ARC 2016 the boats and the performances

[yeloya]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

no intention to attack but you said same conditions like L 42 that sailed 16kn in that intro video, FP can do 11kn max, and Lagoon video is fake as it is impossible.

Video is legit, and I am sure well sailed FP can sail same speed.

I am still in the same opinion.. I haven't sailed L42 but sailed extensively Helia. The max I have seen was 11-11,5 kts under spinneaker. I did 13-13,5 while surfing imn the short waves of Med. I have also seen with my Orana 23,2 kts for a second or two, while surfing down huge waves in north Atlantic.
According to their specs, Helia is 50 cm longer, 1.200 kg lighter and carries 25 sqm of more sail. That leads me to think that L42 cannot make 16 kts SOG, unless while surfing and or with 3-4 kts of current.

I've seen easy 13-14 kts with Outremer 51, Catana 47 and 582, 18 kts with a Gunboat, never with a FP or Lagoon. L 42 will certainly be one of the fastest edition of recent Lagoons, 16 kts still seems to me too much.
Anyway, If I ever had a chance to sail one of them , I will let you know, even if I'm proven wrong.

Cheers

Yeloya

[Polux]

Originally Posted by yeloya

Ha ha haaaaa ..

Polux, I just wonder; have you made this passage at all ? Have you ever sailed any boat other than yours, particularly a catamaran ?

Yeloya

Instead of making a mocking comment with no content at all it would serve something if you said why you don't think that the ratings on the ARC regarding cats (rating for the conditions of the Transat) are not adequa to results of the best sailed boats.

The experience of looking at this Transat for many years with detailed attention show that the are not only generally adequate between cats but even between cats and monohulls.

[Polux]

Let's look again at the performance of that catana 47 that ArseneLupiga has mentioned on the 2011 transat that originated the comment by a Catana dealer regarding the Catana being only 3rd even it it had motored less than an hour.
Catana 47 "Rafale" on the podium - 3rd place in the ARC rally! - Multihull Solutions

I had said that the comment had to be taken with a lot of salt because it come from Catana dealers that are obviously interested in promoting his performance cats as superior sailing boats on a Transat than other cheaper boats namely condo cats.

The fact that they were not using the engine and want to publicize the results means that they were interested in having a Catana with a good transat performance on the ARC and the fact that a not much bigger Lagoon 560 had not only arrived first in real time, but also 17 hours ahead spoiled all publicity they would wanted to make about the good result of the Catana 47, face to the very good one from the Lagoon 52.

So the protests regarding the Lagoon 52 that not only motored only 7 hours as it had a rating smaller than the one of the Catana.

That third place they talk about regards compensated time and has nothing to do with monohulls since cats have a separated classification.

That Lagoon 52 transat time is very good but nothing truly incredible. Regarding also very good results from monohulls we can point to a X55 from the cruising division that made it in less 7 hours than the Lagoon using much less the engine (10m)

The 2th place in compensated went for a Lagoon 440 that motored 4.5 hours and that come in real time about 12 hours after the Catana 47. As in other ARC it was proved that in what regards loaded cats not sailed by a racing crew the difference in performance regarding condo cats was small.

This was a bad year for Catana for making publicity regarding their boat's performance on the ARC. That Lagoon 440, that was 3rd in real time among the cats was 5 hours faster that a Catana 522 (3.5 engine hours), 11.5 hours faster than a Catana 50 (29.5 engine hours) and 36 hours faster than a Catana 471 (27.4 engine hours).
https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...By%20Class.pdf
They had to find some escuses for those comparativelly bad passage times, if they want to make publicity to the 3rd place of that Catana 47, as they did

this is a good example of what I had been observing through the years and many ARC: It is not the fastest boat that normally use more the engine but the ones that are slower and that use not so well their sails.

[Polux]

There is a boat out there that I don't know and can't find information about it. It is a multihull, rated as an open class boat, the boat name is Miss Phoceanie, the model Ticari 41? and they say it has 20m?. To increase the confusion it sails among the last.

Anybody knows what this is?

[yeloya]

Originally Posted by Polux

Instead of making a mocking comment with no content at all it would serve something if you said why you don't think that the ratings on the ARC regarding cats (rating for the conditions of the Transat) are not adequate results of the best sailed boats.

