Turbocharged IACC models & full size, CBTF,VPP's

It is not as simple as hull shape or appendage placement. Let me try to explain:

The biggest problem that the Schock 40 has is that it has to fit into the current rating schemes (PHRF in particular). The boat is so fast in heavy air and really light air that she rates with 60 footers. But in moderate wind when the competition is up to hull speed, the schock 40 is also still stuck at hull speed. In these conditions, the 60 footers will sail away given their longer waterline length.

This is the same problem the ULDB SC70s faced when they first came on the scene. They were ballasted and canvassed for downwind speed, but suffered upwind relative to their heavier predecessors. But now that SC 70s have become the norm and all the other boats on the block have adopted similar sail area to displacement ratios, the ratings system is fair to all those boats.

The Schock 40 will easily win any very light wind race (less than 5 knots of breeze) or any heavy wind race (over 20 knots) she enters. But if the winds are moderate (10 knots) she will be stuck in her 40 foot hull speed and will finish the race near all the other 40s even though she rates with the 60s, so on corrected time she will get walloped!

As more CBTF boats hit the market, these boats will all be subject to the same constraints and therefore the rating system will be fair to all. But until then, you will continue to see Schock 40s and other CBTF boats (Wild Oats, etc) completely dominate some regattas and finish dead last in others - all based on the wind conditions.

What does this mean for the F100s compared to other 1 meter boats? well, when you scale down to RC boats, you are sailing at full hull speed in very, very light winds. So under those conditions, the CBTF F100s should have very little advantage over the other 1 meter boats. However it will not take much wind at all for CBTF F100s to exceed hull speed (I’m guessing less than 5 knots - maybe Graham can confirm). So from there on up (in wind speed) the CBTF F100 is just going to dominate all other 1 meter boats. So CBTF should work great when scaled down in size to RC boats

You need to have a realistic understanding of what CBTF buys you. Basically, every boat has a range of wind speeds where it behaves like a displacement boat. Even skiffs in light wind are limited to their hull speed (and it is miserable to be on an I-14 or an Aussie 18 in very light wind). Your sail area to displacement ratio will determine at what speed you have the potential to break out of your hull speed limits and plane. The Schock 40 has the same sail area as other Prand Prix 40s, but half the displacement, so she is going to plane sooner (in fact the other boats cannot plane at all because they have to reduce sail area as the wind picks up due to righting moment limitations). But there are plenty of other wind speeds where the Scock 40 will not be planing and therefore will not have a significnat speed advantage over other 40 footers.

So more than being the difference bvetween a well designed boat and a poorly designed boat, the Schock 40 and other CBFT represent a paradigm shift that the current rating rules cannot account for.

  • Will

Will Gorgen

In considering CBTF to turbocharge any design there are two additional factors not mentioned in Will’s excellent post.

  1. CBTF is the fastest form of canting keel system upwind because the system has the unique capability to dial out leeway so in conditions where hull speed is a factor the “collective” steering facility of a CBTF boat can make all the difference. Normal CBTF steering turns the forward and aft rudder opposite directions; when collective is used they are turned a small amount the same direction while sailing upwind. This reults in an upwind vmg that can be superior to other boats regardless of hull speed.
  2. In conditions when wavemaking resistance is a factor CBTF is superior to any other configuration because of the PLACEMENT of the foils; proper placement results in less wavemaking resistance.

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

Unfortunately, the above discussion of how a proposed CBTF boat will perform in r/c sailing is still mired in theory not practice. It took years to perfect the current canting ballast systems used in full sized sailing, I would expect there would be be at least a similar development period for r/c sailing. Let me outline just a few of the challenges that need to be faced before it can be claimed that a canting keeled boat will “sail away” from the pack.

First, the proper hull form to take advantage of the reduced ballast has to be perfected. Going all the way back to the 12 meter days and the "geek’ forward rudder, the system never was optimized because the hull was not designed to take full advantage of the appendage package. Simply taking an existing boat design and putting a canting keel system under it will not guarantee performance. And designing fast hulls in still an art form (and a science). To expect that the first attempts at designing a proper hull shape for a new technology will be successful is at the very least optimistic.

