Update
Too many to name all but I must acknowledge Ed Reynolds, Quantum Racing project manager and the brainchild of this team. Without Ed’s vision none of it would have happened. I am not sure where the team will go from here. I am incredibly
proud of what we did together, the bond that we will always share and the culture that we created together. Success was always at the hand of the team. No one person bigger than the next and through all of it our island of misfit toys delivered often. For that I will always be grateful! Standing by, Austin, Texas
CROSSROADS – Mark McCafferty & Dave Hollom Dear Editor I value Seahorse for its technical depth and even-handed reporting, which is why I was surprised by a number of assertions in ‘Cross- roads’ (Issue 549). The piece raises some valid questions about cost and accessibility in development classes, primarily the Moth, but several claims about materials, foil design and performance need correction or context. Constructive debate about cost control and accessibility is healthy
and necessary. But it should rest on accurate materials science, realistic costings and current performance evidence. I would welcome a follow-up that engages with the above points
and includes data from current builders, designers and sailors, and would of course be happy to be involved in that discussion. Yours sincerely Mark McCafferty McCafferty Design Ltd
the way of equipment, by the time you add everything up that you will need to go competitive racing they are all very similar and within the range quoted in the article. Talking to customers who are waiting for their new boat you get a fair idea of delivery times. I fully appreciate, however, that delivery times will vary depending very much on how close the next Worlds or Europeans will be.
Steel foils: cost and performance MM:Describing steel foils as ‘costing a fortune’ misleads readers. In practice, high-grade stainless solutions are typically of the order of circa 70% more than a comparable composite vertical – not trivial (and materials and process dependent). But as a percentage of total competitive campaign spend, the delta is moderate and is justified by measurable performance gains across the range. DH:Most people would consider having to pay 70% more for a foil as ‘costing a fortune’, particularly bearing in mind the starting price and the fact that to win a major championship a quiver of multiple foils is now required. And comparing that cost with the cost of a campaign as being moderate further emphasises the not inconsid- erable cost of a serious campaign. Yes, it will increase the performance across the range but is a
70% increase in cost for maybe a few percentage points of perfor- mance worth it? Bearing in mind that every competitive sailor will have to have one, so the status quo will remain the same, just at a marginally faster speed that will probably be undetectable unless you look at the instruments.
Stainless isn’t strong MM: Strength depends on grade and heat treatment. Modern precipitation-hardened stainless grades used in hydrofoil structures deliver very high yield strength combined with excellent toughness and corrosion resistance – precisely why they are chosen. It is inaccurate to generalise about ‘stainless’ strength without specifying grade and condition, and often it is these other criteria that allow one to reliably push harder on the design allowables. DH: Yes, stainless steel can be very strong with a high yield strength but, as they say up here in the north, ‘You don’t get owt for nowt’, and some resistance to corrosion will probably be sacrificed to achieve that extra strength. But if you are spending that amount of money, perhaps having to replace the vertical sooner shouldn’t matter?
Check out the absence of disturbance in the flow off the rudder and the mast for the main foil on this Bieker V3 at the 2025 Worlds. Both of the (white) surface-piercing foil elements are made of steel
Dear Mark Thank you very much for your observations on my recent Seahorse article ‘Crossroads’. I will endeavour to answer your questions in the order you have put them. To be honest it was intended as a public interest article not a scientific paper where every I is dotted and every T is crossed, so excuse me if I have not named the owners who haven’t been able to sell their boats or the sources of my price information. Most of it is out there and easy to find. Kind regards Dave Hollom
Costs and market assumptions Mark McCafferty: The article presents campaign and boat-sale figures without source or supporting data, then infers health-of-class conclusions from them. As designers/builders/sailors we have current pricing and order data: costs vary by supplier and configu- ration, lead times reflect capacity rather than scarcity, and secondary market dynamics are more nuanced than implied. Stating or implying that owners ‘can’t sell’ their boats is not supported. Dave Hollom: Prices were sourced from suppliers of current Moths, and while these do vary, mainly depending on what they contain in
14 SEAHORSE
‘Stronger alloys that could be made thinner and less draggy’ ignores stiffness MM: Drag is not the only constraint. Stiffness (modulus and section properties) is a first-order driver of AoA stability, control bandwidth, ventilation/cavitation margin and overall handling. Simply making sections thinner to chase profile drag while giving up stiffness is rarely a free lunch; it shifts risk into control effort, divergence/flutter margins and dynamic performance. Reducing the decision to ‘choose yield strength’ overlooks the core strength-vs-stiffness trade-off, not to mention the additional design and build details required. DH: Agreed!!
Performance characterisation MM: The piece suggests the gains are ‘not much faster’. That does not match race data. Over the last few seasons Moths are lapping substantially quicker, with routine boat speeds higher than 20kt on angle upwind, and front-of-fleet speeds up almost 30% in comparable conditions around the track! These are not marginal improvements. DH: A 30% increase in speed around the course is indeed a great achievement, if that is so. But if this were due to improvements in material rather than better design, and thus available to all competi- tors, the status quo remains the same. But those improvements cost 70% more. Is that a good use of money bearing in mind that the net result is that everything happens just that little bit faster? As I’m sure I don’t need to say, the trick in design is to improve
your speed with reference to your competition. It should be a relative thing, not necessarily an absolute thing. That’s why restricted and formula classes place restrictions on known performance-enhancing features such as length (in non-foiling craft), draught, rig height and
MARTINA ORSINI
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 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