The experience of looking at this Transat for many years with detailed attention show that the are not only generally adequate between cats but even between cats and monohulls.

Let's first agree on one thing; ARC results do say very litlle about the performance of any boat for many reasons already discussed. Therefore, boat to boat results are irrelevant, corrected results are even less relevant because of unadequate ratings and motoring penalties.
I asked if anybody knew about how the ratings are calculated for monos and multis, it seems that nobody knows. Below are some of the boats that I've sailed and their ratings in ARC;

Catana 58 1,238 Outremer51 1,165 Ipanema 1,145 Catana 47 1,088 Helia 1,084 Belize 1,065 Salina 1,058 L 450 1,04 L 42 0,996


I've added the L 42 that I didn't sail. This boat has been reported making 16 kts and has been given a rating of 0,996. This alone is proof of the fact that ratings are not adequate.
Others;
-The difference of rating between Catana 47 and Helia is marginal. I own both of them and Catana is significantly faster than Helia.
-Helia is a bit faster than L 450 but not as much as these ratings are suggesting.(this difference in rating makes almost a full day difference in 16 days of passage)
-Ipanema (FP 58) is a very slow boat and will never be faster than Catana 47, She weights two times Catana with almost same sail area.
-

And finally, all of the same brand and makes are rated the same. All L450's or L620's, Catana 47's, etc have the same rating. It's impossible to assume that all of these boats have the same folding or fixed props, are equally loaded and carry the same down wind sails..This latter only should make a huge difference in ratings, particulary in a all the way downwind race.

On mono side, it's even worse.. Just checked couple of boats; X50 the same as Bavaria 51 cruisier, and X 45 equal to Jeanneau 439 (43 ft), no way..

Comparing monos and multis performance in this kind of race (or rally..) is totally senseless IMO. But if you still want to do it and draw conclusions, good luck..

Cheers

Yeloya

[Barra]

Originally Posted by Polux

Let's look again at the performance of that catana 47 that ArseneLupiga has mentioned on the 2011 transat that originated the comment by a Catana dealer regarding the Catana being only 3rd even it it had motored less than an hour.
Catana 47 "Rafale" on the podium - 3rd place in the ARC rally! - Multihull Solutions

I had said that the comment had to be taken with a lot of salt because it come from Catana dealers that are obviously interested in promoting his performance cats as superior sailing boats on a Transat than other cheaper boats namely condo cats.

The fact that they were not using the engine and want to publicize the results means that they were interested in having a Catana with a good transat performance on the ARC and the fact that a not much bigger Lagoon 560 had not only arrived first in real time, but also 17 hours ahead spoiled all publicity they would wanted to make about the good result of the Catana 47, face to the very good one from the Lagoon 52.

So the protests regarding the Lagoon 52 that not only motored only 7 hours as it had a rating smaller than the one of the Catana.

That third place they talk about regards compensated time and has nothing to do with monohulls since cats have a separated classification.

That Lagoon 52 transat time is very good but nothing truly incredible. Regarding also very good results from monohulls we can point to a X55 from the cruising division that made it in less 7 hours than the Lagoon using much less the engine (10m)

The 2th place in compensated went for a Lagoon 440 that motored 4.5 hours and that come in real time about 12 hours after the Catana 47. As in other ARC it was proved that in what regards loaded cats not sailed by a racing crew the difference in performance regarding condo cats was small.

This was a bad year for Catana for making publicity regarding their boat's performance on the ARC. That Lagoon 440, that was 3rd in real time among the cats was 5 hours faster that a Catana 522 (3.5 engine hours), 11.5 hours faster than a Catana 50 (29.5 engine hours) and 36 hours faster than a Catana 471 (27.4 engine hours).
https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...By%20Class.pdf
They had to find some escuses for those comparativelly bad passage times, if they want to make publicity to the 3rd place of that Catana 47, as they did

this is a good example of what I had been observing through the years and many ARC: It is not the fastest boat that normally use more the engine but the ones that are slower and that use not so well their sails.

Oh Polux you are like a dog with a bone buddy.

The lagoons that finished ahead of the catana 47 were accused of misrepresenting their engine hours. They stood by their hours though as once you dig the hole I guess you can only keep digging. There was truth to it as the organisers made some room on the podium for catana to finish third and try and appease them.

