Now that the Tybee 500 is over, I'd like to hear from the competitors on their opinions of the differences between the boats involved.

How did the N6.0 and the I-20 compare?
What about the 18HT to the I-20 and N6.0?

The results are posted, so I'd like to hear what actually happened over the 500 miles up the east coast.

Hey Mike,

The HT was pretty fast in most of the conditions. Jamie Livingston may have a different view because he seemed to keep his boat going all the time, but they did seem to struggle vissibly when the wave conditions got rough. Although the conditions were very mild there was still a few breakdowns. (1 broken transome and 1 folded dagger board from a ray) I do not think there was any structural failures on any of the other boats,and our boat should have had something go wrong as we hit solidly 1 ray, 1 turtle, and ran around 4 times on the last day following the dam sand bar infested coast to Tybee.

As far as the I20 and 6.0, I feel they are essentially even up in performance. The bigger jib off the wind, the huge butt spin in the light down wind, and a little less main when it did really pick up made the 6.0 very tough aound the course.

Many thanks to Chuck B and the race committee, as they put on an excellent event, that I look forward to doing again.

Matt

Hi Mike

Saw the race from the back of the pack and the front also at times ,-there was always a good mix at the starts of 6/0s -HT 18S and I-20s mixing it up ,-it varied as the H T s do not like waves diving and pitching too much ,but the 6/0 are better in them not having those wide inter 20 flat bow sections that slap into them ,-
Reaching the 6/0 was better with its large jib , and straight downwind with its larger spin .

Believe the 6/0 sailed by Steve and Kenny last season in some distance races took line honors that included a good field of I 20s and several other boat types .

Sailed the 6/0 in the 98 and 99 Worrell --its an excellent powerfull well built with better boards and rudders ,-fast cat .

The 18 HTs are ideal buoys racing cat designs for flat water .

Carl

Carl,

What do you mean the N6.0 boards and rudders are designed better? I thought the I20 boards were more efficient as they had less drag? I'm really curious as I'm looking for a new boat. I've been *really* impressed with the N6.0 in light air but the I-20 really caught my eye in the T500, so now I'm waivering between the two.

Thanks,
Steve.

...
> the H T s do not like waves diving and pitching too much<
...
>The 18 HTs are ideal buoys racing cat designs for flat water . <

1. So from your observation the HT's wave piercing bows do not reduce pitching?
(I thought that was what all the hype/design was about?)
(Maybe the pitching is from the difference of a 18' boat vs a 20' boat,
where shorter boats pitch more?)

2. Upwind did the HT lack the power to punch though waves/chop
or lack of accelleration in that condition.
Which do think slowed the HT more in waves or chop,
lack of a jib? or hull shape? mainsail to flat? pointing to high?

Reaching I have no comment.

3. Downwind, how was the HT downwind compared to the others?

Thank you in advance.

I think that Will Sunnucks last two reports are interesting.
He has a lot of experience in most cats, from the Tornado down.

From: William Sunnucks [mailto:william.sunnucks@capreg.com]
Sent: 17 May 2003 04:00
Subject: Tybee 500 - that sinking feeling


Today we hit a stingray at full tilt, and came off worst. Our port dagger board kicked back and split the hull, which sunk fast. Luckily we were only about 3/4 mile offshore and managed to get it to the beach before it capsized. Disaster.

Rapid action from our ground crew meant that we had a spare hull on the beach within 3 hours. After another hour we were rigged up ready to go on, at which point the organisers phoned and suggested offered a time penalty rather than insisting we sail. Fortunate really, as with light winds we would have arrived well after midnight, and been too exhausted to race tomorrow.

We now know for certain that the Jav B is not tough enough for this type of sailing - the damage should not have been so terminal. We are out of the running for the race, but looking forward to a good 90 mile sail tomorrow to Tybee Island. Many thanks to Trevor and about six others who helped us get sorted.

