News Around the World
There was a period during the previous decade when if a Bella Mente maxi was entered then a Bella Mente maxi was expected to win. Then having won three world titles, the last in 2016, Hap Fauth’s slick team appeared to fall out of step with newer launches, perhaps hanging on to their previous yacht a little too long to match the development of the new designs appearing and so falling behind by the time they launched a new boat of their own. Took a while but since the 2022 New York Yacht Club Regatta Fauth’s immaculately turned-out Botín design has gone unbeaten and in September in Porto Cervo (above) it was finally time to collect title number four
any shape possible because it would always then be strong enough.’ Dick designed boats dictated by the rules because it was necessary
to respect the rating rule of the time to be competitive. He considered the original RORC rule too conservative and poorly managed. So he became involved in the creation of the IOR but quickly distanced him- self because he found that architecture alone did not drive the debate. Politics is not his thing and it was ‘just not fun any more’. Dick tried his hand at Open class boats, such as Jean-Yves Terlain’s
gigantic 39m Vendredi 13, which came very close to winning the 1972 Ostar. He still has fond memories of her, especially because of the then avant-garde sandwich construction employed by the Tecimar shipyard in St-Nazaire. When I ask the famous French skipper of Vendredi 13, who had
also travelled to La Trinité, why he chose Dick Carter as designer, he answers: ‘He was the “star” designer at the time. I knew exactly what I wanted but people thought I was basically a “total wa**er” for my ideas. Choosing Dick Carter made my project credible and that made it easier for me to find a financial partner…’ Dick himself left the sailing scene many years ago and is currently
busy researching the history of his latest second home in England. You really should take time to read Dick Carter’s recently published book: In the Golden Age of Offshore Racing. It is a wonderful story that is packed with wisdom and adventures that are often nothing whatever to do with the sea! Our friend Jean Sans is about to finish a significant work on
20th-century offshore racing sailboats. We asked him to summarise what is memorable about Carter’s work: ‘Dick Carter’s architectural career and aura are closely linked to Class 3 (RORC rule). After a few years of sleep following the victories of Myth of Malham, this class woke up around 1962 with the arrival of glass/polyester and the opti- misation of welding techniques on thin steel or aluminium shells. ‘Class 3 was for boats around 10m overall with an LWL (RORC
rule) up to a maximum of 24ft (7.32m). However, the first attempts at designing to this category show that the naval architecture was struggling to free itself from the “classic shape” – long keel, rudder fixed on the trailing edge of the keel and beam/length ratio <0.3. ‘After many offshore races on the east coast of the USA, including
the SORC in 1963, Dick Carter participated in the 1963 Fastnet Race on Astrolabe, which is a Medalist 1 design by Bill Tripp. Tripp had gone to Holland for her glass/polyester composite laminate construc- tion, but her design remained true to the traditional shapes seen on the Nicholson 32, although slightly above the 0.3 beam/length ratio. ‘Sailing back from the Fastnet Rock the wind was from the NW
22 SEAHORSE
and gradually built to a steady force 6/7. Astrolabewas sailing under spinnaker at an average of about 8.2kt. Dick finished fourth in Class 3 and sixth overall in the 125-boat fleet. But his experience on the Medalist prompted Carter to analyse the behaviour of this hull. He concluded that it is efficient, with well-calibrated design ratios, but that it was difficult to control under spinnaker in strong winds and heavy sea, and lacks performance upwind. ‘It should be remembered that, at the time of the RORC rule, the
typical draft in Class 3 was about 1.45m. Any deeper and there were rating penalties! Note that when IOR replaced the RORC rule the typical depth at this size immediately jumped to 1.80m. ‘After a year (1964) of reflection Carter drew Rabbit, where we
noted the following: the rudder is detached from the keel to be located at the end of the static LWL, which improves yaw control and reduces the wetted surface. A trim tab is added to the trailing edge of the keel. The trim tab has existed for a long time on aircraft where its function was well known – to increase the camber of the wing to improve lift on take-off or landing when the speed is low. However, if the flap generates lift it also produces drag. ‘Carter’s logic went as follows: with draft limited by the RORC rule,
keel depth/length will always be bad. In the case of Rabbit the span (0.912m) of the keel is much lower than the average cord length (2.577m), which results in an aspect ratio of 0.354. In comparison, on a modern IRC boat type like the JPK 10.10 the values are practically reversed and the aspect ratio is about 1.8! As hull speed upwind is near to 6kt, the trim tab allowed his class 3 design to gain 3-5° of angle on the other competitors with no tab. And even with a slight loss of speed the net gain (in VMG) was judged significant. ‘Today on yachts with high aspect ratio keels the trim tab is
redundant. But during the 10 years before the move to the IOR the trim tab would remain for a long time a signature of the Carter designs, especially on the famous Tina.’ Patrice Carpentier
GREAT BRITAIN Among prestigious jobs on the professional circuit Class Secretary of the J Class is one that requires a degree in diplomacy, a Master’s in communication and a doctorate in logistics. For former Finn sailor Stuart Childerley it’s a role he took on in adversity but still with a drive to keep the class moving forwards. Today the J Class is in good hands. Catching up with him in Porto Cervo, Stuart’s enthusiasm for the
class and his utter commitment to longterm planning are infectious and similar to the way he approached his sailing when competing at
INGRID ABERY
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
