Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

100km/h Sailboat Sets Speed Record

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the you-know-we-invented-motors-right? dept.

Transportation 103

fustakrakich writes with news that a boat powered only by its sails has reached speeds of 100km/h for the first time. The team also claims to have reached 109km/h over a 500m course. The craft took the speed record back from kite surfers, who have somewhat smaller sails but a massive weight advantage over boats. "Sailrocket 2 set the record last week, and the speed 54.08 knots (100.1 km/h) the craft achieved has been recognized by the World Sailing Speed Record Council as the new mark in Class B for vessels traversing a 500 meter course. The speed is higher than any other vessel recorded in the Council’s lists and is the only recorded speed over 100 km/h." Gizmag has a more detailed article about Sailrocket 2's exploits, and says in an update that the craft achieved speeds of 121km/h today (65.37 knots).

cancel ×

103 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42082691)

...can it go straight downwind faster than the wind?

Re:Great, but... (4, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082735)

no, but the laws of physics do allow the possibility of tacking in certain other directions faster than wind speed

Re:Great, but... (0)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082929)

So...what is that in MPH....?

I have no concept of speed in metric....

Re:Great, but... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42082989)

Nautical speed is measured in knots, worldwide.
1 knot = 1.1507794 mph = 1.852 km/h = 0.51444444 m/s

Re:Great, but... (2)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084817)

Just for reference, we were hauling close in a fresh breeze in my Mom's Kettenberg PCC on San Francisco Bay (thats going almost straight upwind into a gnarly breeze, for you landlubbers) at a stunning two or so knots, and the Old Salt at the tiller kept going on about how lightning fast the Antigua is. I didn't RTFA, but I reckon the hull on that boat is Carbon Composite, &c. ; 54 knots on water sounds pretty scary.

Re:Great, but... (1)

QQBoss (2527196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085109)

Your mom's sailboat has a basement?

Re:Great, but... (1)

tinkerton (199273) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085873)

Yours hasn't? It's indispensible for stability.

Re:Great, but... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089685)

What the article doesn't say, though, is how the crew avoid spilling their gin & tonic... ;)

Re:Great, but... (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083007)

1 Meter is 3ft rounded down.
So, with that basic knowledge you should be able to approximate the speed.
Of course you will be further off the higher you go, but it gives you a general understanding.

how is that helpful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083133)

As if anyone knows how many yards are in a mile. And I doubt anyone cares to know how many yards per hour the boat travels.

Re:how is that helpful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083655)

Says the art grad. If you have studied anything useful, you'll know how to do the conversion using whatever unit you're given.

Re:how is that helpful? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085465)

Sorry, I've studied physics, but I have no idea how many yards are in a mile.

Re:how is that helpful? (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086721)

Two possible replies: (1) you didn't study very much physics (since understanding and remembering units is kinda critical), or (2) try dividing 5280 by 3 . :-)
And, yes, IAAP.
I suppose you could do better by deconstructing down to the ISO definition of the meter in terms of wavelengths of a certain hyperfine-split atomic emission, but since this is for sailors, who cares :-)

Re:how is that helpful? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086877)

Two possible replies: (1) you didn't study very much physics (since understanding and remembering units is kinda critical), or (2) try dividing 5280 by 3 . :-)

I studied a lot of physics (indeed, I am physicist), but nobody in physics uses miles or yards. Yes, I've learned a lot of units. I can tell you how many joules an electron volt is. I can tell you how many pascals there are in a bar. Or how many fermis in a meter. And yes, understanding units in general is important, as is understanding the units actually used in physics. However miles and yards are none of those. And no, it's not just that I did choose not to learn them. They are not taught here.

(2) try dividing 5280 by 3

I can only guess: There's maybe an unit so that a yard is three of those units, and a mile is 5280 of those units?

I suppose you could do better by deconstructing down to the ISO definition of the meter in terms of wavelengths of a certain hyperfine-split atomic emission, but since this is for sailors, who cares :-)

Yeah, who cares about miles and yards when sailing, when the unit used on sea is the nautical mile (which is 1.852 km; and no, that I didn't have to look up).

And BTW, you are quite out of date with the definition of the meter. For quite some time now it has been defined as 1/99792458 of the distance the light travels in vacuum in one second.

Re:how is that helpful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086691)

How about chains per fortnight?

Re:Great, but... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083357)

So...what is that in MPH....?

I have no concept of speed in metric....