William
__________________________________________________

From: William Sunnucks [mailto:william.sunnucks@capreg.com]
Sent: 20 May 2003 12:11
Subject: Tybee 500 - finishing in the dark


After Friday's dramas, we got the boat rigged for a wonderful 90 mile sail to Tybee Island on Saturday. We finished second at 11pm after a couple of hours sailing upwind in the dark - steering is difficult when you can't see the telltales, and you need to be handy with the GPS when trapezing. We had had problems with shallow water and unmarked obstacles all day (by this time both rudders and one centreboard had been damaged), so we tacked right out to sea as the light faded, and used the GPS to bring us back to the finish.

We finally solved the boatspeed problems: we put flexible battens in the top of the mainsail, and found that we had power in medium winds - at last. Our damaged hull caused a lot of interest as it sat on the beach (see photo on www.catsailor.com) and we found out that our main rivals had reinforced the seam which split: something we couldn't possibly have done in the time available to us, any more than we could have dodged the manta ray.

Overall a great trip. Many thanks to Mark for tolerating over 50 hours on a boat with me, and to Trevor Milton and Sue Watson for providing the most efficient ground support possible.

William

I have no comment apart from this reaction to the statement ;

"So from your observation the ... wave piercing bows do not reduce pitching?
(I thought that was what all the hype/design was about?)"


The word hype is not entirely unjustitified as it looks like it is more and more used as a marketing tool HOWEVER there are some noticable benefits from a trully wave piercer hull design. Let me explain what the theory is thus far.

Take a look at the attached picture and preferably open it in a new window so you can swap easily from text to graph and back.

The name wave piercer is a bad name in personal opinion. All fine entry bow sections are wave piercing and nearly all catamarans have fine bow entries. Therefor a Nacra 6.0 bow is just as much a wave piercer as that of the flyer A-cat.

However the name was made famous by the Flyer A-cat design which has a special volume distribution. In fact it re-arranged its distribution of displacement which AMONG OTHER THINGS make it EVEN less sensitive to passing wavelets than normal (wave peircing) bow sections.

Let look at the graph :

The red line models the bow sections of V-shaped hulls like Prindle 16, H16, Dart 18's.

The blue line depicts the "wave piercer" bow sections with INVERTED volume distribution when compare to the V-shaped bows. This bow section is found on Flyer A-cats, Capricorn F18, Hobie FOX, Hobie FX-one.

The green line belongs to U-shaped bow sections as is found on the older nacra's and most of the F18's.

The I-20 and I-18 are somewhat of a mix between mode red and green.


The graph features two axis, The verical one reflects displacement = restoring force. The horizontal one reflects the depth to which the bow is submerged.

On the left and underside of the graph you see the partially subnerged bows; All are depicted creating equal restoring force.

On the right and up you see the fully submerged bows.

In the graph you also a green dotted line. This depicts a bow section which has the same shape as the U-bows BUT where the builder has just trimmed the deck away to give the appearence of a trully wavepeircer hull shape but didn't rearrange the volume distribution. Lets say that these designers are only after the marketing aspect of the wavepierer hype but haven't been succesful in implementing it in the right way.

What happens ?

First of all, All sections give the same restoring forces when fully submerged (apart from the trimmed U-bow that is)

Now the V shaped bow clear has te worst wave and dive resistance. It also has the worst wetted surface area. It needs to be deeply submerged in order to provide enough force to keep the boat level under the forces of the sails. This relative deep submergence result in relatively high wetted area.

With each gust it need to submerged noticably deeper to create enough restoring force to counterbalance the gust or wahtever is causing the dive. This is the result of the upward curving line. Most of its volume is place high in hull and it take alot of depth to make use of it displacement.

Look at the grey dotted line to see how far the other hull shapes need to be pressed down to achieve the same restoring force. Noticably less.

Wavelets ? Because the biggest portion of the volume is placed high in the hulls, each passing wave will hit this part and then free this part time and time again. This results in a strong aggrevated oscillation to waves. This portion which is only wetted by wave makes up a big portion of the total volume. Its reaction reflects this.

To the first improvement the U shaped bows.

