|
Merfyn
Owen Speaks
One
of the more talented design teams is that of the Owen Clarke Design Group.
Known mostly outside of America and primarily for their Open type of boats,
they really have helped lead the way in the more innovative aspects of
modern performance design. SA reader Solo put together this nicely done
InnerView with Merfyn Owen. Thanks (and a check) go out to Solo! Enjoy.
How
did you get into this business?
MO:
I was
a sailor, racing multihulls as it happens and at the same time a mature
student studying naval architecture at University College London. I created
a vpp program for trimarans while there and the owner of the boat I was
racing on challenged me that if I thought I could build his dream boat
for the OSTAR then I could design it. So I did, everything, including
the composite engineering. That was 1986 and the tri was Fiery Cross,
35’ long and 33’ wide – i.e. as wide as long – innovative in its day and
it’s still racing which worries me at night sometimes.
Under
what circumstances did you meet Allen Clarke and how did you decide to
join the efforts in Owen-Clarke Design Group?
MO:
Myself
and Pete Milwidsky, my best mate from university went looking for builders
and yard space we could rent to build Fiery Cross. We had a very tight
budget and so we employed some students from the yacht and boat design
course at Southampton. Allen Clarke was one of those students and we hired
space at Curtis and Pape’s yard in Cornwall, where Chay Blyth had built
Brittany Ferries GB. None of us had much more experience than fixing our
cars with Bondo at that stage. We worked it out as we went along and developed
our own techniques – the boat was very late launching, the first and last
time for me. Pete and I were both engineers and I think we took dimensional
tolerance too seriously! Yards we work with now will tell you that I still
“faff” about detail, but the schedule and overall project is a big driver
for me now.
Tell
us about some of your early designs, how were they received, were they
successful in your opinion? Which designs were the most influential in
your career.
MO:
Fiery
Cross, because she was the first and Rupert Kidd gave me that chance. She’s
done many miles, Round Britain race winner, loads of transats, best result
second (broke her daggerboard with a week to go). But in 1992 (Allen and
I had got together by then) we designed and built Maverick. A very radical
boat in her day, 13’ feet wide, water ballasted and she weighed only 3500
lbs, sailing. Open 30’s were popular then in Europe and were sailed in lots
of offshore events, including a very British sailing and climbing race called
the Three Peaks. Among her innovations, Maverick had a lifting carbon keel
to allow her to enter Ravenglass harbour at low tide in 2’ of water – you
literally walk the boat in – that’s why multis always won it. Kingfisher
of course was a major landmark. It seemed that my entire sailing career
had led me to the point where I became involved with that project, but then
life’s a journey and you meet people and complete tasks on the way that
lead you to the next challenge. I first worked with Mike Golding in 1990
for instance and Mark Turner chartered Maverick in 1993.
Did
you design any other multihulls besides Fiery Cross?
MO:
Yes,
six.
What
is the scope of the designs produced by your firm nowadays – do they include
cruisers, buoy racers, dinghies, skiffs, multihulls, etc., what projects
you’re currently working on?
MO:
Thank
god it’s more than open class with only five new boats for the Vendee!
As it happens, Allen Clarke’s just flown to New Zealand to commission
our new 65’ lift/swing keel fast cruiser with her owner and is dropping
in to Singapore on the way to meet the potential owners of new 55’ and
90’ motor yachts. We’ve completed the prelim design of a 105’ fast cruiser
that has just completed yard tender and in the last three months we’ve
been asked to quote for everything from a 100’ maxi racer to a 40’ Mediterranean
swing keel day-boat. However, we don’t intend to spread our selves too
thin, we have a plan and we know our strengths as naval architects/designers.
I don’t think you’ll find us being involved with dinghies or skiffs for
example. But running complex projects, research and development is a strength
we can play too and so we’d love to break into something new like Transpac
52, or be asked to be part of a design team for an ORMA 60 or Jules Verne
boat. Basically we’re lucky to be involved in stimulating projects and
we’d like to keep that going, even the 55’ motor yacht is an interesting
challenge, we’ve not done one before but I’m sure we’ll work it out!
How
did you first become involved with the Open class boats and how did you
first become involved with the Kingfisher campaign?
MO:
I completed
the preliminary design of swing keel mini transat boat in 1991, but the
client became part of the syndicate that had Maverick built, so she was
my first open design and the second boat that Allen and I did together.
In 1993 Alan Thomas and I sailed Thursday’s Child back around Cape Horn
after here retirement from the Vendee Globe and then I continued to project
manage her through the 94/95 BOC for the new owner. There followed a great
deal of sailing, some of it in open class. The next big break came when
I oversaw the construction of Mike Golding’s; Team Group 4 and project managed
her until she retired from the Around Alone having run aground in New Zealand.
