-boat and increased its displacement in some sense. However, the added water was external of the hull. It is quite possible that the challanging boats had heard about the hula-plans at an early stage. Later divers were probly sent down to study the extra “skin” early reported by observers. The hula probably was regarded as a difficult way to go by the other designers. It would take long time to tune such a concept. Probably the Dennis Conner trick from the 12-metre days was recalled, and found to be a grey-zone solution to the problem. There are holes into the hull for sheets and halyards in particulary every boat, so why not let the water in… Here we probably have an explenation why the Alinghi-team did not protest against the hula in due time for the final. The question they had to confront was probably: What is worst bringing water externally or internally?
Regards,
Booster
Hi again!
Seems that a new chapter of the hula story is needed to bring the steam up. It’s a little calm at the Pub… As mentioned, by Booster, in the post “NZL har up for cash” further evidence of the perfectly legal intentions of the NZ desigeners can be found. The NZ boat was comparatively beamy in design and had low sides (free-boards). The beamier design can be worth the increased drag if hull-induced stability is needed. Similary the torpedo keel was probably aimed for increased stability, at the expense of increased wetted surface (drag). By exploiting the grey-zone, of bringing water inside in the LV Cup, the stability was already at hand. Thus, the boats could be designed narrower (and with non-torpedo keels). However, the LV Cup boats needed higher sides to avoid uncontrolled water intake. With the heavy on the stern trim in AC the torpedo-keel of the NZ-boat must have been pointing slightly upwards. It goes without saying that this cannot have been the initial intentions by its designers. The increased turbulence must have slowed the boat down and confused the helmsman by induced rudder vibrations. It was evident that the helmsman of the NZ boat showed distinctively more steering action up-wind than the Alinghi team. Probably the result of the rudder loosing grip in the water, due to the keel-induced turbulance earlier stated. Reports under the AC speculated in that the rudder of the NZ-boat had fractured and filled with water, causing the difficult steering behavior. However, later it was found that no rudder fracture had occurred. To sum up: There are strong evidence that the NZ-designers had perfectly legal intentions.
Regards,
Booster
so and when will we have a hula on our toy boats? [;)]
Wis
_/ if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it! _
Hey Booster,
Which NZ boat are you referring to in the above post? NZL 10, NZL 12 or NZL 81?
Will Gorgen
wismerhell!
I am planning one for my Kyosho Fortune.
wgorgen!
The boat in the latest AC Cup, and to some extent her sistership.
Regards,
Booster
I’d be a little cautious about reading too much into the helm movements on NZL82. Different helmsmen have different styles to windward. Some are constantly nudging their boats to weather and repositioning the bow relative to the next wave. Others believe that these gains are countered by the increased rudder activity (and drag associated with that). Of course there is no “right” answer, and the best approach varies with the size and style of boat, and the wind and sea conditions.
If you observe Russell Coutts in a variety of boats, you’ll see that his approach leans towards less helm movement. Russ has been out of dinghies for many years. Dean Barker on the other hand still sails dinghies and (although you’d have to ask Dean) I suspect still helms an IACC boat a little like he helms a Finn - albeit unconciously.
Many years ago, during the National Championships in a dinghy class here in New Zealand, I was followed closely a long way up one of the beats by the committee boat. It was a little off putting. After the race, I asked them why, and was told that they were trying to work out whether my rapid and frequent helm movements were just me stearing through the waves, or were instead sculling (which was illegal). They concluded I was steering through the waves, but commented that it was a fine line between that and sculling. Although I haven’t raced a dinghy for over 7 years, and have been racing keelboats for 26 years, I still have to remind myself constantly when helming a keel boat to windward that it’s NOT a laser, and that I should limit my helm movements accordingly.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Muzza
Muzza,
If there was any wind at all when you were followed by the comittee boat, then your boatspeed would have been well above the point where sculling would have been possible much less advantageous.
Take your dinghy out sometime on a calm day and wiggle the rudder (small movements) and see how fast you go. It will be pretty slow. In order to get any reasonable speed, you need to throw the rudder back and forth with large, violent motions. Even then, the boat speed will probably be less than what you were sailing that day.
So I would disagree with their assessment that there is a fine line between sculling and steering. I think there is a huge difference. And if I were protested, I would challenge them to prove otherwise. I would even propse a demonstration during the protest hearing…
- Will
Will Gorgen
You are absolutely right in your assessment Will, and it’s a point I raised with the committee at the time. They acknowledged that they reached their decision that I wasn’t sculling, in part on the basis that there was nothing to be gained in the conditions, and therefore why would I scull? As I recall, they made the following points. (1) Even though they felt (as did I) that the conditions were such that no advantage was to be gained from sculling the rudder, this did not remove the fact that it was illegal under the rules. I have to go back to the Racing Rules as they stood then (1981), but I seem to recall that there was no mention of advantage gained, rather just on the skippers actions. Thus if the committee felt the skipper was trying to gain an advantage, they would be right to protest. This is quite aside from the fact that the skipper may be stupid in thinking he could gain an advantage in the conditions.
You hit the nail on the head when pointing out the “large, violent motions”. When steering a dinghy to windward through a short shop, some of the helming actions are large and violent, and this was their point too when saying it was a fine line between that and sculling.
So it wasn’t so much a question of why I would would scull, or whether there was any advantage to be gained, but rather whether, technically, my helm actions amounted to sculling.
Anyway it was an amicable discussion, and I think the guys knew, for the very reasons you have noted, that a protest would fail.