Here the wetted surface is imporved as well as the dive resistance and wavelet reaction.

All these things are clear from the graph. For a given restoring force the bow needs to be depressed less => dives less deep. Its ration of volume to circumference is better than that of teh V-bows and therefor it will have a better wetted surface ratio. Its lineairisation around its hull = level depth is less inclined that that of the V-bow and therefor its increase / decreases in forces produced by bow displacements are less in magnitude when a wave passes and wets the reserve volume in the bow. As a result this bow reacts less severly to passing wavelets. Of course big wave (swell) are so large that they will completel submerge the bow and make the induced forces equal again. So it can't ingnore the big wave just the smaller wavelets.

Now to to the wavepeircer concept.

Rearrange the volume so it rest low in the hull and remove the same amout from high up.

This will make the underwater body resemble a circle even more and reduce the wetted surface area in relation to the displaced volume.

It is also very clear that this setup will lift the hull up in the water and give more wave clearence to the beams. A side effect.

Again for a given restoring force the bow needs to be depressed even less than the U-shaped bow which in turn is depressed less than the V-shaped bow.


The dive resistance has a perculiar character.

Dive resistance is not entirely governed by force alone. Because diving is a motion and not a stationairy state the concept of energy and work govern dive resistance and not retoring force.

Do this mind experiment. Take a bottle and fully submerge it under water with its neck point up. Than do the same with the neck down. The force required to keep it fully under is the same but the path down was easier (lighter) when the neck was pointing down. This illustates that is requires less work / energy to surpress the bottle upside down then when it is right side up. If you compare this to the Wave piercer bow you'll see that teh rig have to pump in more energy into depressing the wave piercer bow fully than it does in depressing the other two shapes. Ergo its dive restance has been increased by rearrganing the volume.

The amount of work or energy needed is equal to the area enclosed between the individual graph and the horizontal axis. Clearly the U-bow is superior to the V-shaped bow and the trully wave piercer bow is superior in this respect to the U- shaped bow. EVEN though all have the SAME maximum restoring force when fully submerged !

Now what happens when a builder take a U-shaped hull and just trimms the deck to resemble the wave peircer bow section by imitating the sloping deck of it. Green line with the dotted ending.

For the first part it acts no differently than a (old) fully U-shaped bow of normal height. As long as the wavelets don't come higher than its new deck level the reaction to wavelets will be identical too. However when the wavelet (chop) comes higher than the deck than it does react less severely than the older bow section of greater height. This advantage it does have.

What are the downsides of this trimmed deck approach. First of all the area under the graph has been reduced ergo the amount of work required to full submerge the bow is less than before. Therefor its dive resistance has been reduced. It is now somewhere between an older U-shaped bow of high stem and the V-shaped bow.

Also this approach doesn't reduce the wetted surface when sailin level with the water line. But to top it off it's maximum restoring force is reduced too. Meaning that the threshold for overpowered sailing has been reduced as well. In short the higher stem U hull (parent) can be pushed harder before the bows disappears under the water level. We all know that a pitchpole on a reach is not far away when the water hits the deck. Such a 15 %- 20% reduction in maximum restoring force will be noticed on reaches. Please notes that this threshold is only valid with respect to a semi stationairy situation. A gust is a dynamic phenomenon and there the maximum restoring force plays a secondairy role with respect to energy thresholds. Later more on this.

So a trimmed back bow without a rearranged volume distribution will only have a limited positive effect (Less reaction to large wavelets) against the noticable cost of less dive resistance, no different reaction to smaller wavelets, lower maximum retoring force = less ability to be driven hard on reaches / downwind or less margin, whatever you want.


So a true "wavepeircing" bow is more complex than just trimming a deck or reducing volume in the bow. It must go together with a more complex volume distribution to work properly.


Now a smart guy will notice that the Wave piercer hull in my example has a higher slope at its operational depth than the others and therefor is will react more strongly to passing wavelets. That is true in my example. BUT there is a trade off.