It is disturbing that you are willing to admit this. You obviously failed HARD in science class.

Re:Great, but... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089745)

Even in countries where everything has been stipulated in metric terms for a long time, Imperial measures sometimes die hard. The area of a property I recently sold in Western Australia was listed on the title as 10 perches (i.e. 1/16 acre, or ~253 m^2).

Re:Great, but... (4, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083499)

It is about 167,024 furlongs per fortnight

Re:Great, but... (2)

ballpoint (192660) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083661)

That's how many acres per chain and per sidereal year, pretty please ?

Re:Great, but... (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084521)

I'm gonna get all pedantic on your ass. So apologies ahead of time.

>implying that chains are obscure

No, no they're not. They have been used in all English speaking countries ever since that guy Gunther came up with the system in 1620 ... all the way up to the middle of the 20'th century. If you ever found yourself in a land evidence vault in any city/town hall in any English speaking country, you'd find chains and links in all sorts of deeds predating the invention of steel tape.

With a little bit of adjustment, making a chain a decimal fraction of a nautical mile instead of 80 chains being a statute mile, the meter would have never stood a chance. A nautical mile is 92 chains and 6+1/4 links. If Gunther had made his chain 1/100'th of a nautical mile, we'd still be using it today instead of abandoning it in the 1940s for decimal feet and meters on steel tape.

And btw, 1 acre is 10 square chains. 1 statute square mile is 640 acres, since a mile is 80 chains.

1 mile = 80 chains
1 chain = 100 links
1 acre = 10 square chains

It's a nice self-consistent system that only needed a little bit of a tweak for it to be used on steel tape and other measurement technology. It was revolutionary when Gunther came up with it, since it suddenly made land surveying math standardized and *easier.*

--
BMO

Re:Great, but... (2)

ballpoint (192660) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084803)

Thanks, information bearing pedant !

Though I hoped someone would have catched the references to Vangelis' Albedo 0.39 and Pink Floyd's Another brick in the wall.

Re:Great, but... (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086041)

A chain is 16 and a half feet, BTW. I use chains as the basic unit on the farm, spacing trees, fencing pasture, &c. Just being arbitrary, but why not?

Wrongo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086051)

That's a rod, d'oh (a quarter chain.). Well, I'm not a surveyor, or a mathematician. Just a hoboroadie.

Re:Great, but... (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086097)

No, a chain is 4 rods.

A rod is 16.5 feet.

If you take a mile, in feet, and divide by 80, you get 66. This is the length of a Gunther's chain. If you further divide by 4, you get 16.5 feet, a rod.

If the chain in your hands is 16.5 feet, it will have 25 links.

--
BMO

Re:Great, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083039)

pepino [blogspot.com]
Kumpulan resep-resep kue kering yang diambil dari berbagai sumber berita
resep kue kering [blogspot.com]
resep kue kering [blogspot.com]
resep kue kering [blogspot.com]
resep kue kering [blogspot.com]

Re:Great, but... (1)

pepty (1976012) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084415)

They allow the possibility of going faster than wind speed going straight downwind as well ... almost three times as fast, so far. (hint: if the sail is a propeller, it's blades are not moving in the same direction as the rest of the craft).

Re:Great, but... (1)

ormondotvos (936952) | about a year and a half ago | (#42088373)

They already jacked up the record. Go to the site!

Re:Great, but... (2)

emt377 (610337) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082751)

...can it go straight downwind faster than the wind?

Not downwind, but it can at various sideways angles to the wind (on the reach) where the sail acts as an airfoil.

Re:Great, but... (1)

SimonInOz (579741) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083505)

All high speed sailboats such as skiffs avoid sailing directly downwind. They 'tack' downwind, first one way, then the other. (Technically a gybe, but what the heck).
Even on my relatively slow cat, dead downwind is not the way to go.

Re:Great, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085177)

Actually, on most of these modern, light fast boats (for instance the AC 45s: http://www.americascup.com/en/) there is really no such thing as "stright downwind". At the speeds they attain, the Apparent Wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_wind) shifts forward. Thereby seeming to come from the beam or even forward of the beam.

Re:Great, but... (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082851)

I doubt it!

Hey! Kudos to fustakrakich for 2 front pagers in a week!

Re:Great, but... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42082899)

The ultimate bar bet has been definitively answered by this vehicle which made 2.8 times wind speed directly downwind: downwind faster than the wind [fasterthanthewind.org]

Then there's race kiters who routinely achieve a VMG better than wind speed going downwind, though not by as large a factor.

