View Full Version : 100' Supermaxi
ok, i was bored so i decided to pose this little challenge. Say that we people on this forum were going to collaborate on a supermaxi. what would you guys add to it. For the sake of not starting an argument, we will say it has a canting keel with the forward foil type to be determined by this years Sydney to Hobart Race.
Anyone have any ideas?
Doug Lord
06-11-2005, 05:31 PM
OK, I'll bite: was this race your way of introducing the 10° static heel test as a qualifying factor?
no. They have eliminated that rule in the S-H, and i thought it was stupid anyway and would not have payed attention to it. The reason i referred to the Sydney to hobart is because there will be TMF 100' and 90' going against 100' CBTF. Whichever performs better will be the choice of this imaginary design.
Doug Lord
06-11-2005, 05:46 PM
Thats very interesting. I hadn't heard that the 10° rule had been trashed-are you sure?
If that's the case what a showdown it will be!
I heard something about it because Skandia/wildthing Yachting claims that their 30m monster is allowed to cant her keel to its fullest extent, so the rig is much larger now, and she has essentially been turboed. Nicorette wont have any success in that race though. The boats to watch will be the 98+ footers.
mackid068
06-12-2005, 04:14 PM
I just would worry about any boat with a canting keel. Sydney-Hobart canting keel disasters are many.
mackid068
06-12-2005, 04:16 PM
How about an extremely quiet inboard engine? Sounds good. But seriously, how about making all rig components of kevlar/carbon-fiber composite
that would be a good idea. Do you know whether the carbon fibre rigging componenets now being made are good at withstanding shock loads? Carbon fibre in general hs a nasty habit of exploding under stress...
tspeer
06-12-2005, 05:43 PM
...Say that we people on this forum were going to collaborate on a supermaxi. what would you guys add to it. ...
A second hull.
"A second hull."
than that would be a maxi cat, not a supermaxi.
tspeer
06-12-2005, 09:04 PM
"A second hull."
than that would be a maxi cat, not a supermaxi.
Exactly.
What is the point of compromising the structural and watertight integrity of the hull by putting on a canting keel? It's complex to operate, and has vulnerable machinery that is safety critical. It renders the boat unsuitable for any use other than Grand Prix racing, unlike earlier generations of race boats where the investment in the boat yielded a second life as a cruiser. And for all that, you still have a slow boat.
If you want to design a fast race boat, why not design a fast race boat?
mackid068
06-12-2005, 09:16 PM
Well, you COULD design a mini for just sailing around. A second hull that is actually a second hull, maybe not for racing, but how about making the primary hull out of the standard material and having an interior hull (much like the pressure hull of a submarine, though not for pressure) as a safeguard? Make it out of a buoyant material with a strong outer shell just before an airspace.
something like this:
Regular hull ----> Air space ----> Shell for secondary hull made of aramid ----> buoyant material ----> another layer just to divide buoyant material from interior ----> interior.
because as of now most major events are monohulls, and i am slightly biased towards monohulls. If i was trying to set all-out speed records, then i would go multi-hull. But im not, so why not stay with the monohull. Also, if one of these things was designed properly, it would be very seaworthy.
mackid068
06-12-2005, 09:30 PM
Monohulls have only slight advantages. Multihulls are nice and fast. I'll stick with this definition (which, if you replace certain aspects, works with all multi-hulls): Catamaran-A boat with two hulls, thereby two times more likely to hit a submerged object but will take two times longer to sink after hitting said object.
astevo
06-12-2005, 10:47 PM
A second hull.
good call that one, the whole talk of how high performance a maxi moni is really irrelevant when you consider how much faster a raft is. the fact is monos are good for close quarters racing but as a linehonors chaser the only thing keeping them relevant is mono-only races.
yokebutt
06-12-2005, 11:22 PM
Okay then, how about this, one central gen-set, canting keel, winches, propulsion and everything else driven by electric motors.
Yoke.
Skippy
06-12-2005, 11:32 PM
"Catamaran-A boat with two hulls, thereby two times more likely to hit a submerged object but will take two times longer to sink after hitting said object."
The catamaran typically has much less draft than the monohull, making it less likely to run into shoals, which are more common than floating objects. Even if one hull of the cat is holed, in general, the other hull can survive intact so often the boat won't sink at all.
yokebutt
06-13-2005, 12:11 AM
The beauty with multihulls, and something that confirmed mono-hullers often don't fully appreciate the dangers of, is that they don't have a big freeking sinker attached to the bottom. If you're really worried about it, just bump up the core thickness to where you have enough volume entrained to float the boat.
Yoke.
mackid068
06-13-2005, 03:17 PM
It was a joke. I sail a lot of cats myself.
Paul B
06-13-2005, 04:53 PM
ok, i was bored so i decided to pose this little challenge. Say that we people on this forum were going to collaborate on a supermaxi. what would you guys add to it. For the sake of not starting an argument, we will say it has a canting keel with the forward foil type to be determined by this years Sydney to Hobart Race.