With very small wavelets this is the case. BUT these also have very short wave lenghs; often much smaller than the hull length. So when a small wavelet lifts the bow than its little brother will lift the middle section and a third brother will lift the stern as well and thus cancelling eachother out.

The problem of oscillation starts with bigger wavelets which have minimum wavelength of about a hull length (often called chop). These wavelets are significantly taller than the smaller wavelets.

Not lets go back to the graph.

Look at the green line. A chop wave of only halve the bowheight causes the restoring force (Now aggitating force) to grow to its maximum.

Now look at the blue line. A chop of 3/4 the height of the bow caused the restoring force (Now aggitating force) to grow to its maximum.

We know the maximum forces are the same therefor the wavepeircer bow requires a LARGER wavecrest to pass to be put in the same magnitude of oscillation. That is in this example.

Now a good designer will see the increase in the dive resistance and may decide to trade part of that away for further reduced chop oscilation by reducing the total volume of the bow section and take the hit in lowered maximum restoring force as well.

He can use this trade-off to his advantage while the trimmed deck designer can NOT. This is because the trimmed deck designer has actually reduced dive resistance by his trimmed deck instead of increased it. In short the trimmed deck designer has made no gains which he can than trade off for more benefits.

I hope most of you understand this explanation. I tried to keep is as simple as possible. There are more secondairy and high order effects but these are relatively small than the main issues discussed.



Now why do I write this down ?

To show that it is important the seperate the hype from the real benefit of a hull shape with rearranged volume distribution as seen in the Flyer A-cat design and which is often refered to as a wave-piercer hull.

Simply mimicking the sloping of the deck is not enough. The hulls need to be completely redesigned. And not only the bow section as we did in this example. and of course one mustn't go overboard with it.

We should also take care not to let the hype give the true wave piercer hulls a bad name. It is very healthy that the hype is collapsing but we should not throw away the real advances that were made with the flyer design.


Wouter

Hi Steve

You will find numerous oposing opinions on boats mentioned as well as most any topic on sailing ,-
but will try to answer and provide some distance racing insite racing each .
The best thing you could do is sail each ,-then its a matter of boat costs and which type is more actively sailed in your area AND also the type of sailing you prefer .-cruising buoys racing and or distance racing .

The boats -I-20 and 6/0 are very equal ,-they have within 6 sq ft of the same main and jib area ,-the 6/0 has larger jib and has a forward foil of course . The 6/0 has no sq. top main like the I-20 so has a lower C E {center of effort}on the sail plan which helps it in higher wind strengths -The larger 348 type spin for the 6/0 required longer 18 in wire leads to the foil to provide spin pole clearance ,-some good snuffers have been adapted to the longer 6/0 spin pole of up to 14 ft --This as compared to the 270 sq ft spin of the I -20 sometimes used for distance racing with 12 pole and tramp spin bag ,-or buoys racing with cf snuffer at pole end which causes too much drag upwind ,--{tryed it 2 legs this year and changed to pole }.

The 6/0 hull is finer forward in sections and more rounded to reduce form drag and wetted surface area and is better and more easily driven through chop and waves .
The crossbeam -mast is placed well aft on the 6/0 and much more forward on the I-20 .

Both designs could have been much better if the original designer had been directly involved ,
explaination:>
The 6/0 originated when R S stretched out a N 5/8 USING EXISTING MOLDS FOR CONST.and adding to the bows and stern ,

As a result the 6/0 has continueously gone through its mainy different forms and sailplan configurations - original version -express ,-W-1000 versions - N E version etc ,-never quite right due to being locked into the N- 5/8 hull board mast locations that should have been proportionately relocated in balance in a redesign process along with spin adaptation .

The I-20 strangley went through the same error in development ,-its basically an I-18 stretched out ,rather than being specifically redesigned as a 20 .
I understand that the I-20 if left to the original designer would have looked more like the CFR 20 ,-a little better design .

