Above/left: the direct forerunner of the new Ofcet 32 is the Lombard-designed MC34 which continues to be highly competitive – especially in anything of a breeze – under IRC, winning its class in the Fastnets of 2013 and 2015 as well as the overall RORC offshore series of 2014
YD: We have an infusion-moulded foam sandwich hull and deck. We have built a complete set of female moulds so we are set up to deliver up to 15 boats a year. Compared to some French yards that is still a relatively modest output, but it does mean that Matthieu [Piquelé] and I are still fully involved with every build and can guarantee to hit a very tough target design weight – which in turn enables us to deliver a lightweight boat with a higher ballast ratio than our key competition. SH: So, Eric, what can you tell us about the design of the boat? Eric Levet: The raw numbers are a length of 9.80m, displacement of 3,400kg, upwind sail area of 60m2 sail area of 120m2
with downwind . But the numbers tell
you very little: the Ofcet 32 is like nothing else out there right now, a no-compromise shorthanded IRC offshore raceboat. Depending on sail choices the boat will have an IRC TCC of between 1.009 and 1.017 – halfway between a Sunfast 3200 and an A35 in terms of performance.
48 SEAHORSE
SH: What does it mean, designing a boat like this specifically for shorthanded sailing? EL: IRC handicaps always assume you sail with a full crew – and for a 32ft boat that means seven people on the rail who pro- vide 20-25% of the boat’s total Righting Moment (RM) at 20° heel. Designing a boat to sail without that RM leads to a very different design compromise than when you design a boat to have that weight on the rail. So the Ofcet 32 has a much higher ballast ratio (nearly 50%) along with significant form stability. Cockpit layouts also change when you plan around fewer crew – and for the Ofcet 32 I think we have a solution that will work very well shorthanded but will also be efficient with a full crew. The boat has twin rudders, which give a lot of control and work well with an autopilot as well as helping the boat to make the most of its form stability when heeled. SH: How does a modern offshore IRC design vary compared with its more
inshore-oriented counterpart? EL: There are a number of differences. The most obvious is that high performances all around the polar curve are more important for an offshore design, while for an inshore design you can to some extent neglect reaching performance. When racing off- shore you also encounter a wider range of wind strengths (while in today’s world you might only start an inshore race in 5-25kt of wind) and on average larger waves. The final difference – which is maybe less obvious – regards upwind sailing modes. When racing inshore upwind VMG is nowadays often sacrificed to point higher than the competition for short-term tactical reasons and so boats need to be designed with this in mind. Racing offshore means there are fewer boat-on-boat situations and it often pays to sail lower and faster to get to the right side of the course more quickly. These con- siderations mean that when we optimise a boat for offshore use we move towards a lighter displacement and more form stabil- ity than for a windward-leeward design. SH: But does that mean this boat won’t necessarily be competitive racing fully crewed on windward-leeward courses… EL: The Ofcet 32 will be competitive fully crewed in most conditions. The downside to our high form stability is a higher wetted surface area – in light winds with a full crew the boat may struggle as that form stability is neither needed nor beneficial. And sailing off the wind a narrower boat with less waterline beam would obviously also have a slight advantage.
LAURENT VIDAL
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77