On arrive
Exploiting the power of scow-type hulls with their super-sized forward sections, but at the same time reducing hydrodynamic drag to improve downwind VMG perfor- mance, these are the dual objectives the designers of two of the new Class40s, each in their own way, have set themselves. Marc Lombard already has two cus-
tomers for his latest Lift 40 V2: French- man Aurélien Ducroz, a former freeride ski world champion, is having Crosscall built in Caen by GL Composites for the hull and deck, before the shell is taken
48 SEAHORSE
down the road to V1D2 for fit-out. On the other side of the world an Australian owner has entrusted the build of his proto- type Lift V2 to Innovation Composites. Back in Europe, Structures Shipyard,
which produces the Pogos in south Brit- tany, returns to the sharp end of the Class40 with a new Verdier design, seven years after the launch of its previous Pogo 40S3 designed by Finot-Conq. The first model of the Pogo 40S4 series is destined for Jean Galfione, gold medallist in the Olympic pole-vault in 1996 in Atlanta. For the design of the Lift V2 Lombard
started with an initial CFD study compar- ing the original Lift, the second version of which took an impressive victory in the 2018 Route du Rhum with skipper Yoann Richomme, and then the two later iterations of the original Lift concept that launched in 2019. All four hulls were carefully analysed with a new suite of CFD results generated to ensure a sound starting point. Simultaneously the Lombard office
reverse-engineered the MaX 40 design from David Raison which had won the 2019 Transat Jacques Vabre, also raising the Class40 24-hour mark by a full 10 per cent. Lombard’s team similarly recreated Sam Manuard’s Mach40.4, which had shown particularly good speed fetching and reaching and finished fourth in the same TJV after being delayed with tech - nical problems soon after the start. In the view of Eric Levet, who oversees
the Lift V2 project at Marc Lombard Yacht Design, the Raison plan is the fastest
of the lot among the existing designs. According to Levet, joint training
sessions in Lorient before the Transat Jacques Vabre had already shown that the Mach 40.4 and Lombard’s previous Lift both accelerated more easily and sailed faster in sub-planing conditions. However, Raison’s MaX 40 soon made up the deficit sailing downwind – especially in strong winds and heavy seas – thanks to its kinder handling characteristics that encouraged higher sustained speeds without putting excessive stress on the crew (or pilot). In the same conditions the MaX 40’s
rivals are starting to present trickier, more challenging behaviour with a tendency to load up quickly (like a conventional dis- placement design) when they drop out of balance. ‘David [Raison] already had great experience of scows with his Mini 6.50s, he knew how to take this problem into account… His theory is that you have to be able to sail straighter than the others, especially when you’re alone. ‘This increases your average speed
down the course and reduces the strain on the pilot – both human and electronic. ‘The Raison design demonstrates very
healthy behaviour in that it rears up by the bow as it accelerates, thanks to its pro- nounced hull rocker. But there is of course a downside,’ adds Levet, ‘that when the boat slows and the stern starts to sink the drag of the hull inevitably increases.’ Hydrodynamics engineer Lionel Huetz
is the man who carried out the CFD studies for Marc Lombard’s latest Lift Class40.
ANTOINE DUJONCQOY
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 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120
