Skip to content


  1. Joakim
    Jul 30, 2016 @ 09:37

    Den estniska First 34.7 fleeten seglar väl klart mera “OD” än X-35 eller Farr 30. Dom seglar kryss läns mot varanda varje onsdag, BOW, EM, VM osv. X-35 tog ORC EM brons 2015. Samma båt hade tagit silver i X-35 VM, men hade inga verkilage proffs, dock bra seglare. 2016 VM hade väl inte lika bra X-35 med? 2016 EM tog X-35 platserna 4, 6 och 7, men nivån bakom toppen var klart lägre än i VM.


    • Peter Gustafsson
      Jul 30, 2016 @ 10:22


      Jag tycker First 34.7 är en lite underskattad båt som fungerar mycket bra i våra vatten. Både med assy (kanske inte på bana) och vanlig spinnaker.


  2. Peter Gustafsson
    Jul 30, 2016 @ 10:26

    Apropå X-35 så vet man ju inte om man skall skratta eller gråta när man ser det här:



    • Anders Nilsson
      Jul 30, 2016 @ 15:25

      Vi gjorde ett försök med minifathead och kort P-mått inför 2014.
      62 cm kortare. Funkade så där med att trimma storseglets tvist.
      Vi satte på toppen igen och seglar numera inte topless.
      Så här såg det ut.


    • srsseglaren
      Jul 30, 2016 @ 17:56

      På bilden ovan har topless båten X-35:ans storsegel ngt längre del i sin övre kant jmf med båten intill,
      Trots det ser det ut att kunna gå att öka ytan vid storseglets överkant topp så att det går hela vägen bak till akterstaget?
      Mer yta utan att mättetalet påverkas ?


  3. Johan R
    Jul 30, 2016 @ 10:47

    Gamla Datacomvar en Sinergia 40 och såldes till Ryssland om jag minns rätt.


    • Peter Gustafsson
      Jul 30, 2016 @ 11:01

      Fast efter det seglade man Carenfelds Landmark 43 ett par gånger.

      Det var ju ganska mycket tjafs kring den båten, kölvikter och annat men till slut fick man väl fart på den.


      • Johan R
        Jul 30, 2016 @ 20:34

        Det har du rätt i Peter.


    • Joakim
      Jul 30, 2016 @ 12:14

      Nej, den är i Finland och heter Nissan Arita. Var 7. i EM 2015.


  4. Anders Nilsson
    Jul 30, 2016 @ 15:32

    En bra summering.
    Vädret hanterade seglingsledningen på ORC C banan kanon. Vi hade vind i alla race som startades utom då havsracet som ställdes in.
    Jag seglade X-35 Gold Cup 2015 här samma tid samma banområdet med vindar 12-20 knop. Vädret vet man bara efteråt.


  5. SilverSurfer
    Jul 30, 2016 @ 15:49

    Også interessant at i hvert fald nummer 2, 3 og 4 i lille klasse var målt ind med genua. Jeg ved ikke hvor meget det betød for f.eks. Hansen, men det er vel nyt ?


    • Anders Nilsson
      Jul 30, 2016 @ 16:54

      I år var det bara 3 och 4 som hade Genua.


    • Peter Gustafsson
      Jul 30, 2016 @ 19:45

      Min spaning var väl att top 5 var “powered up”, dvs hade bra med segelyta (oavsett fock eller genua) för att gå fort i de förhållanden som rådde.


      • Anders Nilsson
        Jul 30, 2016 @ 19:58

        Det gällde 32an i ORC Class C också. ;-)


        • Peter Gustafsson
          Jul 30, 2016 @ 20:51

          Ja, det kanske fanns andra saker som skiljde :-)

          En sak som jag funderade lite på var varför ni inte körde med större besättning? I stort sett alla båtar på topp 10 hade högre besättningsvikt än “default”, och på de tre toppbåtarna i klass C (som ju var en bit före resten) så hade man 19%, 10% och 13% högre besättningsvikt jämfört med “default”. Alla tre seglade med 9 personer ombord (snittvikt 80-85 kg).

          Ni var 7, och kan omöjligt ha nått upp till de 656 kg som ni har i mätbrevet.

          Vad var tanken med att vara 150 kg “för lätta”?

          Det kanske inte var det mästerskap där det gjorde störst skillnad, men det är ändå en tydlig skillnad i filosofi.