Second, the foils have to be properly designed, located and actuated. Foils for r/c boats are very quirky things. Sometimes what seems to be intuitivly correct, doesn’t work out. For example, the current crop of very deep, high aspect ratio, thin rudders used on “big boats” do not work at all well on r/c boats. It remains very much an open question what are the proper shape and area of appendages for a canting keel r/c boat. Further, you have to overcome the issue of where the appendages have to be placed to properly balance the hull. Again, this is not a question of simple math. It can takes months to get the placement of a keel on a conventional r/c boat right and the difference of an 1/8 of an inch can make the difference between a greyhound and a slug. To date, no one has perfected the appendage package for a canting keel r/c race boat and it would again seem unrealistic that first attempts will be successful.

Third, the boat and the systems have to be built and work correctly. Just to start with, there are very few people around today who can make optimized fins and rudders for r/c boats. At its best the process involves prepreg composite materials and sophisticated molding techniques. If you can’t make a thin, light, straight properly sectioned fin, you will be slower than someone with such a fin. If you put your lead inside a fiberglass molding or put a wing on the end of your bulb or you have the wrong bulb shape, you will be slow. Similarly, you need to be able to build light, fast, strong and fair hulls to compensate for the additonal weight and stresses of canting keel/twin rudder systems. Again, there really are not that many people out there with a proven track record of building great, high tech hulls. Certainly, to date the people involved in promoting canting keel projects do not have a track record in the “high tech” end of building model boats. (Doesn’t mean they can’t do it, just raises another “question”). Also, similarly, you need first class sails on rigid spars. To the best of my knowledge none of the current crop of successful r/c sail makers are involved in canting keel projects. Finally, you have to design and build all new systems and make them work reliably. For a CBTF boat, you have to get the turning relationship between the forward and aft rudders correct and you have to be able to cant the keel quickly and often. None of these are easy tasks; and it would be very optimistic to expect that it will all work perfectly right out of the gate.

Fourth, and finally, even if you get everything right you still have to be able to sail the boat fast in a variety of conditions. If a boat is hard to steer, if the keel system makes tacking difficult, if the boat needs to constantly be retuned to stay fast as the wind changes, you do not have a boat that will win around a race course. More than one very well known r/c boat designer has a great track record when he or his tuning partners sail his designs, but when his boats are sold to the general public most people find them too hard to tune and sail. If most r/c sailors can’t successfully tune and drive a canting keel boat, the technology might not be practical for r/c sailing. Further, most r/c boat racing is on short courses with a lot of small wind shifts. Also, boats need to be able to perform in wind speeds from 0 to 3o knots. I would think it is very much an open question how well a canting keel system will do under these conditions.

In conclusion–my point is a simple one. Theory ain’t practice and performance claims don’t win races. There is no revolution until real r/c boats start winning on real racecourses and that entails hard work and effort to perfect unproven systems. If I had to guess I would say this is only the very beginning of a process and that the conclusion is by no means clear.

From an America’s Cup standpoint CBTF could bring tremendous excitement reinvigorating the Cup at a time when it really needs it. Most offshore racing classes allow/encourage canting keels with the new Volvo 70 and maxZ86 encouraging CBTF as well. There is no way that the trend toward movable ballast in boats from 21’ to 140’ can be ignored in AC class circles unless the decision is made to stay with outdated --and slow fixed keels. The trends in modern monohull design are clearly toward movable ballast and away from older ,slow leadbelly type technology-so maybe the AC guys will surprise us all and go with canting keels -of which CBTF is the fastest all-round technology.
In model’s considerable expertise in design, testing ,foil design and construction is being brought to bear on introducing CBTF to the rc sailing world…

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

Unfortunately Roy, we may never be able to prove CBTF technology is superior. F100s are not legal in either the US1M class or the IOM class. They allow much larger sail areas, so you will never be able to seperate out the influence of the larger sail area from the influence of CBTF. The F100s will be home built boats for the near future, so even if you put a CBTF F100 in a race against a fixed keel F100, the two boats will have radically different hull shapes, sail shapes, etc, so you will always have some other factors to point to.