Re:Great, but... (1)

styrotech (136124) | about a year and a half ago | (#42088827)

Then there's race kiters who routinely achieve a VMG better than wind speed going downwind, though not by as large a factor.

Is that VMG being compared to the windspeed at the surface or at the altitude of the kite?

Re:Great, but... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083443)

Sure. Just not for very long and it has to go across the wind for a bit first.

Re:Great, but... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083805)

Downwind always means: your maximum speed is the speed of the wind. (Usually you make less)

Re:Great, but... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084831)

In sailing, perhaps. Not necessarily true on land: here [nalsa.org] is a summary of the event shown here [fasterthanthewind.org] on YouTube.

Re:Great, but... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089907)

That has nothing to do with on land or on water.
Sailing means: it uses a sail.
The links you show use a windmill, likely linked with a gear down to the wheels. You can do (and it is done) the same at sea.
Nice links though!

The actual boat (0, Troll)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082705)

The boat has practically no resemblance to any other sailing vessel. I'm mean yay!, you got the record and you took it back from kite surfers but your actual craft resembles a sail boat about as much as a kite surfers craft resembles a sail boat.

Re:The actual boat (0)

emt377 (610337) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082775)

The boat has practically no resemblance to any other sailing vessel.

This might have something to do with the fact that it's a land vessel with wheels...

Re:The actual boat (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42082783)

Yeah... but how many record breaking vehicles look anything like their normal versions? Boats, planes, cars, etc, there are always huge trade offs they have to make to get maximum speed.

Re:The actual boat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42082807)

Reminds me of my FS1E (Fizzy) I had to compromise it by welding a 10p piece to the top of the piston and polishing the head so I could 120mph out of it!

Christ, I hope there are some British bikers who remember the joke.

Anyone build a YamaGamma?

Re:The actual boat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42092329)

The 1973 FS1-E (gold) I owned is currently being restored by the local bike shop in Reading (MTC). Last time I rode it the rear brake locked nder the exhaust as the pivot point in the pressed steel frame was so worn. However I bought it from my brother-in-law who had owned it since 1975 when it had 2000 miles on the clock and he kept meticulous records (originally including every pint of 2 stroke oil he bought) and so I can be sure when i say it has done 38k miles and is still on original piston with only 1 new set of rings.

I am lardier than the average 16year old (and older) but did see an indicated 48mph downhill laying on the tank (1 hand on fork stanchion in historic fashion). Only scarier bike i have owned was a suzuki GT200 X5. My Gpz900r & xjr1300 are so much easier and safer to ride I am amazed any big 2 stroke riders ever survived them

Re:The actual boat (1)

styrotech (136124) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089057)

Yeah... but how many record breaking vehicles look anything like their normal versions? Boats, planes, cars, etc, there are always huge trade offs they have to make to get maximum speed.

Up until just recently these records had been set by windsurfers and kitesurfers using very mainstream looking gear.

In fact the linked gizmodo article even has a section on how accessible that equipment is. As an example: The second fastest time set by a windsurfer this week (which would've been an outright 500m world record as recent as 2010) was set using off the shelf production equipment that anyone can just buy.

Re:The actual boat (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42082823)

The boat has practically no resemblance to any other sailing vessel. I'm mean yay!, you got the record and you took it back from kite surfers but your actual craft resembles a sail boat about as much as a kite surfers craft resembles a sail boat.

Well, it floats on water and has a hull (is a boat) and uses a raised structure to catch the wind (has a sail), so... it's a sailboat. A very light, one person sailboat.

Re:The actual boat (3, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082877)

>The boat has practically no resemblance to any other sailing vessel.

No, it looks like a catamaran with different geometry and hydrofoils.

The base machine is a cat - two hulls and a sail.

--
BMO

Re:The actual boat (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082907)

The base machine is a cat - two hulls and a sail.

What strange breed of cat do you have there? I have three cats, and every one of them has two hinds and a tail instead.

Re:The actual boat (4, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082993)

No, it looks like a catamaran with different geometry and hydrofoils.

I think the term you are looking for is "proa". [wikipedia.org]

Re:The actual boat (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084105)

I think that's a lot more descriptive...

Thanks.

--
BMO

Re:The actual boat (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083035)

The base machine is a cat...