It was between Cape Town and New Zealand, after Mike had won the first leg
that the idea occurred to me of assembling a design team from inside and
outside open class. The goal was to take on what was then a Group Finot
and French monopoly of this fantastic class, much in the same way that Farr
has dominated Whitbread/Volvo design in recent years. I knew where Owen
Clarke’s strengths lay, where I thought we needed extra input and looked
in my address book. It was fortunate that Rob Humphreys, Giovanni Belgrano
and Andy Claughton were as enthusiastic as I about the approach.
What
kind of input did the Kingfisher campaign receive from Alan Gauthier?
What was your role in the boat’s development?
MO:
Alain
was a former winner of the Vendee Globe and in the early stages the only
other person in the group with any significant open 60 experience was
myself. There was a definitely a lack of balance in the design, sailing
and project team and without overview and input by a sailor with as much
experience as Alain in this race it would have been possible to have designed
off on a tangent or to have overlooked some significant issues. This was
something that I felt had happened to the class already with it’s emphasis
on downwind/reaching at the sacrifice of upwind ability. Alain was brought
in by Ellen and Mark to avoid this, his input was both practical, but
also re-assurance for Ellen that things were as they should be and that
she wasn’t being taken down a dead end by her design team. As the boat’s
principal designer I learnt a great deal from this interaction, also from
the likes of Rob, who was responsible for among other aspects the hull
lines, Gio who did the composite engineering himself and from working
with Andy during the tank and wind tunnel testing. This experience very
much reinforced our inclusive design methodology whereby we maintain close
communication with the client, sailing/project team, builder and all the
sub-contractors.
Can
you talk about the evolution of the Open 60 designs of your office, from
Kingfisher to HBSC/Pindar to Ecover? Where do you think the evolution
will take these boats? Will the 10 degree rule be abandoned and does it
still make sense with each boat having passed the capsize stability test?
MO:
Briefly
– the open 60 class is what it says, open. I think with the three boats
that you’ve highlighted we’ve come on leaps and bounds in the last four
years in many areas, we’re measuring Vendee performance for instance in
significantly more than a day quicker in each design iteration. This isn’t
going to go on forever but what it means so far is that the reasonable
money is being spent and big differences in performances result. There’s
still plenty of scope for looking at the big picture while honing in on
detail with tools like CFD. So far as evolution…..we have a spreadsheet
of wishes verses cost/risk that we’d like to investigate and suffice to
say that the door is not shut on innovation, but we think it needs to
be nurtured with solid design methodology. With regard to the ten-degree
rule, now that it’s tempered by the introduction of an ultimate stability
factor in the shape of the 127.5 AVS limit I think it’s here to stay.
It would be devastating to the old boats to change such a fundamental
rule which is now working fine. Even though the boats pass the capsize
test now you can’t get rid of the ten degree rule without replacing it
with something (Volvo have a minimum beam stipulation) to ensure some
measure of form stability in the hull. No, I think the ten-degree rule
is here to stay.
Compare
the working process on the boat design and development with Ellen, Graham
Dalton and Mike Golding.
MO:
It
was very different because you have three individuals who had alternate
approaches and levels of experience, both in open class and sailing in
general. At the same time of course our whole extended team and myself
were gaining experience and were becoming wiser at managing the projects.
With Kingfisher, no one knew whether she was a good boat until like Virbac
she was sailed all the way back from New Zealand and won the single-handed
transatlantic race in her maiden event. Since then it’s been easier to
design because we’ve had a well-known yardstick to measure against. With
regard interaction with the clients – with Kingfisher it was very special
and because we project managed the boat too, very close. We also project
managed Ecover, so it was the same with Mike, from whom of course we had
a good deal of input. For Graham, we undertook the design only and it
was a far more distant experience, although we have an office on the ground
in Auckland I only visited the boat a few times and my connection with
her is less strong. But she’s a good boat and I enjoyed working with Graham,
as did many others.
Did
you hear anything on the new Lombard design for Roland Jourdain’s Sill?
Where did they go with it? What do you expect from Group Finot in the
Open 60 arena in the future?
MO:
We’ve
heard nothing reliable enough to treat as useful about the new Sill and
to be honest I wouldn’t expect too. With regard to Group Finot, I think
it’s unfortunate that they don’t have a new boat in the Vendee; however,
they’ll still have a fast boat there in the form of PRB, winner of the
last race.