As far as I can tell from Doug’s preliminary design information, his F100 willl not be significantly lighter than an average US1M. Instead it will carry more sail area. So the sail area to waterline length and sail area to displacement ratios will go up, but the displacement to waterline length will be about the same as the current crop of US1Ms. This is a different philosophy than the Schock 40 took. The Schock 40 was designed with the same sail area as a typical Grand Prix IMS 40, but at half the displacement. Now, in theory, both approaches are correct. For a full sized boat, you hit hull speed at around 10 knots of wind, so reducing your displacement allows you to get to hull speed sooner (less than 10 knots of wind) and plane sooner. If you had instead increased sail area, it is doubtful that the Schock 40 would plane at all given a high displacement. For the F100, you hit hull speed at very low wind speeds. And the current crop of US1Ms will plane at moderate wind speeds. So the emphasis for the F100 design needs to be on planing sooner. That means lots of sail area and a planing hull shape - Both of which are well understood technologies. The CBTF will allow the boat to have enough stability to carry the extra sail area while maintaining the light displacement needed to plane.

The first canting ballast RC boat is already in the water - the Ultimate Warrior. Although there is not a lot of info out there about the performance of this boat, the early reports from NZ do not indicate any fundamental problms with control, tacking, etc. This design does not have the massive amount of sail area of the F100 class, but does seem to have an impressive amount of canvas compared to other 1 meter boats out there (suprisingly, they do not quote the sail area in their specs). The boat seems fairly heavy at 3.5 kg (7.7 lbm) with 1.9 kg (4.2 lbm) in the bulb. Given this much weight, this boat seems to be designed to perform well, but is not trying to take advantage of early planing. Rather, this boat will likely sail very flat through a wide range of wind speeds and be able to maintain the large sail area well into the B and C rig range. But in order to compete with F100s, this boat would need a lot more sail area and need to have a lighter hull.

As far as the Micro-sail F100 is concerned, we will have to be patient and wait for Doug to build this boat. Then one of us will have to ante up the cash to buy one and take it for a spin against some other one meter boats. After that (assuming it performs up to theory) we will all sit around for months in a pissing match arguing over whether it is the larger sail area or the CBTF technology that makes it so fast. but as you point out, Roy, it is the entire package that makes a boat fast or slow, so we cannot really seperate the sail area from the CBTF. After all, it is the canting ballast that allows us to carry so much sail area in the first place.

So, since we are all aware that yacht design is not a simple 1+1=2 type of science, we will have to judge each design on its own merits.

The F100 class is not going to appeal to everyone. Heck, I race a Fairwind class boat which is a very heavy boat (8 lbm) that will never plane and I enjoy the nice tight racing that it offers. It is far from the fastest boat on the water. Each class offers some version of a level playing field on which we can all compete. Some classes favor sailing skill over technology (Fairwind, CR914, victoria, etc.) while other classes favor technology development. Each has its place. The F100 is going to be the place for radical ideas and breakthrough speed potential. It looks like canting ballast will be an important part of that equation. It is doubtful that the first boats out of the box get it 100% right. but I strongly believe, after having gone for a ride on a Schock 40 and seen the difference in speed for myself, that these CBFT F100s will make a similar quantum leap forward in speed. By adding the extra degree of freedom, they will be a bit more challenging to sail, but the reward for mastering this new technology will be a massive improvement in speed.

  • Will

Will Gorgen

Will: I agree that for an F100 the principal increase in speed over an IOM for example will come from the increased sail area. And I also very much agree that boats need to be built incorporating new technology before breakthrough claims should be made. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse. I am more than willing to judge a design on its own merits, I am not willing to agree that an idea or technology or concept is “superior” or “faster” or makes everything else “retro” before a boat is actually built or a single race won.