The S.S. Schrodinger - It's a boat and a plane

Re:The actual boat (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083285)

Looks more like a hydroplane than a hydrofoil. That's why the ride is so damn bumpy. Just designed such that it has to get up to speed before it gets up on the plane surfaces and skis on top of the water. If it was designed as a true hydrofoil with smaller winglets instead of pods and had more lift to get the hull clean out of the water they could likely cutdown on the bumpy chop and drag and even go faster yet.

  There's even more interesting and spectacular footage of a crash in one of the related videos after the linked Youtube video ends. They really flip that thing. Suprised the two guys riding it didn't break their necks. The fact it ends up upsidedown also lets you see what's underneath it.

Re:The actual boat (3, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084327)

>Looks more like a hydroplane than a hydrofoil.

After going to the website itself for the boat, the boat has one large foil 3/4 of the way toward the stern and the bow has a pod with a rudder. The pod on the stern is there only for low speed flotation as it is clearly completely out of the water at full speed in the video.

If you look at picture #5, you can see the foil.

http://www.sailrocket.com/node/298 [sailrocket.com]

If you go here: http://www.sailrocket.com/sites/default/files/VSR2-force-alignment.jpg [sailrocket.com]

You can see the foil is bent where a significant portion is parallel to the sail to help counteract the lifting force of the sail and sideways force of the wind itself.

--
BMO

Re:The actual boat (3, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083111)

How did this get modded insightful? An amazing engineering effort, and if you have ever been in a boat going more the 50mph that's fucking fast (and dangerous). Congrats to someone doing something interesting instead of sitting behind their computer.

Re:The actual boat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42091269)

Well said. It's incredible that they can get those kind of speeds. It's a great design with really low drag, and great balance. Congrats to the team. I want one!!

Re:The actual boat (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083459)

It's just a sailing outrigger canoe with hydrofoils. It looks different, but it's not really that radical. You can actually buy hydrofoil trimarans for not much more than standard monohulls that also don't look exactly like regular sailboats.

NOT first to 100 km/hr (1)

0WaitState (231806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082861)

Let's have a look at the Council's list that is linked in TFA and TFS. 100 km/hr is 53.996 knots. What do we see?

2010 Kite-board Alexandre Caizergues FRA Luderitz, NAM 54.10 kts
2010 Kite-board Sebastien Cattalan FRA Luderitz, NAM 55.49 kts
2010 Kite-board Rob Douglas USA Luderitz, NAM 55.65 kts

3 kiters in 2010 certified as going faster than 100 km/hr. Sailrocket's achievement of a new outright record is awesome, it doesn't need to be embellished (or damaged) with false claims to be first past a round-number threshold.

Re:NOT first to 100 km/hr (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42082955)

I think the difference is that with a Kite-board, the sail isn't attached to the structure but rather flown as a kite and tethered to the floating device usually resembling a surfboard or a wake board. This uses an actual sail attached to an actual boat making it slightly different.

This is actually a record for the type of boat, one with the sails physically attached and pushing instead of pulling the vessel.

Re:NOT first to 100 km/hr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083057)

one with the sails physically attached and pushing instead of pulling the vessel.

Thank you. That is a very good and sensible definition, no matter what one calls the thing.
They have proven that they can do faster with a pushing and attached one than with a pulling/free one.
Which is pretty impressive. It's definitely easier to be fast with a pulling one.

And I don’t care what it is. It swims, you can sit in it, and it goes 100 km/h without any damn motor!
Awww-yeah!

Re:NOT first to 100 km/hr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083123)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The kite is attached to the rider, not the board. Push/pull vs. center of mass has nothing to do with the classification.

The gizmag article does a good job of covering it, whereas the other article goes for the simple and wrong strategy of conflating first Class B vessel to 100 km/hr with first in all classes to 100 km/hr.

Re:NOT first to 100 km/hr (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083743)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The kite is attached to the rider, not the board. Push/pull vs. center of mass has nothing to do with the classification.

Sigh,

The rider is attached to the board making the kite tethered to the board. The important part here is how it is fixed means it requires more or less materials and the kite-board can be way less by design. This means less weight is being pulled through the water, less of a craft is in the water also meaning less resistance. It is easier to get a kite board up to higher speeds because of simple physics. I said nothing about classification other then the differences between a kite board and a sail boat is significant when at those speeds. It's like comparing the speed of a motorcycle and car with the same horse power motors in them. They are both vehicles, they are both motor-vehicles, but one doesn't have the weight advantages the other has.