          • Anders Nilsson
            Jul 30, 2016 @ 21:55

            Det fanns flera skäl det tyngsta av dem vill jag inte skriva på

  6. Anders Nilsson
    Jul 30, 2016 @ 20:00

    En liten korrigering:
    Martin Strandberg styrde Stell inte VOR Strömberg.


  7. Andres Aavik
    Jul 31, 2016 @ 00:25

    The reefed main on my x35 has a lot more power than we expected. We have full control over the shape as well. The jibs are a lot more powerful too. By design. So in anything over 8kt there is no noticeable difference in power at all. Our speed was great in 9+kt and we managed to round the first windward mark in top 5 at least 5 times. But we are all amateurs, not even a single dinghy sailor on board. So we lost a lot during crowded downwinds and leeward roundings. Not enough practice in 4-6kt (we had flown the j1 only a couple of times) and the results were disastrous in those races. So all in all the despicable reefed look does not fare too bad.


    • Peter Gustafsson
      Jul 31, 2016 @ 00:53

      Personally I like to be powered up in 4 knots as well, and wait with the reef until the wind is up. And I’m sure Jeppesen knew what he was doing when he designed the X-35 :-)

      I just think it’s a bit stupid when cruising boats have more sail area than race boats, or when people custom build really slow 38-footers. I was pretty happy to see normal boats with full sail plans winning…


      • Joakim
        Jul 31, 2016 @ 09:39

        Maybe Jeppesen new what he was doing or then he didn’t, but anyway the result became a boat no one likes to sail real offshore with and even talented sailors have needed time to tame it and are not keen to sail e.g. across the Baltic Sea. So I can well understand the reefed sails, which makes the boat easier to sail. But for a crew able to sail the boat 100% with OD sails, that is probably not a good optimisation in ORC. The last years bronze in the Europeans was sailed with OD sails (remeasured and slight reduction of P and E, but no modification to sails) and OD+60 kg crew weight:

        The same seems to be true for X-41, since the top ones used again big mainsails. Already BOW ( showed that the small main sail is not the shortcut to victory, since Normet won with a good margin depsite heavier winds. For X-41 I never undestood the small mainsails, since X-41 is not a difficult boat to sail like X-35.


        • Peter Gustafsson
          Jul 31, 2016 @ 10:00

          “Time to tame it” might be what yacht racing is all about :-)

          As with sports cars, you don’t replace the engine just because you’re not able to drive your all new Porsche to it’s full potential…

          And you don’t get a X-35, J/111, Farr 30/40, Swan 45, Melges or any modern sportier boat because it’s “easier to sail”. There’s plenty of cruiser/racers around to fill that criteria. You get a demanding boat to become better sailors and develop as a team.


          • Joakim
            Jul 31, 2016 @ 12:21

            By “time to tame it” I meant keeping the boat under control. X-35 seems to require much more that than many other boats with similar configuration and speed potential. It’s another thing to need the time to learn how to sail a boat fast, which takes several years for us mortals for any boat, at least modern ones.

            Farr 30/40 and J/111 are clearly sportier boats than X-35, but still better suited for offshore (at least J/111). How many X-35 have sailed Fastnet (1 2009 + 1 DNC 2007)? Or even GR or Suursaari Race? Swan 45 is much easier boat to sail.

            If you are looking for a comparison to a car, maybe a Porsche 911 Turbo from 70’s would be similar. Too much turbo lag and then sudden very high power made it very difficult and even dangerous to drive. It was not fast for mortals.

          • Peter Gustafsson
            Jul 31, 2016 @ 13:16

            Haha… As a Saab-driver I thought the the turbo lag on some of the Aero-models was quite charming. And somewhat dangerous :-)

            I get quite a few calls/emails from people who complain that their new boats are broaching upwind, and that there must be to much sail area. Or something else that’s wrong (yeah, you need to work the mainsheet).

            I can admit that the X-35 is a bit special, both upwind and down, but I’m still happy to see that OD configs perform better than dumbed-down versions.

          • Anders Nilsson
            Jul 31, 2016 @ 13:55

            If you are in that mode Peter, I prefer any Boat on the race course than boats with fantastic potential sittning in the dock.

          • Peter Gustafsson
            Jul 31, 2016 @ 19:38

            My point exactly; that’s why I think the rule should encourage “come with what you got” instead of encouraging/forcing new sailplans, keels, rudders, masts and all kinds of so called “optimization”.