I also agree with you that it would hard to judge the performance of a CBTF F100 boat. However, one thing that would be made clear by actually racing an r/c CBTF boat against convetional boats with lesser or equal sail area --if the conventional boats beat the CBTF F100 around a racecourse, you would know there was a problem with the F100 CBTF boat. (And I am fairly certain that someone will gladly invest in a bigger rig for their IOM or US1M or 36/600 just to put this issue to bed should the time come when a viable CBTF boat r/c boat appears.)

As to the success of canting keels in the F100 class (should it ever break out of the small group in France currently racing these boats and become a viable racing class), I think that is very much an open question even in theory. First, it appears that the current active class participants in France aren’t even using canting keels. Second, since the class allows changing ballast between races, I have a funny feeling that having a series of fin/bulb combinations that can be changed out as the wind speed goes up and down might be a simpler and faster way to go. Third, read the post here from about a week ago from the creator of the Ultimate Warrior. He does suggest that there are issues in tacking the boat and responding to every winshift on the course. Also see the posts from over a year ago on Windpower where one of the promoters of the F100 in France questioned whether Doug’s systems would be successful around a race course. Finally, having spent a few years sailing the old 36/600 unrestricted class and even experimenting with 10R rigs on 36/600 hulls, I do know that above a certain wind speed it wont’ matter if the boat has canting keels or twin rudders or whatever–the fight will be to keep the boat upright.

P.S. I saw the Ultimate warrior over the weekend. It appears to not have greater sail area than an IOM or US1M. Its principal attraction seems to be its ability to replicate the look and operation of a contemporary canting keel race boat.

There is still a reluctance in some poorly informed quarters to trust the results of sophisticated computer modeling. Graham Bantock used such tools with the help of the Wolfson Unit to design the new F100CBTF and conclusively found that an F100 is faster-by a large margin- around several different types of rc course in every condition than an IOM or F100 fixed keel. Graham states that dierectly in his report to me and it is further backed up by his personal design experience and his phenominal racing experience. His results and his conclusions are worth remembering.
This performance is based on a number of factors:1) the canting keel allows a righting moment over twice that of an IOM with less weight hence the ability to carry MUCH more sail in light air-and more sail longer in every condition. The innovative and reefable Wing Tip Rig™ allows quick and easy adjustments to sail area as the wind changes and the square top sail planform will provide more bang for the buck. The F100 not only has more sail area and the power to carry it -it has a sophisticated modern rig design that develops more power than a conventional rig.
2) The CBTF design has the ability to dial out leeway-that is: to eliminate leeway 100% upwind-- a feature no other boat can match whether canting or fixed keel. This facility can be used to actually sideslip to weather in tactical situations for short periods.
3)- The CBTF design, by placing the foils in SPECIFIC locations, actually reduces wavemaking resistance-another benefit not available to any fixed keel or canting keel/daggerboard raceboat.
In the F100 Class where a number of the French originators are about to be sailing canting keel boats or CBTF boats later the optimum racing configurtion will be a CBTF boat with easily changed keel fin/bulb combiations along with an on-deck Trapeze Power Ballast System. This will allow the boat to be configured before any race to the optimum for the existing conditions.
The F100CBTF designed by Graham Bantock is a strict ONE DESIGN that fits (without modification) into the F100 Class…
With many ,many years of actually sailing and racing rc canting keel boats and rc boats utilizing different types of movable ballast I can tell you sailing such a boat provides an an incredibly satisfying experience not achievable with rc fixed keel boats…

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

“With many ,many years of actually sailing and racing rc canting keel boats…”

Got any pictures?

Dick Carver

…Dick, we do think alike as I had the same question but figured I would continue to be quiet on all of this stuff. It is getting a bit obnoxious I think hearing constantly about how wonderful this CBFT is when in fact I have never heard of anyone ever using it, no less in competition. YIKES!

Please don’t tell me any more about how good this system is on a friggin computer program. I just want to see someone actually build one and sail it successfully. By this I mean that it is beating all the other 1Ms out there in regattas the way I keep hearing that it will do. I don’t care that it might be a ‘faster’ boat. I need to know that it is a faster boat around an entire race course and can actually win regattas.
Please prove me wrong, but I bet it’s save to say that we will never see this happen in the next year or even two.