The I-20 is great but could be better .
Its lighter than the 6/0 by an av.28 lbs
the best aspect is its lightweight C F mast
this gives it a performance advantage and is much easier to right and step .
The achilies heel of the I 20 IS THE RUDDERS AND CASTINGS which again being similar to the 18 are not strong enough for more extreme surf conditions per JENSON bch example in the W-1000 2 years ago where we broke 3 sets trying to get out through surf and numerous teams suffered similar boat damage and carnage throughout the race to rudder systems and the lighter boards on the I-20 .
The only way we finished the W-1000 last year was Daves exellent repair skills and us always carrying an extra rudder and casting with us --{hardly a weight saving } -
The last leg in 02 we spent an hour on the beach repairing replacing a rudder while the rest of the fleet sped away at 25 into future storms and 50 mph winds on the nose .

In all fairness the 6/0 has had its problems as well in extreme distance racing conditions -
in 98 we were hit by a micro burst which accellerated the boat from o to 25 in about 6 seconds , when I saw the bows about 6 ft below I knew we were gone ,a second later we went over the bows HARD recall the crew flying through the air landing about 40 ft away . The 6/0 hull inploded from the force splitting on the top -bottom hull seem as these hull are built this way . We repaired it by the next days start but had numerous other problems ,--The back crossbeam bolts popp out of the 6/0 due to 450 sq ft spin loads ,-the only way we made it was to use a trap line and sinch it down to the back crossbeam and nurse the boat in .

Extreme conditions in these distance races call for improved systems and special modification .

An ideal boat for distance racing may be a 6/0 platform or similar more seakindly 20 ft hull form like a S C --then place the lightweight CF mast and I-20 type rig on it -Add an inproved snuffer pole system ,-and used a strong rudder system and reinforced boards. Add a main reef system as the H T had this year and WE have a superior -faster SAFER distance racing 20 ,--Unfortunately these safety features are not allowed under {mfg " class" rules which event organizers use .

The best solution is a Formula 20 rules outline that would allow any standard class 20 ft 8.5 beam boat to race or any combination as descibed to race all within F-20 specifications and rules outline .

Better faster SAFER boats for these extreme races -
In the best interests of all concerned -
They are outlined on the F-20 forum here on Catsailor .

Hope this helps .
Carl

Here's my $.02 as a Tybee 500 participant and past 6.0 and current I-20 owner.

The 6.0 is definitely faster on a jib reach, but does not point quite as high as an I-20 does. The 6.0 steering feels heavy and truck-like compared to the I-20 but the sacrafice you make for the steering refinement on the I-20 is the chance of breaking a casting or gudgeon (as we did on the Ormond Beach leg when we hit a turtle or Manta costing us two hours and a top ten leg finish). The 6.0 with the bigger NE spec spinnaker is faster deep downwind I think, but I think the I-20 is faster overall downwind, especially when we were really cranking. I like both the 6.0 and I-20 and would race either boat, but I'll stick with the I-20 as I believe the overall ergonomics of the boat for the skipper and crew, the feel of the boat, and the carbon rig I like over the 6.0.

My hat goes off to those who sailed the HT. If those guys were not as great of sailors as most of them are, they really could have got in trouble on that last leg to Tybee. I spoke to three of the crews who sailed the HT whom I know pretty well and I don't think you will see them on that boat in an ocean contested distance race again. It's a nice boat, but I don't think it is configured for the rigors of what we put them through.

I think Brian and Jaime are the one's best to address the HT question though.

I did notice that Mike and David of team Lamorak are sailing their I-20 this week in the Great Texas race and not the HT they sailed in the Tybee 500. Hmmmmm???

Thanks to Chuck and Judi Bargeron, Rick Bliss, Robert Onsgard, Sean Ferrell, Scott and Sandy Sharer, Jamie King, Brandy "National Champ" Woods, and all the other great staff of the Tybee 500 for truly great race.

Thanks to our sponsor Almased for the great Protein shake supplements that kept my old body going and feeling fresh everyday.

Thanks to Steve, Kenny, Jaime, Rick, and Robert and all my Cat sailing friends who have helped me over the last four years figure out how to make it up the coast.

