to 55° on either side, was also refurbished and beefed up.


All of which posed the question: how to enable a 12-year-old mast to cope with the additional loads, in particular how to resolve the compression issue? The answer was to broaden out the shroud base and install much longer spreaders. The hull was about to spread another set of wings. This would involve extending the beam at the mast from 4.5m to 7.5m. Initially the plan was to design and build a new bulkhead in sections that could be assem- bled inside the boat. Slots would then be cut into the side of the hull and the exter- nal wings would be inserted and bonded to the bulkhead. However, this was an area that would carry considerable loads and there was concern about structural integrity and reliability.


Instead, the diamond saws were deployed once more and a slot was cut across the deck from gunwale to gunwale and down into the topsides. A new bulk- head, complete with wings, was built externally and then dropped into the slot. Obviously copious quantities of carbon were going into these various modifica- tions. The composite engineering under- taken by Mark Bishop of Waterfront Composite Solutions was extensive, requiring a full review of the overall global structure of the boat as well as the individ- ual detailed components.


The execution and boatbuilding fell to Greg Prescott and Greg McNab’s highly skilled team at Southern Ocean Marine in Tauranga, New Zealand. ‘Their work- manship has been amazing,’ says Bakewell-White. ‘If you went below and didn’t know the history of the boat you would never know it had been extended and modified to the extent it has.’ Again the aft and midship wings have attracted comment for their ‘radical’ appearance, but Bakewell-White empha- sises they are simply practical solutions to issues and challenges that arose. The midship wings, of course, immedi- ately had the sailmakers licking their lips at the prospect of the potential wide sheet- ing angles, but the rule guardians quickly squashed those intentions, declaring that they were effectively outriggers and thus off-limits. Consideration was also given to installing ballast tanks inside the wings, but in the end the only additional function was to – rather sensibly – install the boat’s navigation lights at the wing tips… For the yacht’s new DSS system atten- tion focused on how to extract benefit as far as possible down the wind range – even upwind if possible. The challenge was to create a system that was efficient at lower speeds without generating too much lift when going much faster.


The answer was to introduce variable lift


by means of flaps on the foil trailing edge, very like aircraft ailerons. The board is 8m long and projects 3.5m out on the leeward side, with vortex tips on each end. The flaps extend the full 3.5m with a range


How many headsails can you get in a space that big? Add length, lots of sail, widen the shroud base to save weight, add a daggerboard for bite and round off with a deep canting keel plus aileron-assisted DSS boards. Well, it should go very fast…


of movement from 0° to 10°. The CFD projections are that in the right conditions the DSS board will carry upwards of 80% of the 25-tonne displacement of the boat. ‘To some extent the DSS system was developed as an alternative to the canting keel,’ says Bakewell-White, ‘but in this application we are using both and I believe they are entirely complementary. The boat is effectively riding on two wings, the DSS foil to leeward and the canting keel to windward, which itself is canted upwards fore and aft in the “modern style”. ‘In effect, the boat flies on an inverted V, the two technologies working together to create a sum greater than its parts. ‘The downside is complexity. The cant- ing keel is operating through a hydraulic system, the DSS board is sliding from side to side electrically while the DSS flaps are operated via an electrical actuator…’ Further underwater appendages did come under consideration, but were con- signed to the maybe-sometime-in-the- future basket, at this stage leaving just a single rudder plus a self-tacking canard forward of the mast. Bakewell-White always prefers simplicity over complexity and reckons there is quite enough going on for starters anyway. ‘However, there has always been the possibility that we might explore more ideas for the future. This project is in some ways a testing labora- tory for a number of technologies and if it can be made to work there is even a possi- bility that it could lead to something bigger and better down the track.’


Already the dramatic look of the boat is generating huge interest, comment and a degree of hype that might be cause for concern. Talk of being a Wild Oats-beater is flattering, but the physics suggest that would be a tough assignment. Wild Oats is


bigger, more powerful and carries more sail – its nickname of the Swiss Army Knife attests that it too has more than its share of bits and pieces sticking out.


‘Everything depends on whether we can get this technology right and then, of course, there are always questions like what kind of weather is going to be dished up and how many sunfish you might hit on the way. But I am reasonably pleased with how the boat looks,’ Bakewell-White declares, although he insists that in every case form has followed function, not the other way around. ‘A lot of the features people are talking about – the reverse bow and integrated bowsprit, the aft and midship wings – have really come about as sensible, practical solutions to problems rather than a desire to produce a dramatic-looking boat. The bow is purely a result of a limited budget and not wanting to chop into an existing deck. There are downsides. You end up with a longer bowsprit, which carries bigger loads and requires more structure, but adding metres to the bowsprit is cheaper than adding metres to the deck. ‘The bow does have some technical


benefit. It reduces windage and drag and also resistance punching into waves. The chamfer panels throw less turbulence up onto the sails. The downside is that the bow is essentially a wave piercer, so it throws more water onto the deck and is less comfortable for the crew.’


Constrained by the requirement to


recycle as much as possible, one potential weakness might be in the winch package. CQS will sail with 12 to 14 people, who will have their hands full at times, not least because the much longer foredeck offers the potential to fly four headsails simultane- ously. On the other hand, there are no gen- nakers. All the headsails are on straight luff furling systems. The apparent wind is so far forward that flying sails are not required. Immediate plans are to complete a quali- fying race for the Sydney Hobart, then cross the Tasman and make final preparations for the main event. Given the constraints imposed on the project, the team of design- ers, engineers, sailmakers and boatbuilders have come up with an exciting machine that required a huge amount of collaboration, innovation and technical expertise. It is testament to their skill that together they have met the functional challenges with a form that is also so pleasing to the eye. ‘One of the nice thing about composites is the way you cut it up and change it around and end up with something stronger and better than it was originally,’ says Bakewell-White.


On its emergence from the New Zealand yard, Sir Michael declared, ‘This is a quest for innovation and performance. It is a true team effort, which I’m excited to be a part of. We have a strong team of designers, boatbuilders and sailmakers and this gives us confidence. But we are mindful that the ocean will be our ultimate judge…’ Ivor Wilkins


q SEAHORSE 53


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  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88