General Info: ARC2014

[Polux]

Originally Posted by AliaVita

That's fine, not a problem at all. I just thought the forum might have appreciated a bit of input from one of the actual rally participants that had shared a beer which each and everyone of the skippers of the boats you mentioned (except the XP44) and others that you didn't, at different times before and after the event.

For what its worth, I would say that the boat with the most high tech kit and the most focused mindset to cross the line first was the Jeanneau 57 followed very closely by the Cigale 18 (which was beautiful by the way). I can also tell you, categorically, that one of the Outremer 51s and the Catana 50 (me obviously) did not fly a down wind sail all the way because we find them too stressful and reefed down every night. The most amazing cat from my perspective was the Vayager 440 which simply put up a code zero on one side, the main on the other and sailed the rumb line. That boat went far quicker than anyone would have given it credit for before the start of the rally on both legs.

Thanks for your input and congrats for your good passage time.

Yes that Cigale 18 has already some years and the concept and design was developed based on the Open 60 concept by Finot has a boat for himself. Alubat the makers of OVNI showed interest in producing the boat and that's when the Cigale and Levriere des mers ( A Cigale with a more conventional cruising interior) were born on the 90's.

I can tell you that at that time that boat, beamy and with the beam pulled back looked really odd for a cruising boat....today those hull lines are the main design criteria of many main market cruising boats, some still designed by Finot/Conq.

Today the Cigale, following the same concepts are designed by Marc Lombard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBxomNv-Rnk

[Polux]

Originally Posted by AliaVita

Yeloya
I think that more or less sums up what I was trying to saying but you put it better. I honestly think I could repeat the exercise and cross the line first if that was what we set out to do. How's that for a bold statement!

Is that is in fact a bold statement. Do you mean that the boat ratings, that were followed very close in what concerns the passage times of the first are wrong? Just a big coincidence their rapport with reality on this ARC (the first boats)?

If the Cigale 18 was as well sailed and it was said here it was, how do you manage to beat a faster boat? a boat with clearly a bigger handicap racing. Only if you are a truly racing champion and have a racing time that can sail a slower boat faster then a faster one. There is a reason for the Cigale 18 to have dominated this year's ARC+: It was the faster boat (the one with the bigger rating) and it was well sailed.

Alubat Cigale 18 - 1.302
Lagoon 620 USA 1.197
Outremer 51 - 1.165
Outremer 51 - 1.165
Jeanneau 57 - 1.154
XP-44 GER 1.117
Catana 50 - 1.089
Catana 471 - 1.072

[Polux]

Originally Posted by yeloya

Polux,

It's clear to me that you don't want to understand but I will try anyway..With the exception of invitational and racing classes, the rest of the ARC is just a joke..

You mean, regarding the first boats, probably the ones better sailed, it is just by miracle that the boat ratings (if we discount engine time) follow closely those ratings?

Originally Posted by yeloya

..
Yes, I have said that under similar conditions the cats are 15-20 % faster than the monos. This was the statement of Jeanneau and Fountaine Pajot dealer in Anneapolis who imported hundreds of boat each year from the other site of the Atlantic and who registered all the delivery times for the passage.. He cannot be biased because he's selling both; cat and mono..My experience is exactly the same.

Polux, I did the Atlantic twice both ways, I know the conditions pretty well. If you still say that ARC results are significative, I have nothing else to say.. ..

I never said that cats are slower or vice verse, I said that making global generalizations like that makes no sense. There are many type of cats and many types of monohulls, the best way to know who is faster is looking at the rating, that as this ARC showed regarding the first ones (among the boats that were decently sailed) were accurate regarding boat performances.

Probably the Jeanneau dealer is right between Fountain Pajot and Sun Odysey but Jeanneau has not monohull performance cruisers. Possibly a main market cat, size by size and comparing with a mass production monohull cruiser is slightly fast downwind (but not 25%) while the monohull will faster upwind. I will have a look at the ratings of similarly sized condo cats and mass production monohull cruisers and will post them when I will have the time.

Finally the fact or having circumnavigated, crossed the Atlantic 30 times or so in different types of boats would not make someone an expert in what regards the global comparative performance of cats versus monohulls, eventually and expert regarding the performance of the monohulls and cats that he has sailed and even so that impression can be subjective. Statistic evidence and most of all ratings that have a close relation with real results are much more effective then all that experience and as I said, you have to look boat by boat, there is no global evidence regarding this.

Yes, in what regards racing boats you can make a faster cat than a similar sized monohull but that is racing. In what regards cruising there are lots of other factors to consider, the boats are not supposedly sailed by expert teams and the cats have to sail a sail area that will makes them safe will the monohulls can be more tolerant in what regards that. The fact a broach is not a safety issue on a monohull, allows cruising monohulls to fly safely more sail than cats.

[avb3]

I find it interesting that members who have not had hands on experience with the ARC suggest that those that actually participated in it, and know virtually all of the other participants, somehow are less knowledgeable about intent and reasons that ARC participants sail it.

Would it not make more sense to take those members who know what they are talking about (having actually sailed the ARC) and accept their observations versus speculating based on some meaningless results? Hypothesis are great, but actual in the water with the actual participants is substantially more credible.

[AliaVita]

Originally Posted by Polux

Is that is in fact a bold statement.