I think Carl's idea of a Formula 20 based race has real merit. The 6.0 and I-20 have room for improvement without it turning into an arms race.

By the way, next time I loan you a sail Carl...take it a little easier on me. It was tough getting beat by my back-up main...great job

A special thanks to my crew and co-skipper Rob Remmers who always stayed positive and focused and really helped make the Tybee 500 a great experience for me.

All the best,

Jim Stone
Soul Surfer

Carl / Steve,

Vectorworks Marine is comming out with a new 20 ft cat. This was designed straight up as a 20 ft boat not an extension/splash of another boat. The hull shape has some of the features of the wave piercing designs, but a volume distribution more similar to that of the 6.0 to handle rough and ocean type conditions. It features high aspect rotating centerboards with built in hull seal eliminating the gaskets found on Tornados and Prindles. The centerboards lack a little bit of the theoretical efficiency of I20 style boards at high speed, but have much better lift at slower speed and during acceleration, and are much more robust naturally. How much effiency is lost jumping to the low side to pull up the board evertime the water looks shallower. Or sailing without one beacuse you hit a submerged coral head or sandbar, or turtle, or manta ray.

The Smythe Team is currently designing the rig for this boat, and the prototype is due to be launched this summer. 4 of these boats are already on order, and the goal is to prove them in during the racing series this winter, and have it ready for full competition prior to next years Tybee.

Just some more fuel for the fire

Matt

Jim
It was great to see you sailing with Rob in the Tybee 500. Yourself and Rob are some of the greatest people I have come to meet in my sailing adventures. Sailing and winning the Heineken Regatta in 2001, with Rob, has been a top of my list of weeks sailing. The story of how we ended up sailing together is great.
Rob and I were sailing our own I20s at the Curacao Regatta. Rob damaged his port hull. I nailed a H16 with my starboard hull. We had a problem because the contained was headed to St. Martin after the race.
We decided that we would sail together and make one good boat out of our damaged boats. We had one yellow hull and one white hull. I had a great time.

Hey Jim

Thanks so much again for the mainsail after Gale went through our main and Bill and Dave --your old crewmates in the Worrell our gr crew this year ,--tryed hard but could not get the repair in time for the 10 oclock start .
Whew close one ,-it worked well those final two legs .

It was John,s MAINSAIL last year ---team San Antonio Texas --Which you kindly sponsored.
hope they saw it in some pics ,-at least they were there in spirit ,-did think of them while sailing with it,-and a number of teams mentioned them after seeing it .

Hope they,re having a great Texas 300 race though looks like David and Mike K ---{with us last year } now -team Lamorak will win the first leg .
Get em guys -they have a great gr crew in Chris and Dave also.

And thanks so much Jim for the great lunch Sun and get together at your great new home on Tybee Island .It was a perfect end to the event before taking Gale to the Savana Airport and then the long haul home with the boat back to MI.

wHAT A GREAT EVENT !! GOOD WEATHER -GREAT SAILING ,-GREAT FOLKS AND GREAT FUN .

Hi Matt

Do you have more info on the new 20 -

Basic specs --weight l-- b --sail areas
similar or same sail plan in area as the U S -I-20
what type of mast and its section -
ANY INFO

Seems that if we have some added new boats very similar to the I-20 and 6/0 and others it becomes a good basis for a production oriented Formula 20 class --

Just suggested this type of rule be implimented for F-20 -where specific existing boats be designated along with their sails and componants in combination as Formula 20 class boats and builders.
Getting select builders and existing boats on board seems the next logical step for better distance racing events .
Think we will see an active F-18 class also this year and in future distance racing events with new Nacra F-18 --Mysteres and Tigers mixing it up --

No reason 20s can,t do the same -

Hi Matt

Hope a number of teams will recommend that next years Tybee -which is planned as a potential optional 500 or a 1000 mile race will have Formula 18 racing for Tigers Mysteres and N-F-18s etc ,
and also a production F-20 class of existing ISAF class designated 8.5 beam 20s or combination of them per 20 class specs and rules as adopted for this race . This would include existing ISAF designated 20 ft 8.5 beam cats including all i F-20 s as well as H-Fox -H-20 -N6/0 -Inter 20 --P-19 Mystere 20 ,-SC 8.5 B 20 and other existing 20 ft production cats with readily available parts and standard sails .