Dick, there are many pictures,thanks for asking! First, on www.microsail.com is the picture of the Melges 24RC
(under innovations) showing that boat with its Trapeze Power Ballast System-approx. 5 years ago.And before that the Melges prototype was sailed for a long time with a canting keel . If you ask David Goebel nicely he may still have the pictures of the 36" scow taken about 6 years ago also with a Trapeze Power Ballast System.
About 10 years ago my partner and I built two “X” boats(70" loa) with canting keels using extremely expensive keel winches that we match raced for over 6 months every weekend-and monthly for years after that(thanks Bruce). Somewhere I have a time lapse photo of that boat’s canting keel in action.
None of those boats were great(except the Melges) but they gave me a lot of experience sailing and racing with canting keels and movable ballast in general.
My research and experimentation with canting keels and movable ballast goes back a long way and resulted last year in the aeroSKIFF model that was a canting keel boat designed to use hydrofoils. The canting keel system was extremely quick and reliable-and watertight. That same system, further refined, will be used in the F100CBTF. It allows the keel to cant 55 degrees to each side in a six inch wide boat which is better than most full size canting keel systems. And it is quick-very quick from side to side.
Greg, your comment and the tone is really surprising- ever since earlier this year when I got the go ahead from CBTF ,Inc. and Grahams agreement to design the new boat we’ve been making steady progress- with the design completed only a short time ago. I’ve made several reports here and on Windpower about the progress from day one.
Whether you accept it or not the work Graham has done with the “friggin computer” is important and indicative of the value of the CBTF concept; the same process Graham has used has been done in many full size designs.
The obnoxious tone of your post is unfortunate since I’ve done the best I can to give frequent updates on the progress of the project since it began and to discuss problems as well as successes in the design process…
Why do you think nobody is using it? How many times have I explained that answer: EVERY single AMYA and International Class BANS movable ballast!!! Might that explain it a little to you?! Very, very few people would invest tens of thousands of dollars in a technology that at present is not legal in any recognized class!
I believe in the technology and have done will continue to do my best to debunk the bs and inuendo surrounding one of the most important technologies ever to hit sailing. Throughout this project I have reported the good with the bad --and in detail. The “friggin computer” results are all that we have right now but they are very powerfull indicators of the viability and
performance potential of CBTF as applied to models…

Doug Lord
microsail.com
monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing

…gee Doug, it doesn’t take much to send you off the deep end. One small comment to this topic that might be letting others know how I feel, and I?m personally attacked by you?

Interesting, to say the very least.

Dick, Roy, Greg,

I find it reasonably admirable that doug has been willing to share so much about his design. He could have kept quiet and unveiled his boat when it was completed. I am confident that it will be as fast as the computer predicts. If he had kept it secret, he would have had an effective monopoly on the F100 class.

Instead, he has chosen to share his concept and many of the design tradeoffs that he has been making along the way. He has opened himself up to criticism in the name of sharing an exciting new technology with other boat designers who could, if they chose, become competitors to him in the boat production market. He chose to do so becuase he believes in the technology. And because of his willingness to share, many other designers have jumped into the fray and begun designing/building boats with canting keels.

Having sailed on Tom Schock’s Schock 40, I can attest to the awesome, dinghy-like acceleration that comes from cutting the boat weight in half. I can attest to the incredible feeling of planing in SF bay winds (15 - 20 knots) with hardly any heel. This technology is as basic as sail camber to boat speed and there is in my mind very little risk that this technology will not work as advertised in RC boats.

I’m excited enough about the possibility, that I am working on a boat that will fit within the rules of the US1M class (using a canting rig instead of a canting keel) and plan to race it next year in our local club US1M fleet. If all goes well, I fully expect to have a significant enough speed advantage that the US1M class association will ban my boat from class events. At which point, I will have to decide whether to turn it into a conventional US1M by fixing the mast and adding more weight to the bulb, or whether I will keep it as a canting mast boat and only sail it for fun.