            There are not that many people willing to spend huge sums to get a boat to go slower :-)

          • Joakim
            Jul 31, 2016 @ 21:22

            It’s not the rule that encourages/forces all these optimisations. It’s the owners and maybe even more designers and sailmakers who make the owners believe they need to pay for them for the designs and the new optimised sails in order to win.

            It is sad to hear quite often sailors talk about how they are gaining 1 sec/m by doing that and 2 sec/m doing this. They seem to think that boat gets slower only in the certificate and not at all in the water. And yes 2 sec/m is so little that it is impossible to detect from all the noise in the performance that it really may appear that the boat is still just as fast.

            And then an “optimised” boat wins a title, like X-41 won the 2014 Worlds with a much reduced main sail area, and many people think that they won because of the optimisation and 2015 Europeans there are many X-41’s with similar configuration at the top. Then in 2016 the best X-41’s don’t use the small mainsail even though there is no change in the rule 2014->2015->2016 regarding the mainsail of the X-41.Could it be just because the winners sailed better?

            It’s much more of believing in optimisation than reality, which is more painfull, since one needs to look in the mirror.

          • Peter Gustafsson
            Jul 31, 2016 @ 21:28


            Getting the basics right would lead to better performances for most teams. But I guess it’s easier to get a quote for new boomerang spreaders than to put in the training necessary :-)

          • Anders Nilsson
            Jul 31, 2016 @ 21:38

            Very few crews will benefit from those so called optimizations. The rule is too good.
            What is more important is to optimize for the conditions. Flat water vs high sea, light winds vs strong winds etc and to make your Boat Go faster in all conditions you will meet during that Championship week.

  8. Marcus Sylvin
    Jul 31, 2016 @ 19:23

    Tack för en bra summering, intressant och kul läsning :)


  9. Andres Aavik
    Jul 31, 2016 @ 22:50

    You are forgetting that teams are different. Take the team from Katariina II and put them in my X35 and Im quite sure they would have made the top4. Maybe a medal. With the reef in the main and in light conditions. We just suck at this big fleet+tide+tricky winds thing. I am quite confident that the boat did not loose any speed or height in 9+kt. And there is much more to tweak in under 7kt where we suffered. So i would say it is mostly esthetics. I dont like it. But the feel of the boat is pretty much the same in most conditions. As said earlier x35 is ridiculously difficult to sail. It is now a bit easier to manage but not by much. No regrets, we had no options to sail OD anyway. And X35 was the best boat for racing within our budget. So dont be too hard on us. We do what we do to survive in tough company.


    • Anders Nilsson
      Aug 1, 2016 @ 09:38

      I think you did great in that competitive fleet. The X-35 is hopeless downwind. I do not understand how Jeppesen thought when they designed the rudder and keel profile. First Thing I would modify is the rudder.
      At Gold cup 2015 and in winds +16 knots the fleet started to broach and in +20 also the top boats did shaky down winds with chines jibs and broaches.


      • JIMMY
        Aug 1, 2016 @ 09:42

        Vad har kölens profil med undanvindsegenskaperna att göra?


        • Joakim
          Aug 1, 2016 @ 11:12

          Keel profile has probably not much to do with broaching downwind, but does affect the downwind performance. Rudder profile can change the ability to steer, but broaching is much more complex thing than just the grip of the rudder. I’m not a designer, but I think that broaching performance is one of the hardest things to design and predict.


        • Anders Nilsson
          Aug 1, 2016 @ 16:41

          Nä, men rodret har


    • Joakim
      Aug 1, 2016 @ 11:01

      But the question is would your team (or Katariina II team) have done better with your X-35 compared to OD configuration. I would guess Katariina II team would have done at least as well with OD configuration. Maybe your team is a different story?


      • Andres
        Aug 1, 2016 @ 12:56

        My last reply ended up in the wrong thread… Regarding broaching then on the X-35 it is the location of the rudder that makes it go. It’s not the keel or rudder profile. They just got too much wetted area and to high COG. Changing them can make the X-35 go faster but the only way to change the behaviour in waves downwind is to change the positions of the keel and the rudder. Most likely it was a calculated risk during the design process. They did make the X35 one of the most comfortable and liveable racers I know. Up to the limit where it’s difficult to say a racer about an X35 since it has everything….