What
do you make of Virbac’s success in the TJV race; did you get any feedback
from the water about that boat’s abilities? What is your view on some
of the design choices made for Virbac? Do you feel that some of the AC
technology flowed down to Virbac’s design or are these disciplines too
far apart?
MO:
It’s
a great result and not entirely surprising given that the Farr office
doesn’t design slow boats and the program that they’ve chosen is a good
one. Getting miles on the boat is crucial. With regard to performance
and especially how the boats will perform in the Vendee Globe it’s way
too early in the game to draw any firm conclusions. On the beat, Virbac
looked to have the legs on Sill, previously considered a good upwind boat.
Downwind, is much more difficult to gauge because of the distance between
the boats, but there didn’t seem to be any great advantage either way.
Ecover clearly had legs and height on all of the fleet upwind for the
first five days and downwind her ultimate performance isn’t measurable
because of the loss of all her spinnakers early in week 2 and the split
that this caused on the course. With regard to design choices on Virbac
that can be seen they appear conservative, apart perhaps from the height
of the rig and much in line with what we considered and in some cases
utilized during the Kingfisher project. Like Ellen, Jean Pierre Dick has
also looked outside the traditional open 60 class alternatives and taken
a technological and methodical choice in commissioning the Farr office
to design the new boat. What’s also key I think is the implementation,
the choice of a good yard, schedule etc. I don’t see anything electric
about Virbac’s performance, but taken as a whole it’s an impressive result
and a team to reckoned with for the Vendee. Regarding AC and open class,
they are a completely different rule as you say, but as I’m not involved
with the former I’m not qualified to comment on how useful AC technology
is to understanding what makes an open 60 tick. What I do know however
is that there are still very big design opportunities to be cracked within
the open 60 rule and a global overview is very much required as well as
an eye for detail.
How
did Ecover’s rig work out in the TJV, any teething problems?
MO:
The rig’s
clearly a success so far and justifies the considerable time and money that
has gone into the development of it. To take a spar such as this and put
it through the severe weather of the first five days when the boat had barely
completed 1500 miles before the race speaks volumes about the fundamental
design and the work carried out by David Barnaby and his team at Southern
Spars. We did have some teething problems as you put it and they and the
consequent stopping and lowering of performance of the boat were well described
by Mike and Brian [spinaker halyards chafed through, backstay fitting pulled
away from the mast] at the time. It sounded like apart from loosing 100
miles overnight; this amounted to a far greater loss of position on the
course. In real terms however what the new rig design means is that on the
Vendee, compared to say a boat like Pindar, Mike would have a more powerful
sailplan, but with a 7’ shorter mast, smaller mainsail etc. The difference
against Virbac is even greater and we think that this will mean that overall
Mike will find it more easier to work with and more efficient. Meanwhile,
David, Mike, the project team and myself are meeting up in Salvador this
weekend to look at resolving the two rig issues we encountered prior to
the return race on the 30th November.
Are
you able to elaborate on the issues with the Ecover’s mast that you will
have to deal with in Salvador now?
MO:
Not
really, not until I get there, but I’m told it’s nothing serious – a matter
of detail.
What
is your opinion on the use of halyard mast locks on some of the new Open
60’s, good or bad development?
MO:
We
have one on Ecover, but the use of it is significant in that if it fails,
it fails on, then we’re in no worse position than a boat without halyard
locks would be. I don’t think that in the near future that we’ll see these
boats with halyard locks on gennaker or spinnaker halyards for example,
no matter how reliable they’re said to be. The main halyard and reef clews
well that might be different.
Were
you consulted by Pindar on their choice of Volvo-style boom for the new
rig? Do you agree with their choice of the boom for the TJV race?
MO:
Yes,
all these options came up for discussion at several meetings I had with
Mike Sanderson in New Zealand last year and the pros and cons were discussed.
For double-handed racing I’m not sure that there is a clear advantage,
but the disadvantage if there is any at all amounts to less than 100kg
on the bulb so it’s not great. Pindar’s program calls for boat the also
to be a trial horse for the next Volvo and if you’re going to do that
then as part of your sail development program I don’t think you can go
training and developing a sail wardrobe with a deck mounted boom. Theirs
is not a Vendee program and yes I would agree with their choice of boom
for the TJV. I was going to be interested to hear how they got on with
it two handed because by going out there with this choice was the only
way they were going to have a feel for it.
How
bringing the daggerboards aft on Mike Golding’s first Open boat, the Finot
design, helped to improve the upwind capacity of the boat, what changed
in the boat’s balance?
MO:
It
loads them up more relative to the rudders and the rudders are inefficient
lifting surfaces, i.e. lower lift to drag for a given side force.