I expect Doug to make good progress on his boat this winter and to hopefully have it on the water in the spring. With some fine tuning, I expect that this boat will provide all the performance that Graham and Doug have predicted. (I also hope that it does not cut into his ability to build other boats as I am contemplating purchasing an X3 hydrofoil from him…)

We are all impatient to see these new boats perform. Some of us expect it to suceed while others are hoping it will fail. In the meantime, I for one enjoy talking about the finer details of this technology with Doug and others on this forum. I am looking forward to the next Volvo Around the world race where records will be broken thanks to this technology. I expect the other full sized CBTF boats to continue to dominate the world sailing scene. I expect Mari Cha to live up to her owner’s hopes. I expect boats in the MaxZ86 class to break new record in whatever distance races they enter (transpac, etc). And I, for one, expect to be doing a lot of talking about this technology for years to come.

I don’t expect fixed keeled boats to go away. I fully expect the IOM class to continue to grow in a way that the F100 class never will. There is a lot more to racing than sailing the fastest technology on the water. I plan to continue campaigning my Fairwind class boat which does not even have a bulb keel much less a canting keel. I expect such “old school” classes as the Soling 1M and the EC12 to continue to be the largest classes in the AMYA.

I for one am willing to be supportive of Doug’s efforts to design a breakthrough boat. I am also supportive of folks who are willing to make incremental improvements in boatspeed for established classes without breakthrough technologies (Rod Carr with his high twist sails, Lester Gilbert with his continual tinkering around the fringes in the IOM). I have a thirst for knowledge and love discussing technologies on their merits.

In this case, I think that Doug has the right to be a little excited and perhaps put the cart a bit in front of the horse. And I appreciate his willingness to share his adventure with us. After all, it gives us all something interesting to discuss here…

  • Will

Will Gorgen

“…I’m excited enough about the possibility, that I am working on a boat that will fit within the rules of the US1M class (using a canting rig instead of a canting keel) and plan to race it next year in our local club US1M fleet. If all goes well, I fully expect to have a significant enough speed advantage that the US1M class association will ban my boat from class events…”

Will, why would you think that they would ban this technology? We sail against a boat with a canting rig all the time, with the class secretary no less and he is very excited to see these advances. We also have a local skipper who developed a fantastic rotating rig that is within the non-rotating mast rules. This is all great stuff to see people show up at the pond with, but I will say that the advantages that it produces are narrow enough that the boats are not yet a threat to standard US1Ms like mine.
Look forward to seeing your finished product and hope that I will be able to see it in person some day.

Greg, I’m glad to hear that the class secretary is open to this technology. When Jim showed the pictures of Hal Robinson’s boat in Model Yachting a year ago or so, he made some comments questioning the legality of it. The next weekend at our pond, the US1M sailors were very adamant that it was illegal under the rotating mast clause. Since I am not a member of the US1M class (yet), I was not sure how the class was proceeding on the rule interpretation.

Question, does Jim have wings on his keel? Shortly after I saw Hal’s boat in MY, I sent Jim a note to pass along to Hal suggesting the idea as a way of fixing the lateral resistance problems.

Question #2 did Jim reduce the weight of his keel bulb with the canting mast? My instinct on this is that in order for a canting mast boat to be competitive in the lower wind range, the weight of the boat should be a pound or so less than typical US1Ms.

Without those two things, I think the performance increase would be marginal at best.

Will Gorgen

By the way, I see that the West Coast PHRF organization lowered the Schock 40s rating for downwind races this year to -21 (used to be -15). It looks like she is proving to be a bit faster than originally anticipated. Of course now that many of the new TP52s are coming out with canting ballast, the Schock 40 is a lot less likely to dominate those races.