Happy to see any recommendations for U S --f-20S .
Its a difficult challenge --

Think we will finally see some good Formula racing this year ,-look to Mi . and the CF 4 regatta ,-
hope we have some for the 200 mile distance race in MI ALSO -in Aug starting right after the CF 4 -
More than 100 cat expected at the CF 4 This year!!
really looking forward to that race week in Aug .

Carl,

You make a fine argument for F20 and you're starting to swing me around. I wonder what a 6.0 might be like with an I20 rig on it? Yeah, the boards will probably be in the wrong place but it would interesting. Besides, after throwing out my back a few weeks ago hefting up my 6.0 mast, I'm all about a carbon fiber mast!

Looking at the hull shape between the 6.0 and the I20 I agree that the 6.0 seems a little sleaker. I wonder which one is faster in choppy conditions when applied the same power?

Hi Jake

Hoping that the new 20 Matt mentioned is comperable to class specs. of the N A -Formula 20 rule with similar box rule measurements of Length -beam weight and sail areas that compete equally with the I-20 -Fox and other 20s listed inc the N-6/0.

Just talking with one of the sailmakers at the Smyth loft deveoping sails for all types of multihulls inc the 60 ft tris ,-
They are very cognisent of Formula classes and racing and how much its done for the sport overseas . We finally have it begun here in the U S .

Experience in the 98 Worrell where the younger Aussie team sailed a H-20 to a 6th place finish ,-and a H-20 with spin winning the RTI line honors last year indicate that these boats are competitive . Add a better mast -mainsail and they may be better . Believe the 6/0 would be with the I-20 type sailplan on it , and several other combinations of existing 20 ft cats as well .
It is an inexpensive way to build a 20 ft racing machine by taking any existing 20 ft 8.5 beam platform and adding sailplan snuffer and hardware systems of choice ,or purchase a new F-20 specific cat .

The advantages are so numerous for Formula type racing ,
its the ideal for distance racing where modification for more extreme ocean racing conditions are required .
No doubt we will see faster safer boats as a result ,-just as we see numerous improvements already with the Tiger and N-F-18s --

It may take years to really get going ,but am used to that ,-but this IS the year to start Formula racing in the U S .
I LIKE THE 20S -for distance racing in particular .

Hope to see some out this season ,
any can start a racing group -fleet ,-or add a F racing class to your club and encourage others for distance racing events .

Hey Carl,

The Tybee is essentially already set up as a formula event. It was scored as first in was first in. No portsmouth or otherwise. To me this makes the most sense as every design has a different condition where it will excell, and over 500 miles you ususally see them all. It might be nice as the event continues to grow to see it broken into 18 and 20, but more splits than that would just serve to fragment it.

The 3D 20 Vectorworks Marine is building does not have the final rig parameters set yet, but is being set up to be one of the fastest 8'-6 beam boat out there for distance type racing. While still maintaining its competiviness around the bouys.

The parameters are:
20'length
8-6 beam
300 lb all up weight

High aspect center boards with a gasketless seal system. Center board provide peace of mind in varying depth conditions and during turtle season, as well as better lift performance than the deep dagger boards of the I20 durring acceleration, reaching, and in rough seas or light wind.

High aspect square top main for good up wind performance
Low profile fully battened large roach jib providing both overlap and self tacking, providing better close and jib reaching capabilities than other boats out there currently.
High aspect spin set up similar to the I20 but with a skunk style snuffer system.

I will try and post here as more details get set

Matt

HI Matt

Is the boat being designed to the Euro Formula 20 rule or ANY formula rule or box rule that's published?