I mean this was an arc with some extended periods of light winds in the middle where 1st and 2nd cats did only 4 and 7 hours motoring yet were observed on the tracker doing 7 odd knots in 5 of knots winds for over a day straight. The Aussie run 4th multi (also a lagoon 52) declared more realistic 27 hours and that cost them a place on the podium it seems.

Yes Catana wanted to use it as marketing for a superior sailing cat but it backfired for the same reason you cant rely on the results in all but the racing division. I dont think they will do it again Something funny seems to happen on the arc to some skippers and they dont always log full hours.

Funnily enough its also the reason why you want to say the results are useful - the fastest boats use less engine hours. Maybe. Maybe like in the ARC 11 they just under reported. Yes its probably a minority but this was what happened on the 2011 ARC and read into it what you will.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Barra

Oh Polux you are like a dog with a bone buddy.

The lagoons that finished ahead of the catana 47 were accused of misrepresenting their engine hours. They stood by their hours though as once you dig the hole I guess you can only keep digging. There was truth to it as the organisers made some room on the podium for catana to finish third and try and appease them.
....
Yes Catana wanted to use it as marketing for a superior sailing cat but it backfired for the same reason you cant rely on the results in all but the racing division. I dont think they will do it again Something funny seems to happen on the arc to some skippers and they dont always log full hours.

Funnily enough its also the reason why you want to say the results are useful - the fastest boats use less engine hours. Maybe. Maybe like in the ARC 11 they just under reported. Yes its probably a minority but this was what happened on the 2011 ARC and read into it what you will.

Here you go again accusing fellow cruisers of not only being dishonest but being dishonest under oath, when they are not even racing

The fact that Lagoons and other condo cats can have very similar results to the ones obtained by loaded performance cats has been observed since cats start to make the ARC. The cases are more than many, on all ARC, including this one and the previous one and in big number. I suppose that you will consider that they all are dishonest sailors that lie under oath regarding engine hours.

[Barra]

Originally Posted by Polux

Here you go again accusing fellow cruisers of not only being dishonest but being dishonest under oath, when they are not even racing

The fact that Lagoons and other condo cats can have very similar results to the ones obtained by loaded performance cats has been observed since cats start to make the ARC. The cases are more than many, on all ARC, including this one and the previous one and in big number. I suppose that you will consider that they all are dishonest sailors that lie under oath regarding engine hours.

no the only ones that are clearly dishonest are the ones that make 7 knots in 5 knots stern winds and then report a handful of engine hours ala 2011 ARC.

I did say it was some not all but those few spoil it for the many. I would have preferred to see the other lagoon 52 with real engine hours on the podium.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by yeloya

Let's first agree on one thing; ARC results do say very litlle about the performance of any boat for many reasons already discussed. Therefore, boat to boat results are irrelevant, corrected results are even less relevant because of unadequate ratings and motoring penalties.
L 42..
I've added the L 42 that I didn't sail. This boat has been reported making 16 kts and has been given a rating of 0,996. This alone is proof of the fact that ratings are not adequate.
...
Comparing monos and multis performance in this kind of race (or rally..) is totally senseless IMO. But if you still want to do it and draw conclusions, good luck..

Cheers

Yeloya

L42? what are you talking about? I don't know a L42 neither can I see any on the rating list. Or are you talking about the Lagoon 42? If so I cannot see what has the rating wrong (0.996). A Lagoon 450 is certainly faster and has a rating of 1.040

Anyway as I said, I am not interested in compensated results but in real time results so rating is irrelevant to me.

I am not looking to this as a race and it is only a race for the ones on the racing division, 20 boats or so in 220. I am interested in real times on the cruising division with boats loaded and sailed by cruisers.

Most cruisers on a transat would use the engine, if they have no wind at all and if they have fuel, so to most cruisers the time a given sailboat takes for doing the transat is interesting, using engine or not, being known that most boats will only have the capacity to motor for a relatively small part of the total mileage.

Anyway I always give, regarding the boats that make a good time and that I report here, the number of motoring hours.