        We will never know what would or could have won, a stock or optimized X35. All I do know is that on the first day of racing in 8-14kt we were slightly faster upwind than the stock Joanna (or could go higher) and rated a lot better. But these were the good races for us when we had wind. On other days even if we did very good on the first upwind we lost a lot on the downwinds. Maybe the reduced mainsail has a rather terrible effect on our downwind performance. Then on the other hand we might be really bad at sailing the boat downwind in light airs. Really hard to tell at this point. All I know is that we are too inexperienced to make any conclusions on whether it is a winning sail plan or not.


  10. Andres
    Aug 1, 2016 @ 09:59

    Well it is quite true that the keel is a terrible drag and the performance downwind is a lot worse then it could be with a more modern keel. Same with the rudder – the position and the shape are not optimal by today’s standards. Some also claim there are benefits to carbon masts :) But then again that’s what I (currently) consider the borderline for what was stated above as “sail what you got”. Ordering a slightly smaller mainsail is not quite as crazy as fitting a new keel and rudder as X-41 Premium did.


  11. Classe (Foxy Lady)
    Aug 1, 2016 @ 13:10

    Bra summering Peter. På bana B så fungerade racen okej. Man var väl lite väl noggrann med riktningen för på tisdagen fick vi till en segling som startade kl 1615 trots att det blåst svag vind hela dagen. Vi på banan tycker att det är bättre att försöka starta och sedan blåsa av om det vrider för mycket.


  12. Mats V
    Aug 1, 2016 @ 15:52

    As regards X-35 and downwind broach tendencies. I have a lot of years in racing X-boats and since 2006 an X-332 Sport. It has a keel extremely similar to the X-35 keel (I believe X-Yachts took the Sport keel and adjusted it slightly for the X-35). The rudder on my Sport is also similar to the X-35. I have no problems with broaching tendencies on my X-332 Sport. I am however very familiar with the X-35 challenges downwind. I helmed an X-35 during racing for 1,5 season and I was surprised by the downwind characteristics. Instead of speeding away in a heavy gust it tends to dig itself a little deeper into the water. The extra power results in some increased speed but more so in increased instability. Why is this when my X-332 Sport doesn’t behave like this? Of course, the hull is different and especially so towards the back. Looking for the side, my Sport has a fairly flat section from the end of the keel all the way back. The X-35 on the other hand has a bit of a rocker. Perhaps this is good upwind but my feeling is that this rocker also could be the reason for the downwind characteristics (“digging deeper” and not “flying”). I have no scientific proof though. Perhaps an expert can comment?


    • Thomas Wiberg
      Aug 2, 2016 @ 13:57

      Utan att över huvud taget kritisera X-yachts eller Jeppesen (dom har tillsammans försett seglarvärlden med rader av underbara båtar genom åren) och utan att jag vill ta på mig hatten som varande någon form av expert så är det min bestämda uppfattning att Du med Ditt resonemang om skrovutformningen hos X 35 närmar Dig pudelns kärna kring att båten är svårkontrollerad på undanvind, Mats. Effekten är väl känd inom fluiddynamiken och går under benämningen Coanda-effekten. Fenomenet har varit känt i drygt 200 år och döptes efter den rumänske aerodynamikern Henri Coanda för drygt 100 år sedan. Inom motorbåtssidan av båtkonstruktionen är det vedertagen sanning att om man vill passera trösklarna till halvplanande eller helplanande fart så måste skrovet vara utformat med flacka eller raka diagonaler i akterskeppet annars gräver skrovet ner sig och fastnar utan att kunna passera den motståndspuckel som finns vid den våglängd som bogvågen ger vid max deplacerande fart. Om det är en segelbåt i stället som dessutom är försedd med rejält med segelyta som skickar in kraften med diverse moment åt andra håll än i färdriktningen, så är manegen välkrattad för att hamna i en situation där ett normalt roder inte räcker till för att kunna kontrollera skeendet. Fast X-35:an är ju en på många andra vis jättefin båt, med en även för cruising väl fungerande inredning.


    • Joakim
      Aug 2, 2016 @ 15:23

      The rocker of X-332 (Sport) and X-35 is extemely similar. Just measured from the offset files that both have about 12.5 deg angle against the waterline for the last 1 m and about 10 deg in the average for the last 3 m. Maybe the small skeg in front of the rudder on X-332 makes the rocker appear less than it really is? X-35 has a lot more sail area and much higher rig, which certailnly contribute to the instability on a run, but doesn’t really explain the difference against Bavaria 35 Match and Dehler 34/35 Sv.


