Jim Donovan: 

New Kid On The Block?  

Donovan 27

You have worked for some of the biggest names in the world of Yacht Design:

Gary Mull, Doug Peterson, and Bruce Farr.  What were the best lessons you learned from each of those guys?  Why did you decide to leave Farr and hang out your own shingle?

JD:

Gary Mull was the "teacher" for many talented yacht designers, one of the best story tellers of all time, and an excellent cook. He had a very organized and systematic approach to the design process, along with a great attitude on how to balance work and enjoy life. Although yacht design sounds like just a lot of "fun", it's usually just a tremendous amount of work. I was very lucky to work with Gary - he was an excellent person.

 Working with Doug was always interesting, and his "intuitive" approach to yacht design was a new experience. Doug was very supportive of me, and gave me a lot of responsibility while working at his office. I look forward to working with Doug again someday.

Bruce Farr is definitely one of the hardest working designers on earth, which I believe is a key to his success. The Farr office gave me the opportunity to work on more high level design projects than I could have anywhere else. We're talking about 150 design projects in the nine years. I worked directly with Bruce at the beginning of each project, developing the preliminary concept and drawings. Then I'd design the deck geometry, deck layout, sailplan, deck hardware specification, mast and rigging spec, interior layout, joiner sections, and a large portion of the weight calc. Although every designer at the Farr office was responsible for the designs they worked on, NOTHING ever got by without Bruce's review.

Probably the most important thing I learned while working with Bruce is: just the right (and sometimes very subtle) blend of the yacht’s characteristics will yield that better design. And a better yacht doesn’t need to be a “huge break-through design” to win yacht races. Let’s face it, sailboats don’t travel very quickly, and although one-tenth of a knot speed advantage sounds like a small difference, in a typical 10 mile race it’s worth about 25 boat lengths (for a 40 footer). The faster boat is in the position to drive back the slower boat, adding even more boat lengths.

Related to that, what do you offer to a potential client to encourage them

to choose you over someone more established to design their next boat?  

JD: 

 “Someone more established” is an interesting concept. I’ve probably worked on more yacht design projects than most of the independent designers out there. In my few years as an “independent designer”, I have a good number of successful designs that I’m quite proud of. 

Your new MORC 27 was launched recently and looks pretty cool, sort of like a miniature Mumm 30.  What was the concept behind this design?  Is it available as a production boat?

JD:

 New England Boatwork’s building expertise had a lot to do with the excellent finish of the first Donovan 27 “REMEDY”. It’s great when a builder follows the plans and delivers the boat as expected. The design was developed as a high performance MORC design; a moderate design that would be easy and fun to sail. The design has proven to have excellent “all-around” performance capabilities, is a potent MORC competitor, and sails as fast as many 33’ to 36’ PHRF yachts. We’re currently negotiating with builders to produce the design as a high quality production yacht.

Your 27 footer is quite a bit heavier than your previous MORC 30, WOLFPACK. Why have you gone to the more moderate displacement?  Hasn't the MORC rule actually become more accepting of light boats since 'PACK was designed in 1986?

JD:

WOLFPACK was never really a MORC yacht. It was a ULDB for racing in California. We raced the MORC races cause “they  were there”. The MORC rule hasn’t changed the way it rates displacement. In extremely light winds, light displacement yachts can still do well, but the heavier designs get some huge rating dividends when the breeze picks up. When I worked at Doug’s office we designed some successful moderate displacement designs that faired well in the MORC rule. The Donovan 27 is similar in concept, and I concentrated on minimizing the wetted surface to achieve a sail area to wetted surface ratio that makes the boat “wicked fast” in light airs. In medium to heavy winds, the right combination of high stability, a narrow/slippery hull shape, and controllable carbon fiber rig, gets it around the course very quickly.

You have a new 34 footer in the works.  What can you tell us about this new speedster?  Is it a one off, or is there a production builder?

JD:

I’m working still working on this.

You spent the past America's Cup with the boys from Hawaii.  It seemed that the boats had some promise, but the lack of funding really hammered you guys.  Do you think the destroyer bow choice is still viable?  Who are you hooking up with for the 2003 AC?  It seems that a virtual no-name, Phil Kaiko, had the opportunity to step up to the plate when he designed the America True boat.  For this next go-round what kind of opportunities will there be for Jim Donovan?

JD:

Aloha Racing was a rather unfortunate campaign. A lot of people put tremendous effort into designing, building, and preparing for the America’s Cup. Financial difficulties didn’t help, and they got out sailing the boats too late. You wouldn’t know how good those boats were. Destroyer bows? Always seem to be a good idea. Hasn’t proven to be the right choice yet. I’m currently working with Team Dennis Conner’s NYYC challenge, as a member of their mast design team.

Donovan 30

Given the sad state of affairs with measurement and handicap rules, aren't there less and less opportunities to design the next "Ganbare", the type of project that would give someone like you some real name recognition, both here and abroad

JD:

The short answer is “yes”.

• PHRF is not intended to rate brand new designs. It does a fantastic job of giving a simple, affordable rating solution to the majority of existing yachts.

• IMS suffers from complexity, and the high profile sailing programs it attracts, greatly increasing the cash outlay required to win.

• There are also several good one-design options now, and I think most sailors prefer one-design racing over handicap racing.

 All this has greatly reduced the number of custom racing yachts being designed and built.

Jimmy, you've been involved with the scene for many years and have lived through the IOR/IMS/Offshore One Design phases.  Give us your take on the State-of-the-Art in terms of where you think big boat sailing is headed.

JD:

Don’t call me Jimmy

 With the cancellation of the Admirals Cup, I’d say that ocean racing series are losing ground fast. IACC and Volvo 60s are attracting the most attention right now. There’s a number of very high performance luxury cruising yachts being constructed right now, and I’ve seen some interesting proposals to organize a racing class. That sounds like a step up from old days of sleeping on spinnakers in the bilge and living off candy bars.

Let's assume that grand prix handicap sailing is in trouble, which it is. Can it be fixed and how so?  Do you favor Box Rules, Open Rules, or Measurement Rules?

JD:

 I think there is a limited number rules that will attract enough players to survive.

The IACC and Volvo 60 rules are essentially “box” type rules that are successful because they describe a great sailing yacht, and have well established racing venues to promote their fleets.

 IMS was a valiant attempt to introduce a scientific approach to handicap racing. Some fantastic designs have been produced for IMS racing, and it’s impact on current yacht design is significant. Unfortunately, for many of the same reasons that lead to the IOR’s demise, the IMS has lost most of it’s fleet. Keep changing the rules, and the players just get tired and quit.

 For a designer, any type of rule presents a challenge to design the best yacht for that rule. I find that to be one of the more interesting facets of my work.