I am not interested if they are cats, trimarans or monohulls, they are all sailing boats and are treated all the same way in what regards comparative results, that are what they are, regarding the best sailed boats.

And again, as you can see on the results in real time (time of arrival) from last year, as well as in all years, the fastest boats rarely are the ones that used more the engine.

Or do you also think that cruisers are a bunch of dishonest fellows that lie under oath when they are not even racing regarding engine hours? Or maybe all the dishonest ones are on the ARC and the only honest ones are around here?
https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...%20Overall.pdf

[robert sailor]

Frankly I'd never even use the word race to discribe the ARC and I'd never use any of the results to decide which boat was faster because it's an invite to cheat with such loose rules of self reporting. There is only one race with sailing boats and that's using sails only, all the other rally's including the ARC should just quit the bs and forget using the word race and forget the trophy bs as well, it's a joke.

[Barra]

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Barra

Oh Polux you are like a dog with a bone buddy.

The lagoons that finished ahead of the catana 47 were accused of misrepresenting their engine hours. They stood by their hours though as once you dig the hole I guess you can only keep digging. There was truth to it as the organisers made some room on the podium for catana to finish third and try and appease them.

I mean this was an arc with some extended periods of light winds in the middle where 1st and 2nd cats did only 4 and 7 hours motoring yet were observed on the tracker doing 7 odd knots in 5 of knots winds for over a day straight. The Aussie run 4th multi (also a lagoon 52) declared more realistic 27 hours and that cost them a place on the podium it seems.

Yes Catana wanted to use it as marketing for a superior sailing cat but it backfired for the same reason you cant rely on the results in all but the racing division. I dont think they will do it again Something funny seems to happen on the arc to some skippers and they dont always log full hours.

Funnily enough its also the reason why you want to say the results are useful - the fastest boats use less engine hours. Maybe. Maybe like in the ARC 11 they just under reported. Yes its probably a minority but this was what happened on the 2011 ARC and read into it what you will.

Can't be bothered to look up the rules, but was wondering, with the engine hours - (for the cat's) do they take the hours for each engine and add them, or do they assume both engines are used at once?

And even if skippers reported the hours honeslty, there could be substantial differences in how they use their engines. Some who are just cruising might just use a bit of engine to keep moving, while those who are more serious about getting a good result, might thrash their engines at full power for the hours they use them. This way even boats with the same engine hours could have motored for substantially different distances.

As has been said: it's not a race, it shouldn't be called a race, and as a guide to comparing boat performance, it's pretty much useless.

[yeloya]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Frankly I'd never even use the word race to discribe the ARC and I'd never use any of the results to decide which boat was faster because it's an invite to cheat with such loose rules of self reporting. There is only one race with sailing boats and that's using sails only, all the other rally's including the ARC should just quit the bs and forget using the word race and forget the trophy bs as well, it's a joke.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say..

Yeloya

[yeloya]

Originally Posted by Polux

L42? what are you talking about? I don't know a L42 neither can I see any on the rating list. Or are you talking about the Lagoon 42? If so I cannot see what has the rating wrong (0.996). A Lagoon 450 is certainly faster and has a rating of 1.040


https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...%20Overall.pdf

L 42 is a Lagoon 42and there are two this year one is called "Merci Papa" , the other is called "spirit of Catherine" and their are rated 0,996.
How do you know that L 450 is "certainly" faster ? Have you ever sailed any of them ? If L 42 is really sailing at 16 kts as the video on youtube is suggesting, she is "certainly faster than L450. I've sailed L450 and there is no way she can make 16 kts..

Yeloya

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by yeloya

L 42 is a Lagoon 42and there are two this year one is called "Merci Papa" , the other is called "spirit of Catherine" and their are rated 0,996.
How do you know that L 450 is "certainly" faster ? Have you ever sailed any of them ? If L 42 is really sailing at 16 kts as the video on youtube is suggesting, she is "certainly faster than L450. I've sailed L450 and there is no way she can make 16 kts..

Yeloya

why do you say that. Give enough sail area and any cat will do.

However, polar from Lagoon 41 has in 25 kn true, in 120 deg true, speed 15.5 kn under spi. So, 42 slightly more. Which is pretty much conditions in video.

Trimming may be cruical. Observe & learn how nicely main & spi were interacting.