      • Mats V
        Aug 2, 2016 @ 15:34

        I am sure you have checked this correctly and perhaps the skeg fools the eye a bit as you propose. It is however a remarkable difference in characteristics between the boats downwind. Loosing grip can be down to a broader and flatter behind on the X-35 leading to the rudder being lifted up in the air earlier than on the 332 Sport, but the feeling of the X-35 “digging deeper” in the gust has to be explained by something else.


        • KåreL
          Aug 2, 2016 @ 17:22

          A flat wide stern is much more efficient in creating both positive and negative lift than a more narrow and round one. A light boat with a small rocker will create positive lift and with enough speed start planing. If the displacement and rocker is too big the boat will generate negative lift and dig it self deeper and deeper in to the water with speed, = displacement hull. That’s the reason planning boats normally has wide sterns with little or no rocker and why kayaks have narrow hulls with deep v-shape sterns.


  13. srsseglaren
    Aug 1, 2016 @ 17:18

    Vore kul med designer info.
    Att X 35 har lättare att ventilera rodret kan man i viss mån se på skrovets bredd/volym i aktern nere vid vattenlinjen där det är bredare en X 332, mer jmf med XP 33 som ser ut att ha rodret längre föröver för att motverka den effekten.
    På XP 33 bilden nedan framgår att båtens mittlinje (där rodret sitter) kommer mer till lovart vid lutning ?
    XP 33:
    X-35 jmf. bild 1och 3:
    X332 bild 1:

    Figaro solo II löste det med dubbla roder, gissar att det är bättre på havet och ett roder är bättre på bana ?


    • Joakim
      Aug 2, 2016 @ 14:08

      Broaching is a very complex thing and I don’t think rudder ventilation is the most important reason. Eg. if we look at three boats with quite similar dimensions except weight (X-35 1 tonne lighter), X-35, Dehler 34/35 SV and Bavaria 35 Math. Sail areas are very close the same (Bavaria 35 Match with X-35 spinnakers), righting moments are very close (X-35 between the two), rudder postitions are very much the same and the transom shapes are also quite similar (maybe again X-35 between the two). Yet X-35 is very prone to broaching both upwind and downwind and the other two need a real effort to initiate a broach.

      So where is the difference? You could argue that a bit bigger and deeper rudders are the reason (0.65 m2 vs. 0.75/0.76 m2 and about 15 cm difference in rudder draft) is the reason, but I very much doubt that. I don’t know which profile X-35 uses, but Bavaria uses about NACA 0018, which is a very safe choise for a rudder. But I don’t think that is the main differerence either, although big rudder with a forgiving profile certailnly helps when there is a lot of pressure on the rudder. I think it is much more about how much there is pressure on the rudder than how the rudder can handle it.

      Also the keels are clearly different. X-35 has a bit deeper keel with clearly shorter profile (70 cm vs. 1 m). Maybe that’s important for directional stability? But there are boats with shorter profiles not so prone to broaching and longer more prone to broaching.

      Here are some pictures of the sterns. Note how all three have the rudder partly in the air


      • srsseglaren
        Aug 2, 2016 @ 21:44

        I appreciate your comment´s loved the -70 Porsche comparison :-)
        I do agree ventilation is a rather complex subject or at least can be.

        I know that Match 35 has a mark II version on it´s keel where there are added 300kg in the bulb and also the volume in the stern seem to at least look a bit less with slightly rounded corner ?

        On paper the Dehler 34 SV should be almost as sensible as X-35 with high volume stern more squared than Match 35 only 186 kg heavier keel but less deep then X-35? might be more rocker to the hull as mentioned ?


        • Joakim
          Aug 2, 2016 @ 23:50

          I haven’t sailed the mark II keel version of Match 35, only mark I. Dehler 34 SV has 13 deg rocker for the last 1 m and 10 deg for the last 3 m so very similar to X-35. Bavaria 35 Match has more rocker, 14 deg for the last 1 m and 10.5 deg for the last 3 m. It also has rounder sections at the stern. Despite that it is one of the fastest boats of similar kind on a heavy downwind. Clearly faster than e.g. X-34 and maybe slightly faster than Dehler 34 SV. I haven’t tested against X-35, but I was surprised how small the difference was to X-41. According to ORC X-35 should be only 0.16 knots faster on a 20 knots downwind despite being 1.2 tonne lighter.