Where
do you see the Open 50 and Open 40 classes going with the changes to the
Around Alone and Vendee Globe format? Are they going to survive as classes
or are they just going to be the choice for the under-funded solo racers?
MO:
I understand
completely why Around Alone have chosen to drop the 40’ class, but clearly
a well-founded 40’ can compete and complete the race. There are still
plenty of races in which these boats can enter and I hope that in the
long term that this class will become more prevalent than the 50’s have
ever been. With regard to dropping open 50’s from the Vendee, no one that
I’ve discussed this with has been able to give me a good reason to do
this. Everyone knows that there were some 60’s in the last race that should
not have been there, never mind the fact that they were beaten in by Patrice
Carpentier on Pete Goss’s old 50, ex ‘Aqua Corum’. For me it doesn’t make
sense and certainly outside France the 50’ class doesn’t just represent
a way for more well off individuals to race at the top end of the sport.
It is an essential stepping stone for young sailors to highlight their
talents to sponsors at a realistic cost. These people first cut their
teeth in 50’s, Mike Plant, Brad Van Lieuw, Ellen MacArthur, Pete Goss,
Giovanni Soldini and now Nick Moloney, Conrad Humphreys, to name a few.
Dropping the 50’ class from the Vendee reduces the reason to build or
maintain an open 50 and for that reason I oppose dropping the class from
the Vendee. It so happens that we have two clients who already had 50’s
in build for this race, Kip Stone and Viktor Yazykov, when this was announced,
but that’s another equally contentious issue that doesn’t detract from
the above.
How
much do you get to sail your boats?
MO:
It’s
policy to sail mine and others. For instance two years ago myself and
Nadjean Geslain (my assistant) brought the old Ecover back to the UK after
the last TJV. I’ve done the two handed mini fastnet on one of my boats,
sailed Hexagon in fifty knots, three up between Wellington and Auckland,
etc. etc.
Do
you sail/race on regular basis in home waters, what boats/classes, what
is your preferred position on a race boat?
MO:
No,
I’m not a regular home sailor, I travel too much. The last two regattas
I sailed were BVI week and Antigua week on the Swan 56 Noonmark V1. But
I’ve done events like the Round Europe Race as navigator and skippered
one of the boats in the 96/97 BT Global Challenge. I’m your typical short
handed all rounder, but I don’t get enough practice anymore to play at
the top end.
What
are your favorite materials for boat construction, for offshore racing
boats, cruisers, buoy racers and the minis?
MO:
Each
project has to be looked at in it’s own light, especially with regard to
goals, budget and level of competition of the opposition. In general, apart
from a full on sponsored campaign no one has all the money to do anything.
So, we like to spend money where it counts the most for performance while
ensuring safety. So in general we’d be looking to spend the right budget
on the sails, rig and appendages before we got too excited about using Nomex
in the hull. For example, we’ve had four minis built and depending on budget
they’ve been glass, two glass/carbon and the final one all carbon, but they’ve
all had fundamentally the same keel. If it’s an Around Alone race, any race
really, then the boat has to be well prepared and maintained, so we don’t
like to leave no budget for that either. We’ll design with the materials
that are appropriate and we never specify a construction method or material
that the builder isn’t well acquainted and we make this kind of decision
with the builder and the client, be it for a racing or cruising design.
How
do you find the right balance for your cruising designs in terms of interior
volume, speed and the boat’s motion at sea? Do you think kick up rudders;
lifting and canting keels are viable options for cruising monohulls?
MO:
The first
question should be directed at my design partner, Allen Clarke, who runs
the cruising boat side of the business but he’s on a plane at the moment
so I’ll try my best. The first two considerations are worked through as
part of a consultation process with the client and of course the trade off
between volume and speed also has an impact on cost. The correct balance
between them is part of the preliminary design process that aims to satisfy
the client’s goals with the minimum of compromise, if any. With regard to
motion at sea I can say that my sailing experience and my engineering background
tells me that if you sail a boat through waves upwind or downwind then the
accelerations and decelerations (motion) will be more severe on a fast boat
than a slow one. The difference is you can always reef and sail a fast boat
to the relevant conditions, you can’t do that with a slow boat.
For
some projects, yes it would be worth considering kick up rudders; it’s
not new technology and has been around in the multi-hull world for as
long as I can remember. With respect to swinging and lifting keels, as
I’ve intimated earlier we have a 65’ fast cruiser with such a configuration
launching in the beginning of December. To get the maximum performance
advantage of swinging the keel you need a long lever arm for the bulb.