I'm perhaps being a bit naive. I am not a racer and have never taken part in a race, but I think that if we, or the one other Outremer that I know most about, had flown a spinnaker on the 2,100 mile down wind leg and not reefed at night, I just have a hunch that there must have been another half a knot to be had. To be fair though, that would only be of meaning if all the yachts raced in the same vein, and that's the problem, they don't. Maybe we will return to Europe in May and go again in November in the Racing Division of the main ARC. But you know what, we are live aboards loving it here in the Caribbean and we will be sailing the East Coast of the US this summer, leaving the BVI for Bermuda in May with ARC USA/Europe, so 'going again' won't happen.

Now, whats really interesting is that one of the Outremer 51s and ourselves will be two husband and wives 'live aboard' teams in the first leg from BVI to Bermuda. Perhaps we will have a beer and agree to have a race to Bermuda. If it's 'race on' I will let you all know beforehand and you can then interrogate the result of the 850Nm leg until your heart's content. There are 56 yachts entered and one of us might just prove a point!

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

I find it interesting that members who have not had hands on experience with the ARC suggest that those that actually participated in it, and know virtually all of the other participants, somehow are less knowledgeable about intent and reasons that ARC participants sail it.

Would it not make more sense to take those members who know what they are talking about (having actually sailed the ARC) and accept their observations versus speculating based on some meaningless results? Hypothesis are great, but actual in the water with the actual participants is substantially more credible.

Reality is what it is and it shoes on the boat results on the ARC. Regarding the first boats that are reasonably well sailed,n those results and performance conform with the Handicap rating of those boats. That is what I have been confirming and that does not support a global statement that one the ARC cats are 10 to 25% faster than similarly sized monohulls, as some that had made the ARC had expressed here.

That global statement is not also conforming with the Handicap rating attributed to cats and monohulls where many times monohulls have a bigger rating. Those ratings are consistent with what I have been saying and the boat performance, when they are well sailed (the first to arrive).

[Polux]

Originally Posted by yeloya

Hi Polux,

...
My experience is that (apple to apple) same size and type (cruiser to cruiser, racer to racer) and for the same water length, cats are 10 to 25 % faster depending on sea state, AWA and wind force.
The same was confirmed by the GB 62 skipper that I had met. He said "we were never overtaken in any race by a monohull shorter than us, including Volvo 60".
..

I believe you were talking about Zenyatta a Gunboat 62 that makes a lot of racing, as a experienced racing skipper a basic very experienced crew and accept "guests" as extra "crew" ?

They had made the 2013 ARC so let’s have a look at that one: I was not impressed with their performance and impressed with the performance of a Knierim 65, a monohull performance cruiser of about the same size of the Gunboat 62 (more 3ft) that beat it by almost 5days!!!while a much smaller Marten 49 (13ft smaller), another monohull performance cruiser only lost about 10 hours for the Gunboat 62.

Off course these are all very expensive Carbon boats but I would say that the ones that really impressed me was the results of much less expensive non carbon boats, like a X50 that only lost 25 hours to the Gunboat 62 and the first 40ft to arrive (cats and monohulls) a production performance cruiser, a Pogo 12.50 that arrived about two days after the Gunboat 62. Fact is that the 40ft inexpensive performance cruiser (Pogo 12.50) was faster than all the 34 catamarans doing the ARC, with exception of the Gunboat 62, and the Explorer 60 but off course the Pogo did not use the engine while the Explorer 60 motored for 52 hours, without that the 40ft Pogo cruisers would only be beaten by the Gunboat 62. All the cats, with the exception of a single Lagoon 380 were much bigger than the 40ft Pogo, mostly between 45ft and 60ft.

That was not the only relatively small monohull that was very fast, a Dufour 45e, A Grand Soleil 43 and a Wauquiez 45, all a mass production performance cruisers, lost not much for the Pogo 12.50 (a very fast boat), respectively 27 hours, 26 hours and 11 hours. They beat all the cats of similar size and in fact almost all of then. And if we discount the engine hours (none for the monohulls, 45 for the Tournier Freydis 49 and 29hours for the Catana 48) probably they would be right behind the much bigger Lagoon 560, that used the engine for 31 hours.

Regarding multihulls the most impressive result was maybe the one of a Lagoon 560. That is true that while the monohulls and the Gunboat did not touch the engine the Lagoon motored during 31 hours but only lost 2 days 5 hours to the Gunboat 62 and an Explorer 60 that even if motoring a lot (52hours) only took more one day and a half to do the crossing.

If we look now at the Handicap rating of the boats (boats by arriving order) and their performance on the ARC that performance don’t look strange, in fact with few exceptions, like on the ARC+, they are performing according with their attributed rating. The only exceptions are the Ocean explorer 60 (Cat), that seems a bit over rated to me and the Lagoon 560 that seems very well sailed to me and the Catana 58 that should have done better.

Knierim 65 GER 1.518
Gunboat 62 USA 1.354
Marten 49 FRA 1.238
X-50 ITA 1.161
Ocean Explorer 60 1.336
Grand Soleil 56 1.162
Hanse 575 1.164
Pogo 12.50 GBR 1.176
Lagoon 560 POL 1.088
Tournier Freydis 49 1.184
Catana 58 1.238
Wauquiez Cent. 45s 1.109
Grand Soleil 43 1.079
Dufour 45E 1.104

I am not saying (at all) that cats are slower then monohulls, or the opposite, just saying that you have to look at each boat (cat and monohull) and at their comparative downwind ratings to have a fair idea of each boat potential. Saying in generic terms that Cats (or monohulls) are faster the multihulls proves again not to make sense.

https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...l%20211213.pdf
https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...s%20211213.pdf

On the 2013 and 2014 ARC editions they have proved that the guys that are attributing the ratings are doing an excellent job and that, in what regards well sailed boats (the fastest) they have a performance close to the one predicted by the rating.