Buy the way, there are a lot of people out their that take actions during a race without understading that there is nothing to be gained. One I see time and time again is the repeated pumping of the mainsail AFTER they’ve already suceeded in catching the wave. The pump is to get the boat onto the wave. If you suceed in doing that, and the boat is travelling at the speed of the wave, there’s nothing further to be gained in additional pumps until you are lining up for the next wave. But still people do it.
So I guess they thought I may just have been stupid.
I’m sure many of us have some stories to tell about “unusual” race commitee and OOD actions - both in RC boats and the full-sized version. Maybe that’s worth a separate thread in the Pub.
Muzza
Hi!
Calm at the Pub again. A new Hula chapter is needed. The NZ boat was showing extremely little pitch motion during the latest AC. In normal case with a distributed mass-inertia, like that of a torpedo-keel, it would result in enhenced pitch. The designers usually try to reduce pitch motion since it results in disturbed sails, and in more general terms energy-losses. Energy that could have been used to make the boat sail faster. As previously stated the “heavy on the stern trim” must have resulted in a slightly upward pointing torpedo-keel. Here we probably have an explanation to the low pith. The increased drag simply held the boat on a steady “non-pitchy” course. However, some pitch is needed. Otherwise the boat will loose sailing length in heavy sea conditions. During the race when the mast fell down interesting observations were made. It was evident that non-pithing behavior made the forward parts of the boat leaving the water early when a wave passed and going roughly into the waves when approacing. It goes without saying that this must have increased the loads on the entire boat, not only the rig. Again, revealing the perfectly legal intentions of its designers.
Regards,
Booster
WRT the hula: there are some of us who regard the hula, although legal, to be the pathological result of a basically flawed rating rule. To understand this, a little history is in order.
Around the 1900’s rulemakers became concerned with limiting the overhangs of boats designed to rules that contolled just the LWL. Some pretty ugly and dangerous boats had been built, the most notorious being Crowninshield’s “Independence,” which was such a brute that the backspin on the wheel flung it’s helmsman overboard and it was broken up after only one or two times out on the water.
Two approaches arose. One, called the “International Rule,” limited overhangs by measuring “girth,” that is, the distance you would get if you ran a tape measure around the hull at right angles to the centerline of the hull. The other, called the “Universal Rule,” has a more complex measurement called “quarter beam length.” This rule governed the “Letter Classes:” J’s, R’s, and M’s (not Marbleheads :-)) being the most popular.
The International Rule governed the so-called “Meter Boats,” 12 Meters, 8 Meters, 6 Meters, etc. and was carried over to the current America’s Cup class. The girth measurement today is made at the ends of the LWL.
The girth restriction leads to wet boats with pinched off ends and the “potbelly pig” look of the late 12 Meter designs, where the hull swells out rapidly at the LWL ends.
To avoid this, the writers of the current rule made hollows in the hull illegal. This is the section of the rule that was “beat” by the hula, being technically an “appendage” but providing the hydrodynamic “bump” of the potbelly designs.
Universal Rule boats, on the other hand, are uniformly dry, seaworthy, and handsome. The fact that the basic element of the rule was devised by Nat Herreshoff may have had something to do with this 
If anyone is interested in such estoterica, I have a writeup on the J Class rule in PDF format that I can email. This is excerpted from the Yankee III book.
Cheers,
Earl
Thanks Earl!
All the Herreshoff’s designs are beautiful. Long sweeping lines, pleasing to the eye. One of the Herreshoff’s was involved in the 12-metre Liberty design (which lost to Australia II), co-designed by, among others, Dennis Conner!
Regards,
Booster
booster i think your are wrong about heereshoffs being invovled with liberty. i am pretty sure johan veltienin was the sole designer ( with input from dennis conner) ss did defender. but it does nto relay matter austraila II would have walked away from any boat that year. as far as nzl 81/82 they could have used nzl 60 or nzl 32. and i am pretty sure both boat would have done better against alihngi. you can use an old boat under the grandfather clause. this is what cause the amercians too lose the americas cup. freddom was far better boat than liberty. but dennis had made changes to it.
cougar
long live the cup and cris dickson
Olin Stephens himself commented that, in his opinion, Freedom was quicker that Liberty, and could have beaten Australia II. It features in his book “All this, and sailing too”. Ah - but it’s all hypothetical, eh? Cougar, you are quite correct that Johan Valentijn was the lead designer of Liberty.
Isn’t it amazing how a family can have such an impact over the generations - be it in sport, arts, politics, whatever? Yes - Nathaniel Herreshoff was the father of L Francis, who was himself uncle of Halsey. Certainly a great sailing family.
Muzza
Hi!
I tested Google on Halsey Herreshoff Liberty and got 110 hits, and 875 hits for Johan Valentijn for the same boat. Before the final Liberty had several co-desigeners, but later Valentijn was left alone with Liberty… In fact, the design-team of Liberty was well aware of the Australia II keel design several months before the final. They could have built it in time for the final. However, the time for tuning was not there. Moreover, the question was also if it would fit the concept of Liberty. What Dennis did instead involved several measurement certificates of Liberty, depending of displacement needed for the prevailing conditions. At 1983 the challanger had a potential ace up there sleeve. The opponent choosed not to copy, as well as, in the latest AC. Here the defender had a potential ace - not up there sleeve - but under the Hula… In both cases, however, Dennis Conner probably had an impact of the outcome.
Regards,
Booster
Halsey was navigator on Liberty, and I think sailed in four AC campaigns during the 12 meter era.
Muzza