          I don’t think you can see broaching tendencies of boats on a paper.

          Since we are on Blur:
          J/109 has 13.5 and 11 deg rocker
          J/111 has 9 and 9 deg rocker

          So J/109 has more rocker and probably also narrower transom than X-35. So it should not plane as easily? Which one should broach more?


          • srsseglaren
            Aug 3, 2016 @ 01:31

            Aboat seing if the boat has broaching tendencies.
            You might be right that one can´t be sure if the boat will or won´t have a problem with broaching.

            Perhaps better used as help if one should suspect that the boat could have problems ?

          • Peter Gustafsson
            Aug 3, 2016 @ 10:58

            The J/109 is naturally not planing, but it’s possible to drive fast downwind in a blow. A bit sketchy at times, but we regularly made 18-20 knots (often double handed). Broaching when you’re pushing it really hard, but a lot less than most other boats in it’s size.

            A short clip from Poly Skagen Race where we sit at 10-13 knots without any effort;

            The J/109 (as most J/boats) is quite narrow at the waterline, with low resistance through the water, and most of the force is being transformed into speed. Even if it’s a heavy boat.

            From my perspective there’s something odd with the X-35, where you can’t get the hull to go faster even when you’re pushing it. Not downwind, and not on a tight reach. I can’t see it being the appendages, since it’s the hull digging deeper.

            We’ve all seen this happen, where some boats in a series just work white others don’t. Despite everything being the same (just scaled) on paper. I guess yacht design is still a combination of science and art…

          • Anders Nilsson
            Aug 3, 2016 @ 11:41

            But is that not the reason and the answer. X-35 has very little volume forward in the hull and becomes more assymetric in it´s behavoiur compared to both Dehler 34SV and J-109. Keel and rudder has very little area as well to create slower behaviour in the motions. Time to react on rolls becomes to short for the helmsman. It does not become easier when rudder profile stalls and lifts up when healing.

          • Peter Gustafsson
            Aug 3, 2016 @ 12:21

            But the problem isn’t “rolling”, “reaction time” or “profiles”. Those are just effects/symtoms of the real problem.

            If added power resulted in more speed, all would be good. Even with crappy profiles. Now the boat makes 8 knots both in 16 knots of wind as well as when the gusts hit 30 knots. Just deeper in the water :-) No foils (or bow volume) in the world could counter the resulting forces.

            This also becomes apparent on other points of sail (tight reach), where apparently the foils are working great and balance is ok. But it’s almost impossible to make the boat go faster than hull speed.

          • Joakim
            Aug 3, 2016 @ 12:40

            Certainly X-35 can do way more than 8 knots! At least 10 knots in flat water and much more surfing down a wave. I don’t think there is a difference in that respect compared to 35 Match and 34 SV. J/109 can reaches higher speeds more easily (despite quite a lot of rocker and quite narrow transom).

            X-35 and many other boats broach also quite easily on a beat, while many other boats do not. That can’t be caused by too low speed, since X-35 is fast upwind for it’s size.

          • Thomas Wiberg
            Aug 3, 2016 @ 17:04

            Joakim, way more than eight knots takes a lot more energy since the X 35 is 30 ft on the waterline. That means that full displacement speed is 7,33 knots. At that speed it requires 19 hp if she is pushed by a propeller counted with a displacement (weight) of 4900kg (class weight+6 persons). 10 knots is well into semidisplacement territory, or if you like, surfing speed. 10 knots requires 35 hp if she is to be pushed by a prop. That is 1,84 times the energy required to push the boat at full displacement speed. Planing, speed/length ratio of 3,0 is reached at 16,5 knots but requires a pushing energy equivalent of 95 prop horsepower. That is five times the energy it takes to push the boat at full displacement speed.

            Surfing down waves is another matter all together since you have help by the gravity on the slope of the wave and you also have a speed of the water in the wave itself.

          • Mats V
            Aug 3, 2016 @ 19:09

            The strange thing is that I broach just as easily on the beat in my X-332 Sport as I do in a X-35 – BUT downwind I am in control in the X-332 Sport but encounter the earlier mentioned issues of digging deeper and loss of balance in the X-35. So there is something strange happening with the X-35 downwind for sure.