Anyone have any ideas?
What is your goal? Win 2006 Hobart Race? Set 24 hr mark? Set TranAt record? Win major inshore races?
The design will have to be tailored to what you want to achieve. Regardless of what wins this year's Hobart race, it might not be the best solution if your goal is to set the 24 hour record.
Probably the goal would be win the Sydney Hobart, as the 24 hour speed marks are usually set in relatively flat seas while reaching. The sydney hobart requires more from the boat and crew. in theory this thing would be our weapon in the supermaxi arms race.
CT 249
06-13-2005, 07:40 PM
Dunno what it will be like, apart from extremely damn expensive. That's assuming it will follow the normal route of unrestricted classes - bigger and bigger rigs, with more and more righting moment. So goodbye to the days of successful smaller boats that traded off size for efficiency (Ragtime/Infidel, Ballyhoo, Merlin, Xena) or the cool boats that had some dual-purpose application but still traded races with the best (Leopard, Nirvana) and hello to the days of even more expensive big boats. Also expect for the overall numbers in the fleet in some races to shrink (like it has in the Hobart as the boats have got bigger) unless some of the clubs wake up to the fact that no-one likes finishing 3 days behind the line honours winner.
And all this to go a knot or two faster, thereby finishing earlier (these guys must hate sailing if all they want to do is get the race over) and reducing sponsor's exposure - when all the time going much, much slower than a 100' multi......not that the mega-multis have been a raving success as a class.
Why they couldn't just admit that no leadmine is really fast, and just stick to 70-80' as the top limit, is beyond me.
astevo
06-13-2005, 07:43 PM
if its not a cat its a dog... (or if its not a skiff maybee)
Why they couldn't just admit that no leadmine is really fast, and just stick to 70-80' as the top limit, is beyond me.
mackid068
06-13-2005, 08:06 PM
Too costly this project is becoming. Hmm. A costal racer, should we create. No longer than 50 feet, think I. Sorry, Yoda-voice reared its ugly head.
ok how about we build upon the 'cone of silence" idea? Only with a 45-50 footer.
Paul B
06-13-2005, 08:30 PM
ok how about we build upon the 'cone of silence" idea? Only with a 45-50 footer.
I believe it is called the TP 52 Class.
http://www.transpac52.org/home.htm
Not totally open, but that keeps the boats closer in speed, eliminates the "bigger rig, more RM" issues that 249 mentions, and keeps the last generation from becoming obsolete too quickly.
Although you could do something faster for the same length, these things are pretty darn fast without complexity of moving ballast, extra foils, etc.
Im not sure anything for the same length could be faster than a TP 52 unless you went multi-hull. TP 52's can do 12 knots upwind and have been planing downwind at a steady 22 knots.
Paul B
06-13-2005, 08:48 PM
Im not sure anything for the same length could be faster than a TP 52 unless you went multi-hull. TP 52's can do 12 knots upwind and have been planing downwind at a steady 22 knots.
I don't think a good design studio would have any trouble doing a 52 footer significantly faster than a TP 52. If you had the cash and went to BFA, or J/V, or R/P, or any one of 10 or 15 others you could have it done. The better ones might ask you "WHY".
For inshore racing I think the current Libera Classe A boats (less than 13 meters) should be quicker around a sausage course. But it might be a bit hairy doing something like a Bermuda race or Transpac on one of those.
http://www.classe-libera.de/
mackid068
06-14-2005, 07:12 PM
Well, I'm pretty certain that inshore racing is not the goal. LEt's go for something smaller than a TP 52. Maybe a 32'? Big difference from original thread. What do you all say?
its getting smaller and smaller! pretty soon we will be designing a turboed Optimist dinghy.
astevo
06-14-2005, 07:25 PM
if we do that its morelikley that a mere mortal will be able to afford it....
To be honest im not really interested in super maxis, even maxis have been getting bigger to, remember when a 70ér was a maxi? Maxis are not about performance, they only exist so that millionaires can pose around in yacht clubs comparing their wallets and yachts as extensions of their manhood.
The maxi monohull is redundant in a performance sense. All of us here know that a cat is faster, and you can make a smaller cheaper cat for the same purpose.
basically this like all other collaborative design threads on this forum has decended into an arguement about principles rather than actually designing anyhting at all. Cant say im suprised really.
mackid068
06-14-2005, 10:18 PM
"Maxis are not about performance, they only exist so that millionaires can pose around in yacht clubs comparing their wallets and yachts as extensions of their manhood.
The maxi monohull is redundant in a performance sense. All of us here know that a cat is faster, and you can make a smaller cheaper cat for the same purpose. "
Exactly, we all are reasonable people, me excepted, and even I realize that a 100' boat is not a practical boat. But a 32-footer is a different story entirely, yes, it may be expensive, but not RIDICULOUSLY so, maybe $80-120k but not $500,000. And even $80k is really pushing the limit of the wallet of many of us. So a $50-90k price range, approxamately?
View Full Version : 100' Supermaxi