The gizmag article does a good job of covering it, whereas the other article goes for the simple and wrong strategy of conflating first Class B vessel to 100 km/hr with first in all classes to 100 km/hr.

I think your problem is a different argument then what was made. The register statement said it was recognized by the World Sailing Speed Record Council as the first class B vessel doing it in a 500 meter course. This is a specific statement detailing a specific claim with specific conditions. I would have assumed someone as pedant as you insisting that tethered to the rider who is tethered to a board is somehow different from being tethered to the board would have picked up on the specifics of it. Please slow down and think about what was said then think about what you are going to say..

Re:NOT first to 100 km/hr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083855)

Read the summary. Can you manage to get to the end of the first sentence?

"fustakrakich writes with news that a boat powered only by its sails has reached speeds of 100km/h for the first time."

This sentence is wrong. Ok? Wrong, based on the very records page they link to. You personally may try to claim they're referring to that particular boat reaching 100kph for the first time, but that would be wrong too since they've been posting 100kph+ times for a week.

It is common among pedants when losing on the facts to switch to attacking the messenger. Find a mirror.

Re:NOT first to 100 km/hr (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083991)

Read the summary. Can you manage to get to the end of the first sentence?

"fustakrakich writes with news that a boat powered only by its sails has reached speeds of 100km/h for the first time."

You didn't say the article sumery, you said "whereas the other article goes for the simple and wrong strategy of conflating first Class B vessel to 100 km/hr with first in all classes to 100 km/hr." The other article which I correctly quoted from made a specific claim about a specific condition and was a specific response to the other article claim. The headline, while inaccurate, is more incomplete then inaccurate if it is even inaccurate. It is the first time a vessel powered only by sails has reached those speeds in a 500 km course according to a certain organization's certification.

This sentence is wrong. Ok? Wrong, based on the very records page they link to. You personally may try to claim they're referring to that particular boat reaching 100kph for the first time, but that would be wrong too since they've been posting 100kph+ times for a week.

Read the fucking article, it's right in there. I'm not trying to claim anything other then what they claimed. It seems you are the one with the problem in reality not me. Are you claiming the article referenced does not say what it says?

It is common among pedants when losing on the facts to switch to attacking the messenger. Find a mirror.

If you say so. It appears you would be trying to do it. Look, I seriously do not know what to tell you. You said the other article, I read it, it says it was the first, now you want to claim you were talking about the story submission. I cannot read you mind and anticipate your failings in communications not can I be expected to answer to something you did not say. Like I said before slow down a bit and focus on comprehending what you are reading and thinks about what you are actually saying.

Re:NOT first to 100 km/hr (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083691)

RC sailplanes regularly hits speed over 300 knots (400 MPH). That's pure wind power.

I'm sure some ice-rail has hit speeds well over 100 MPH.

only half the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42082935)

They should be made to do a run in each direction like land speed records!

go4t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083089)

has run fas73r

Dangerous (4, Interesting)

interiot (50685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083151)

Interesting fact — There's an 85% fatality rate [wikipedia.org] for the speed record for any boat. This sport is extremely dangerous.

The sailing speed record is 80% slower than the overall boat record, so the sailing record is a little safer. Nonetheless, one of the SailRocket crashes led to the pilot having a broken helmet [yachtpals.com] .

Re:Dangerous (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083711)

After a crash like that he builds a faster boat and gets in it? I'm surprised the boat is big enough to fit his balls!

Interesting fact: The boat is travelling almost 3 times faster than the wind. This is due to the apparent wind, i.e. the wind generated by the boat's own motion through the air.

Re:Dangerous (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084469)

I'm not really surprised, since unlike a lot of engine/rocket powered vehicles the driving force is external, not internal. I've been on a racing boat in gale force winds - not during a race mind you - and the forces pounding us were massive. I was more concerned then than doing 140 mph on the Autobahn in Germany, even though the few that were there from the racing crew said that during a race they'd have set even more sails and gone even faster. It's fine as long as you stay on the boat somehow but if you get flushed overboard somehow - and you're hanging off the rails taking the full pounding of the waves - then you're screwed. And not just a little bit screwed, but really, really screwed. And no, a safety line is no good as you'll be dragged below and drown if you stay attached to the boat.

Re:Dangerous (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | about a year and a half ago | (#42087745)

That wasn't a crash helmet, it was an aerodynamic faring attached to his head. It stuck out like two feet to the rear of his head. Not the same as a crash helmet.

