The action of VPLP’s latest foil configuration is quite unlike either the curvy Dali foils on French Imocas or the DSS foils on the last Hugo Boss. The emphasis is more on reducing leeway to allow a small thin keel, while still providing enough extra righting moment to dispense with water ballast – plus give a useful reduction in sailing ‘weight’. This time there is no expectation of the boat rearing up out of the water except maybe when bouncing over waves. At sea the foils remain fixed in extension but can retract for mooring
develop its vertical lift. Experienced
Figariste Yoann Richomme, representing the Figaro association, tested the boat in heavier airs quite early on. ‘With 25kt of wind we were reaching at a steady 13-14kt at a TWA of 135°. Changing up to the big chute we could bear away further while accelerating to about 16kt. ‘It was after those early windier days that
the decision was taken to increase the maxi- mum spinnaker area from 105m2
to 115m2 .
The boat was a little too nice to sail, a little soft,’ says Richomme. ‘We wanted a sailplan where at 25kt of
wind we needed to change down to the smaller chute. The Figaro 2 has a small spinnaker which goes up only very “late” when the wind increases. The Figaro 3 will have a big spinnaker, a spinnaker and a gennaker, there will be more options avail- able, plus the adjustable foils. The game will be much more open. ‘Even now with just asymmetrics the
ability to gybe successfully may still prove a leveller in very strong winds (do you manage to gybe or do you hang on and come back later possibly under white sails!).’ Compared to the Figaro 2, with her very
challenging symmetric spinnaker and conventional pole arrangement, the use of A-sails also means more tactical choices – particularly in heavy air. At 11kt the boat can still be steered easily
with ‘two fingers’. The rudders are well balanced to ease the load on the autopilot. Much work has gone into both the Acker- mann adjustments and the bearings of the
rudder system, which works very smoothly even under high load. The icing on the cake is that sailing
downwind in a big breeze the Fig 3 lifts its bow nicely when accelerating, thanks to its full forward sections also helped by the way that the rear sections are drawn upwards (multihull-style, in fact) between the bottom of the hull and the chine. ‘Because of the modest V-shaping of the aft sections, with moderate heel the keel line shows more rocker than when the boat is upright,’ says Vincent Lauriot-Prévost, ‘which allows the hull to “rear up” in the bow.’ And as this happens, of course, so the
angle of incidence of the immersed foil increases. ‘At 14-15kt,’ says Vincent, ‘the leeward foil can provide 400-500kg of vertical thrust (lightening the boat by the same amount). ‘The new boat already hangs off the
crane some 250-300kg lighter than its pre- decessor. Factor in the removal of 270kg of water ballast and the lift from the foil and suddenly the boat is sailing the equivalent of one tonne lighter than the Figaro 2 – mean- ing a speed gain of at least 15 per cent even though the new boat is slightly shorter.’ All of this is a reflection of progress made
in racing boat design in the 14 years since the launch of Figaro 2 – that this modernity should be visibly prominent on the new boat was one of Bénéteau’s stipulations when the design went out to tender. ‘We needed a boat that would not only
remain current, but that would also look current for 10-15 years,’ said Bénéteau’s
director of performance products, Eric Ingouf. In this respect, a curved foil or DSS- type configuration has an obvious advan- tage over a canting keel, which by definition remains invisible for most of the time. The invitation for design proposals
prompted replies from 11 naval architect offices. The Figaro class had in turn also set out some parameters of its own: ‘A boat a little smaller than the current one-design, between 9.25m and 9.75m, to stay in the same budget envelope and built to the latest RSO 1 standards,’ says Yoann Richomme. ‘A retractable bowsprit [in the end a
fixed bowsprit was adopted], more sail area and rudders set beneath the hull to prevent damage during inshore races. Furthermore, the class no longer wanted water ballast, a continual source of technical complications that also adds to the burden of measurers checking for rule compliance.’ Of the three projects shortlisted, it was
VPLP’s scheme that won out against the drawings of Finot-Conq and Mer Forte, the engineering company of Michel Desjoyeaux (which Bénéteau will still employ for some design and engineering co-ordination). A trim tab on the keel that was included in
VPLP’s initial draft has been abandoned as too complex to implement and therefore too expensive. The new ‘upside down’ foil invented by VPLP won over both the class and the builder, who had also investigated a more conventional DSS layout, but which they found less convincing for this application. ‘The feedback we have,’ says Richomme, ‘is that while this type of foil arrangement is
SEAHORSE 33
ALL PHOTOS FREDERIC AUGENDRE
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