However, to be a successful cruiser you need to be able to achieve shallow
draft. Without being able to lift a swinging keel the two are mutually
exclusive. It’s essential technology, but around twice the cost of a ‘conventional’
lifting keel.
Were
you involved in the formulation of the Volvo 70 rule? What work is your
office doing, if any, in connection with this race? Do you think it was
a mistake to go only 10 feet longer than the Open 60’s, or did they do
the Open 60 class a favor by distinguishing themselves? What could the
aspiring Volvo campaigns learn from the Open 60 boats that they could
use in their own designs?
MO:
We did
along with a number of other designers and specialists comment on the rule
and sit in at committee meetings. A most interesting experience – I was
originally drawn away from racing IOR and into multihulls and then open
class to get away from the restrictions of rules! As it happens I was very
happy to see that there was some distinguishing between the two classes.
If you look at the open 60 fleet it’s far bigger and diverse than any Volvo/Whitbread
60 fleet has ever been. This diversification includes budgets and although
we’ve been fortunate to have at our disposal significant funding for testing
and research on both the Kingfisher and Ecover campaigns, the thought of
Volvo type money coming into open class fills me with dread. I hope it never
happens, sport’s never a level playing field, but the open class has a great
feel about it the way it is. With regard to trickle down from open class
into Volvo 70 design. Well, it’s significant, but I think the best way to
take advantage of the new rule is to get together with the sailors and combine
the experience and technology of Open Class, Volvo and Americas Cup. That’s
what we’ve done by teaming up with the likes of Clay Oliver to deliver a
Volvo 70 design for the next race. Technology and experience apart, if there’s
anything else that designers from open class can bring to rules such as
the Transpac, Volvo etc is a very ‘open’ attitude and methodology to the
design process along with a belief that the only constraints are those that
you form yourself.
Does
it mean you already have a Volvo 70 design on offer?
MO:
Yes.
How
necessary are the tank tests nowadays, can they be replaced with computer
simulations and how would the costs compare for the campaigns?
MO:
I’ve
no experience in using CFD code such as Splash for hull design, only for
appendage work. Analysis such as this was carried out during both the
Kingfisher and Ecover programs and for that a hull appears ‘in the picture’
but no real analysis involving the calculation of hull drag was undertaken.
From listening to discussions from the Americas Cup community, there are
believers and non-believers. At the moment I have to put my hand in the
air and say I’m a non-believer when the likes of the Wolfson Unit and
Clay Oliver who’s written such code tell me so, I defer to them. This
debate will rage on, but it does make very pretty pictures for marketing
purposes and we’ve used them ourselves in the past. I do believe that
eventually someone will be able to resolve the issues that occur with
calculation of drag in the wake and as a result of the free surface and
therefore make a lot of money. I’m told we’re not there yet. As such I’m
led to spend my client’s money on where I think they’ll get the most bang
for their buck, in VPP analysis, hard work and model testing.
How
deep do you get involved in the development of the sail plan for a race
boat? Does the responsibility in this area shift more towards the chosen
sail maker?
MO:
That
happens to be one of my specialist areas that I tend to deal with on projects
along with running the overall design process and/or R and D program.
The sail/rig plans of Kingfisher, Hexagon/Pindar and Ecover were all concepts
that I was responsible for. Having said that, none of this is imposed
ideas and to get to a final result that works is a team effort that’s
obviously impossible without the input of many people including sailmakers
and sparmakers. Nowhere was this more so than with the design of Ecover’s
mast itself in which David Barnaby of Southern Spars played the leading
role. Of course and this is often not remembered, in design one looks
around inside and outside your own field to see what other people are
doing and whether it could be relevant.
What
kind of a project would you ultimately like to get involved with, sort
of a dream project?
MO:
I think
our team would most like to be involved some way in a project that designs
the fastest monohull or multihull in the world. I can’t think of anything
more stimulating so far as a no restrictions design challenge than either
of those. I envy Clay Oliver his involvement in Mari Cha IV, but I guess
there’s plenty of time yet. From a business point of view our vision is
more rooted in developing but being adaptable to design trends in the
coming years in such a way that we achieve a sound balance between racing
and cruising design. What I mean by that is that the cruising design gives
us long-term financial security and the ability to plan ahead, while our
racing design continues to trickle down technology to the cruisers and
maintain awareness of our business whilst providing the team with plenty
of stimulation.
How
can people reach you?
MO:
Lower
Ridge Barns
PO Box 26
Dartmouth
Devon
TQ6 0YG
tel: +44 (0) 1803 770495
info@owenclarkedesign.com
Thanks
a lot for your time.
OC
My
pleasure.
|