Perhaps the thinking is that you can only put so much sailpower on a 8'6 wide boat... therefore... that's the rule with respect to power...

Boat weight on the other hand matters and the question is why stick with 300 lbs? Why not lighter?

The Marstrom M20 demonstrated that light weight = huge speed potential in the 20 foot range but it was 9 feet wide.
It also demonstrated that long dagger's can blow up when you hit something and prevent you from finishing (texel)

If they succeed in building a clearly faster 8'6 20 foot boat... who would bring an I20 or Nacra 6.0 to race against it with out using some sort of rating system?

Any pictures or drawings of the hull shape available?
Thanks
Mark

Thanks Matt -

Sounds like a great cat design .
At 300 Lb --thats 90 less than the Inter 20 ,
It will fly .

Trailerable beam at 8.5 ft is important ,-but one thing they may consider is the option of adding racks or wings ,-per H-17 OR 21 --or per Mystere type skiff racks to extend the beam and sail carrying capability .
This would give it a larger jump up in potential speed .

Know the Smyth Sail loft will do a Fantastic job with the sail-plan --this based on beam and sail carrying capability .
RThe wings would add some weight but be more than offset in sail area and be more comperable to the 10 beam Tornado and lighterweight Marstom 20 with 9.5 b .

Seems each group and every builder wants to have the fastest and will develop lighter different designs and specs to achive this goal ,--which is fine ,-
it just makes the Formula 20 concept difficult .

The concept of a F-20 production class based on existing boats seems good ,-with the very best of intentions for safety reasons and other concerns .
A HT 20 CLASS could also evolve based on this boats specs that would include the Tornado and many other similar designs .

-Individual Class racing is fine ,but limited ,-
Rating systems do not work for major distance racing ,
Not sure what the solution is --

oNE THING FOR SURE --EVERYTHING continues to change .

Hope some of these new Vector 20 ft cats will be available to charter for next years Tybee ,--for overseas teams and those of us that would like to race it .

[quote If they succeed in building a clearly faster 8'6 20 foot boat... who would bring an I20 or Nacra 6.0 to race against it with out using some sort of rating system?] [/end quote]

Hi Mark -

Tybee racing was per class which seemed to work well -
Did like all the comparisons of scoring and rating systems applied to it by various catsailors on the web.

Formula 18 s seem to finally be off and running this year ,
16s are starting to make inroads .
Both fill a niche in the marketplace and provide the potential for a lasting class of cat design by numerous builders that should eventually have a large class to race in anywhere geographically .
20s in N A continue to be all over the board with regards to specs , each builder wanting to build a faster cat than its competitors ,---Thats great and the way it should be .

P rating is based on buoys racing using average times of current winning skipper in class.
Applying it to distance racing which it was never intended for does not seem to work well ,-older boat problem revealed in last falls distance races --the spin non spin issues --all downwind or upwind distance courses ,-
The page of Modification factors P rating uses are also problematic.

To make P-ratings work it seems that BOATS MUST BE SEPERATED into spin -non spin categories ,--then similar board non board types ,-then also hi med and low performance levels generally by length ,the mod factors need to be more defined and specific based on actual sail areas of spin and main-jib -
These are all real problems -

Is the seperation into Length weight sail area categories really that far apart from what P rating needs to accomplish ,--seems very similar in final goals and analysis by the time boats are seperated into various category .
Would elements of the Texel based combination system outlined that factors sail area and spin area ,and also provides 2 windspeeds that factor in beam -boards -and other design factors ,-then also adds P-rating as applied to older designs be helpfull to P rating or a better option to work towards or allow P-rating to evolve into over time.

Seems like the good intentions and goal of providing better forms of racing should allow for this continueous change and development in the sport .

Hope the C-100 plans are going well -
race info-- http://www.sailcrac.com
Think Gale plans to race the Jav also .
Great event Mark -keep up the great work ,
Hope some consider attending the CF 4 AND MI 200 also.
INFO ON THE cram site ---http://www.websitemagic.com/cram/

All the best
Carl