  • will

Will Gorgen

Will: With all due respect, what details of his design has Doug Lord shared with the world? That it is a CBTF boat, a technology for which he holds exclusive model rights? That Graham Bantock’s VPP program predicts that it will be faster than an IOM? That it will incorporate a canting keel and a square top main? This really isn’t design information unless you think someone is sharing design infromation about a car by saying that it will have four wheels, an eight cylnder engine, and that a computer says it will be wicked fast…Design information is about shapes, weights, sections, etc. General claims about the superiority of a form of technology is hype…

As to your believe that adding wings to a fin/bulb will somehow solve the balance problems of a canting rig, at the very least, you should be aware that to date the drag associated with wings in r/c sailing have far exceeded any speed gain. Further, from personal experience wings do not make up for reduced keel fin area. Also experiments in a number of classes with canting rigs as Greg has pointed out haven’t yet shown a significant speed advantage. None of this means that you won’t be successful, its just nice to be aware of a little history. You should also give some considereation to the fact that because of its size and already low weight that the US1M might not be the best platform to experiment with canting rigs.

One final thought, as an owner of the Wolfson Unit VPP that Graham Bantock uses, I can tell you it is a design tool and not a performance guarantee. I can also tell you that it is not at the same level of sophistication that the CFD and other programs used in the AC and at the highest level of yacht design. If anyone is interested they can go to Wolfson’s websight; the VPP program is both described and offered for sale.

Roy,

Doug has shared with us the design tradeoffs that he and Graham played with such as whether to use a gybing daggerboard or a forward rudder, where to position the daggerboard, the design considerations of winches to drive the canting ballast strut, the power consuption, the tradeoff between canting ballast and trapeeze based shifting ballast just to name a few. I’m sure more will be forthcoming including pictures of the design process. I’m not sure if he plans to publish the plans as those are probably proprietary.

I am well aware of the history of winged keels on RC boats. I have talked to quite a few guys who have tried them. In general, they were attempting to replicate the function of wings on full sized boats which is to reduce the induced drag of the keel. However, given the relatively deep draft of RC boats on a scale basis compared with their full sized counterparts, the keels of RC boats are already quite low in induced drag and the induced drag reduction of wings is offset by the increased drag of wetted surface area. given the very low reynolds numbers of RC boat keels, this is completely predictable.

However, my idea is not to use the wings to reduce the induced drag of the keel but rather to provide lateral resistance with the boat at say a 60 degree heel. One could imagine that with that extreme heel angle, the keel will tend to want to just slip sideways. So by adding wings to the keel you introduce a foil that is better angled to produce lateral resistance. They are not being added to improve the balance but rather to counteract the sideslip. I will pay a drag penalty off the wind, but I am hoping that the lighter weight weill allow me to plane sooner than the other boats and make up for the extra wetted surface area.

The only canting rig boats that I am aware of in any class is Hal Robinson’s US1M and Dario Valenza’s M class “Phie”. I have talked with both gentlemen about their desings and have discussed my theories with them. Generally their responses were positive. Hal even indicated he would try it on his boat. I’m not sure if I misread Gregs last post. did he indicate that Jim Lavine also has a canting rig boat? If so, that makes 3 that I am aware of. My concept is closest to Phie. To Quote from their website:

“Phie is beyond doubt faster than any it has yet sailed against. The catch is that it is incredibly touchy to sail. It is difficult to tack downspeed if overpressed with the rig centred and it is impossible to sail with the rig on the wrong side. Canting the rig at the right time is critical as the boat is easily overpowered with the mast centred. Balance seems to be reasonable but will improve with experimentation of lead values. Balance shifts subtly as the boat heels.”

"Surprisingly, it is on a reach that the most dramatic bursts of speed are observed, regularly sailing around an entire race fleet. Upwind in light winds performance is marginally but consistently greater than the top boats. Downwind the acceleration is more dramatic due to reduced displacement. The boat accelerates instead of trimming down and nose-diving when overpressed. Acceleration out of tacks is phenomenal if the mast is canted during the tack. "

Dario expressly states that he has chosen to go with lower displacement and take advantage of off the wind speed and greater stability in moderate to high winds. This is my goal for the US1M.