          • Joakim
            Aug 4, 2016 @ 08:48

            Certainly required power increases a lot with higher speed, but that is true for all sailing boats and not all show the same handling difficulties. Actually I think your estimation at 10 knots is clearly too low. My own VPP gives 75 hp engine power for Match 35 at 10 knots. I don’t have the input for X-35 in it. Another way of looking at it is to calculate the forces from sails with e.g.
            X-35 has a top speed of 7.6 knots with its 20 hp engine. According to ORC it should reach that speed at 14 TWS and 150 AWA (8.12 AWS and 123.2 AWA) or 16 TWS and 165 AWA (8.73 AWS and 152.6 AWA). Those give about 170 kgf and thus 6.5 kW effective power, which is well inline with the engine power taking into account propulsion efficiency. At 20 TWS and 135 TWA (13.95 AWS 106.8 AWA) X-35 should reach about 10 knots. Those give a force of 530 kgf, which equals effective power of 27 kW, which means a 75 hp engine at 50% propulsion efficiency.

          • Peter Gustafsson
            Aug 4, 2016 @ 09:57

            As said, X-35 is pretty special and I would’t trust the ORC (or any other) VPP to spot that :-)

            The problem, that many X-35 sailors refer to, is “hitting the wall” at around 8 knots.

            Above 16 knots we’d smoke the X-35s with the 109, despite the VPP indicating that the X-35 being much faster. And this wasn’t because the 109 performed especially well, but because we knew that the X-35 would be pegged down.

          • Andres
            Aug 4, 2016 @ 10:46

            It is actually quite scary when an X-35 is doing a steady 11-12kt of BSP under spinnaker. But then again it is outweighed by it’s capabilities upwind….

          • Joakim
            Aug 4, 2016 @ 12:43

            Peter, is X-35 really that special regarding downwind speed? Most 35′ boats “hit the wall” around 8 knots and that doesn’t mean they have handling issues. According to ORC at 20 knots X-35 should have better VMG than old Blur, which should be faster at some reaching angles. Here is a track from 2014 BOW with well over 20 (30?) knots. X-35 got smoked by a Grand Surprise on the open legs and was a bit slower than X-362 Sport, but not slower than Salona 37/38 and many others. Many (most) boats didn’t use a spinnaker or only used it for a while and some reefed more, which may be the reasons for X-362 Sport being faster. I don’t know who used and who didn’t in ORC II.
            Calculating the average speeds for the most western leg (13.2 nm) you get Grand Surprise 9.5, X-362 Sport 9.3, X-35 8.8 and Salona 37 8.6 knots. For the most northern leg (8.7) the average speeds are 9.8, 9.4. 9.1 and 9.1 in the same order. So at least X-35 can reach over 9 knots avera speeds;).

            The two fastest First 34.7’s had the average speeds of 10.4 and 9.3 knots for the 8.7 nm leg just showing how big the differences are even with same boats.

            I would say J/109 and Grand Surprise are sepacial, since they can go “over the wall” more easily.

          • Andres
            Aug 5, 2016 @ 12:20

            You picked a really nasty leg for comparison :) Max wind speeds reported 48kt, sustained averages 36 (hours) and 40kt (under 1hr). 2 carbon masts broken, numerous spinnakers flown to bits… Boath handling and strength of spinnakers was what made the average speeds there…. We did a top speed of 14,6kt in our 1,8ton 26-footer with just the main up…

          • Joakim
            Aug 5, 2016 @ 13:27

            Yes I know, it was not a good comparison, but I don’t know any other online tracks with 20+ knots wind and X-35 against other boats or even just X-35. At 2016 BOW there was over 20 knots on some downwind legs and even almost without waves, but not on the ones tracked. Maybe you know an Estonian race with tracking and 20+ knots?

            Also 2015 BOW had several W/L races in 20-24 knots, small waves, but no tracking. X-35 won several of those races (against X-34, X-362 Sport, Salona 37, IMX 38 etc) so either it was super fast upwind or it was reasonably fast downwind.
            In four races X-35 had an average speed of 6.7-6.9 knots. If they would make 5.5 VMG upwind (over ORC target of 5.37 knots) they would need to have 8,9 knots VMG downwind. If they only did 8 knots downwind VMG, they would need to have 5,9 upwind VMG. Say 7,5 knots at 38 TWA, not very likely! I was racing in a smaller class on the same course. We also averaged over our 20 knots targets, but not upwind, which was very close to target.