Get A Real Job! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083223)

These sailboat fun-boys should get real jobs. Our civilization isn't going to survive in the long run without people willing to devote their personal interests, intellect and hard work to the scientific and engineering pursuit of a long-term sustainable existence. These rich (or perhaps not so rich) party boys should stop fiddling with their sailboats and go to Engineering school... if they don't have the intellect for that then go to work elsewhere.

The only reason I read this blurb was so I could complain about them. Christ these sorts of people make me sick.

Re:Get A Real Job! (2)

Brandano (1192819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083395)

Then turn the pyramids in a rockery, and the Sistine Chapel in a storage room. Sometimes humanity has to do something just so that it has been done. You might argue that climbing mount Everest didn't bring any advantage to humanity, but you don't consider all the research that went into it, and all the spinoffs that end up benefiting you later. Perhaps the techniques that went into building this boat will allow your next car to weight 100kg less, use less fuel (or batteries) and as a return pollute less (yes, electric cars pollute too).

Re:Get A Real Job! (2)

BlackThorne_DK (688564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084653)

Or perhaps they are helping to make your next windmill more efficient, since their sponsor [vestas.com] is probably interested in some of the aspects of their work.
Although most of their recent work probably is more interesting for boat and propeller designers, since much of it was centered about not having the t-foil sword cavitate, to loose speed.

Re:Get A Real Job! (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083925)

Sorry, are you complaining at those using the most green form of energy for a powered vehicle? Maybe you should think about where else the technology can be applied to. Also we would be nowhere without our culture, and sailing is a major part of that culture. All work and no play makes for a very dull, rebellious person.

So (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083235)

How fast could it go in a category 5 hurricane?

Re:So (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083477)

0MPH? It'll have a broken mast ripped sails and capsized. Not to mention one couldn't control it, probably even reefing the sails to their most extreme reefing point wouldn't help. The maximum speed of a sailboat doesn't just increase with windspeed, it's a bit more complicated than that.

The units aren't right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083531)

Next, learn how to spell.... METRE!

8 Knots feels like 100 MPH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083603)

I can tell you from first hand experience that running 8 knots close hauled feels like 100 miles per hour. That run must have felt like riding a rocket.

Re:8 Knots feels like 100 MPH (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084269)

I kind of for that impression from the video and him repeating "this is very very fast" a few hundred times... Unless that was a code word for "bring new foul weather gear... Mine is fouled..."

Stabilized windsurfer ? (1)

ballpoint (192660) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083703)

I wonder whether it would be possible to design an autonomous, computer-stabilized wind/kitesurfer. Free of human limitations this could go faster still.

Re:Stabilized windsurfer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083721)

s/{o}{f}/{1}r{0}m or s/ee/&d

Re:Stabilized windsurfer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42091781)

s/{o}{f}/{1}r{0}m or s/ee/&d

OK, so you want to replace "of" with "from or s". But what does this modifier "ee/&d" do?

The article is wrong (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42083771)

The speed record has "Hydropetre". Which has vrious records.
The question perhaps is if Hydropetre managed to hold the speed over 500m, but I would guessed so.
The point about Hydropetre is, it is a real sailing yacht where you can live on during your journeys. (Albeit, as a hydrofoil sailer, it is a bit gewÃhnungsbedürftig)

Re:The article is wrong (1)

boule75 (649166) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084195)

Well, it is Hydroptère, and have a look at images [youtube.com] from 2009 when they broke the 100 km/h barrier over 500m. Here [hydroptere.com] is the "records" page of the official site. They plan to dash through the Pacific Ocean with that boat...

Re:The article is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42084775)

I'm not sure what you're guessing about.

Here are the current Speed Sailing world record holders at 500m:

http://www.sailspeedrecords.com/500-metre-records.html

Hydroptere did not sustain enough speed over 500 meters, clearly, because their record was for 95 ish km/hr.

GET REAL JOBS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42083813)

These guys should get real jobs! Some of them are engineers... and shame on them for indulging the rich party-boy sailboat pilots with their technical abilities to create a better sailboat! FIE UPON THEM!

Nuff said (1)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084083)

I just love all you "back seat" drivers out there critical of this feat! This guy just went 100 km/hr in a sail boat!!! Nuff said!

The speed in units most english speakers know (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084299)

I know you think using only knots and km/h is cool and all, but given much of the english speaking world primarily still deals with mph for knowing speed you do everyone a disservice leaving it out.