I am not 100% sold that the wings will make the boat faster. I am being open minded about it. But based on what I have gleaned from others i think there is a possibility that it could fix some of the apparent pproblems with heeling the hull to such extreme angles.

I chose the US1M because the club that I belong to has a fleet of these (9 boats on a good day - 2 or 3 most days) and the class rules seem to allow for canting rigs. I think the performance advantages of a canting rig system would be greater in a fleet with a higher displacement to sail area ratio where minimum displacement was not controlled by the class rules. I have looked at many of the other classes and the M class is a possibility although it does not have as high of a displacement to SA ratio as I would like.

For the US1M, I am banking on being able to plane in lower wind speeds and carry the full sized rig up into higher wind speeds. In order to do this, boat weight must be reduced for a given sail area. This puts a premium on light weight hulls, and components. I am already at a disadvantage due to the additional weight of the canting mast mechanism. But I still feel I can put a boat in the water with 1 to 1.5 lbs less displacement than a typical boat. It will require substantial use of carbon fiber/foam laminates but I think it can be done.

I am not using any VPP programs in my design work. I am focussing on getting a mechanical system that works well and then I will experiment with positioning of the keel, rig, etc. I am buying a hull (most likely a Venom based on some recommendations) and sails, so my job is to build and perfect all the mechanical bits. As such, I am wrestling with similar design issues that Doug has been talking about.

For example, I have chosen to use a cam system like Hal Robinson’s to cant the mast (as opposed to the pulley system Dario uses for Phie). This system has the advantage of “locking off” the mast into the full cant positions such that the torque on the servo is zero. That will allow me to use a much smaller battery (saving weight) and sail longer on a single charge (Dario talkes on his website about power consumption). I will also use a swing arm sail servo that does the same thing (locking off the sheets to reduce torque on the servo).

I will probably drag my leeward rail in moderate to high wind, so having a clean faired deck will be key. The mast will be unstayed, so that will eliminate some of the deck clutter.

Like Dario, I will probably end up experimenting with different bulb weights and keel positions (for balance). I will also sail with and without the wings. I expect to be doing a bit of development once I get the boat in the water and am specifically designing certain features to be adjustalbe (mast position, keel position, etc).

It will be next spring at the earliest before my boat hits the water (the water gets sort of hard around here in the winter). And given my serious lack of free time lately, it may not happen until next year. But I will let you know how it turns out.

  • Will

Will Gorgen

Can I butt in here. Doug has been very helpfull with his information regarding CKTK technology.
Unfortuntaly I am away from the workbench on a business trip to Austrailia and the USA for the next 4 weeks so my F100 CKTF project is collecting dust.
I have probobly gone overboard by putting to much technology on this boat with also the rotating swing rig/gybing gennaker, so it will take alot sailing to sort out the various systems and get use to operating them.
I think if I went with just the cktf I would be able to pull 500 grams (1lb) off the displacment 4.2 kg. And as everyknows a light boat is fast. Look at the light displacement IOR boats out of NZ in the 70’s.
So here’s a photo showing the canting keel mechanism.

Download Attachment: DSC00639.JPG
32.94KB

Download Attachment: DSC00626.JPG
49.44KB

Dick,

You keep forgetting that I am in Ann Arbor, MI.

I am looking forward to getting myself an X3 for some serious speed. But so far there are no other boats around here to play with. I promised myself that if I ever ventured into a development class, I would throuw the full weight of my technical expertise into a radical boat. That is what I am attempting with the US1M. If the F48 class gets rolling, you can expect a wing sail out of my workshop…

Will Gorgen

JohnB,

That is a an impressive system. But it does have the drawback of moving the weight of the drive servo to the wrong side of the boat and also to be drawing battery power whenever the keel is canted away vrom vertical. If the F100 class, given the massive sail area, I think weight is less of a concern.

Canting ballast can be used in two ways. 1) you can reduce the weight of the boat by using it more effectively for righting moment or 2) you can add more sail area for the same weight. I am doing the former. The F100s have chosen the latter. Both have merit.

Good luck and keep us posted. You are an inspiration…

Will Gorgen