      • Antti
        Aug 3, 2016 @ 15:07

        I have some experience on sailing X-35 as jib/spinnaker and mainsail trimmer. The boat is ok to sail during daylight and steady conditions and you don’t have any problems upwind. I think the sail area is not too big. You just need to accept that mainsail steers the boat and you can only somewhat help to point out right direction with the rudder. If a big gust hits you need to maintain balance with depowering mainsail to compensate extra heel or better keeping heel even. What ever the reason is the smallish rudder can not tolerate big angle changes without ventilation and you can broach upwind. This happened to us once in a race during the three seasons we sailed OD races. During night you can’t see gusts coming and it is not easy to feather jib just the correct amount when you can’t see the sails. Therefore I agree that X-35 is not a good offshore/cruising boat, but it has no problems going upwind on normal upwind/downwind courses.

        Downwind is completely different thing. I agree that the boat feels really slow after you hit the hull speed barrier and it tends to be easy to roll and right on the edge of control most of the time when it is blowing. You really need to concentrate trimming main and spinnaker correctly so that you don’t encourage rolling. Also when you change balance or speed during manouvres like taking spinnaker down the sudden changes may be enough to spin you on bare mainsail. On same kind of conditions X-41 goes like train and does not have any kind of control issues.

        Downwind control issues are not heeling induced and rudder top is fully in water on normal downwind heel angles. I think it is more or less hull shape and how the water plane changes when the hull creates waves making the x-35 really tender and hard to sail. With low displacement type speeds the weak rudder can not create enough steering force to counter balance changes. Then you need bigger rudder angles for extra force and ventilation is the result. I think 0,75 vs 0,65 sqm rudder area is significant as it equals 15% more force with same angle and speed.

        The reaching is also bit tricky although I have experience of that from only one Gotland Runt. Our feeling was that the x-35 goes faster with quite a bit of heel and crew back in the boat. The big heel however means that you have a lot of rudder angle and need to sail mostly on the edge of broaching. It goes ok on main/jib reach and steady conditions but not with spinnaker up as you can’t compensate puffs or waves quickly enough with sail trim changes. Sailing this way is physically quite hard and surely not for long distances and small crew.


  14. Andres
    Aug 3, 2016 @ 11:14

    It helps if you are not that good of a sailor. We don’t push the boat to go 180TWA in 18+kt and we barely ever broach. I think we have only had 1 truely serious broach with a chinese gybe during the 1,5 seasons we have raced the boat. We have headed up quite a lot of times in 20+kt wind though. But then again it is quite easy to regain control and head back down. Also we have never broached upwind…


    • Peter Gustafsson
      Aug 3, 2016 @ 11:28

      Never? So then you didn’t really have a problem with sail area upwind :-)


      • Andres
        Aug 3, 2016 @ 22:07

        No, we did not. We even had a really great W/L race this year with the wind blowing constantly over 20kt. Take it easy, don’t risk too much downwind and it’s all doable. It was purely a rating thing to reduce the sail area. And we did expect 10-20kt of wind with max 1 light wind day and max 1 heavy weather day in Denmark… What we got was really not what the doctor prescribed.
        With no OD opportunities it takes a lot of time and effort to be able to sail the boat to it’s rating in anything over 12-13kt of wind. So it was more or less a shortcut. And the boats we do most often encounter all sail with One Sails ORC modified setups. My Car (EST), Extreme (LTU), Keturi Vejai (LTU).


  15. fila
    Aug 3, 2016 @ 11:50

    hello, i guess that tp52 crew beat Silva Neo few times as they use to have a GP42 and doing well in Med…

    I guess that currents are strong and that 6 TWS from hand is not same on anchored boat and sailing…. my guess that this race is too light wind to be real ORC results. in all groups win a high powered boats in respect of sail area wetted area…

    more wind and all result will be different as there was a lot of big hulls around that do not like a light air….


  16. Absolute Blue på TV4 « Absolute Blue Sail Racing Team
    Aug 3, 2016 @ 20:59

    […] Kolla också in den mycket bra analysen BLUR gjort av ORCi VM i Köpenhamn, se ORCi Worlds 2016 | analys […]


  17. Wrap Up 2016 - BLUR
    Dec 30, 2016 @ 16:40

    […] inte lika bra leverans. MAT 11.80 Datacom hade väl så mycket oflyt man kan ha? Parkerade på VM och sedan tappade man masten. Nytt försök […]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.