The speed was 62.2 mph, which is damn impressive for a wind powered boat.

Re:The speed in units most english speakers know (3, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42084449)

>I know you think using only knot

There's a reason why nautical miles are used. They are roughly one minute of arc along a meridian. They are what you use when you are out on the ocean, because that's the only thing that truly makes sense when you've got a sphere divided up into degrees, minutes, and seconds.

Also

American here, I know the english system (both imperial and not) and metric system of measurments and navigational measurements (which are neither "english" nor "metric" but are SI anyway). Instead of being mad at people using terms you're not familiar with, how about you go look them up and educate yourself?

By the way, they broke 65 knots average speed. You do the math to figure out how fast that is.

--
BMO

But did you stop to consider (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085363)

Your mom.

Re:The speed in units most english speakers know (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085893)

They are roughly one minute of arc along a meridian.

One minute arc of latitude, but the length of an minute arc of longitude varies depending on latitude.

They are what you use when you are out on the ocean, because that's the only thing that truly makes sense when you've got a sphere divided up into degrees, minutes, and seconds.

Any sensible map will be divided up using a square grid rather than variable minute arcs.

Re:The speed in units most english speakers know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42087359)

It's called a mercator map(projection).

Thinking of the audience (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089737)

There's a reason why nautical miles are used.

Yes there are.

Also to set up the rest of the post, the remainder of your sentence should have been "in the article summary" since that is what we are talking about.

They are roughly one minute of arc along a meridian.

That is not why knots are used in the article summary.

They are what you use when you are out on the ocean

Yes they are. How many Slashdot readers on out on the ocean as they are reading this? I would wager the answer is so close to none as to make no difference. How may actually run a boat? I would wager the answer is still quite small, say 0.1%.

The use of Knots in the summary I really don't have a problem with, they do sound cool. But they have no relevance to any of the readers. Presenting data also in km/h does have relevance to lots of readers, but I would bet no more so than mp/h does. So by omitting one huge segment of the readership you are either a bad writer or simply trying to look cool by showing how you ignore mp/h even though it would provider far better context to a huge number of readers.

Re:Thinking of the audience (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089767)

>But they have no relevance to any of the readers.

Bullshit.

Not everyone is in a land-locked state, and when referring to marine events such as this, it only makes sense to use marine terms.

More than 50 percent live within an hour's drive of the coast.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html [noaa.gov]

--
BMO

Experience (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42089857)

Bullshit.

Double bullshit. I win.

Not everyone is in a land-locked state

BZZZZT! it's about EXPERIENCE.

More than 50 percent live within an hour's drive of the coast.

So what? I live within an hours drive of many large lakes and the mountains. I've not been on a boat or skiing in years.

But the real point is that very few people will have the EXPERIENCE to understand what 50 knots is or feels like. Is that like a train? A race car? Coasting down a hill on a bike? Most people KNOW from driving what a number in mp/h or km/h feels like, they have no idea what a specific number in knots really means.

Just go up to any random person and tell them to guess how fast is 60 knots is compared to a car.

Re:Experience (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42090167)

>Just go up to any random person and tell them to guess how fast is 60 knots is compared to a car.

Around here, the answer would be "slightly faster" and they would be correct.

Stop being a twat.

--
BMO

Re:The speed in units most english speakers know (1)

remus.cursaru (1423703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085713)

I know you think using only knots and km/h is cool and all, but given much of the english speaking world primarily still deals with mph

Most meaning UK, US and Canada? There is an entire world beyond your back-yard fence, a world that doesn't give a crap about the random numbers used to multiply ass-pulled units [wikipedia.org] .

Re:The speed in units most english speakers know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42088427)

never been to canada I guess...

they are using metric and have been for quite a while now.

Shameless plug! (1)

evorster (2664141) | about a year and a half ago | (#42087591)

Hey, this is in my hometown, and the Yacht Club is one of my favorite hangouts. When they broke the record, there was quite a bit of cheering and booze going around. And the next day it was even more windy - go figure. Seriously, though... this is seriously fast. The fastest I have ever been on water was in a fast rescue boat, and that could only manage 36kt, while this baby was touching 60kt... they are currently doing some checking and final preparation, and then will try again to break the 60kt barrier. Interesting fact... several sailing speed records are held in Walvis Bay... look it up sometime!

It is very cool and all but... (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42088473)

That is not sail boat.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>