As I see the issue, there are several design criteria that need to be addressed with ocean rowing boats that tend to follow the downwind trade-wind routes.. I am not a naval architect but I believe the following to be fundamentally correct.

1. One is hullspeed in calm conditions. Narrow hulls are the fastest. Clearly. Longer boats are faster all else being equal…clearly.
2. Second is ability to surf. Probably, boats with flatter wider aft sections are better for this.
3. 3rd is the ability to run using the horsepower of the wind. Windage (in all its forms both fixed as in JJ, and temporary as in open hatches) is of course what determines this.
My math isn’t great but a wind of 10 meters per second (approximately 20 knots) applies a force of 600 watts (0.8 hp) on a surface of one square meter. I suspect than a typical open hatch provides a surface of ~ 0.5 square meters, so to leave one open in a following 20 knot breeze is equivalent to two strong rowers 150 watts x 2 (2:12/500 pace each on a rowing erg), rowing 24/7 without any displacement cost.
Inherent in this is that any fixed windage puts the boat at an advantage when running downwind (as occurred in spades this year with JJ), and at a much lesser advantage/disadvantage when the winds are contrary. Temprary windage such as open hatches speeds the boat when downwind and does not need to be utilized when rowing upwind.
Arbitrary statements about fore-cabin height determining windage is simplistic and would quickly be “tested”. For example, one might achieve similar windage to JJ with marked above waterline flare forward and a lower cabin without
compromising boat speed due to a broader waterline beam.
4. Displacement. Given that it takes one horsepower to propel a given boat at it’s hullspeed for every 500 lbs of displacement, any non-essential weight seriously compromises it’s speed. In the case of ocean-rowing boats, with most
designs, beyond the minimum required to propel the boat, additional crew (with their weight in body/food/gear) actually slow the boat because the negative impact of the displacement is not made up by the horsepower they supply .
5. Lastly there is the issue of stability. This impacts choices 1-3 and requires some resolution. One solution is to use ballast (water or other) and a self-righting design. These necessitate raised cabins fore and aft with the additional windage they provide.
A second solution is to stabilize the boat using amas. Hallin Marine could also be called a “Stabilised Monohull”. This solution provides a stable platform for sculling/sweep rowing, may or may not add windage beyond a more common self-righting design, and of course has superb initial stability (but if it capsizes, is equally or more stable upside-down).
In the quest to go fast, some skippers may chose to compromise their safety by leaving hatches open (for more windage) or remove water ballast (for less displacement) or some other choice I have not thought of.

The impact of weather on all of these design factors provides advantages and disadvantages to each. A long narrow hull surfs poorly, usually has low windage, and is inherently unstable. It would be wicked fast in calm conditions.
A broader flatter hull (particularly in its aft sections) surfs best, would be slower rowed in calm conditions and would have more windage (all else being equal) with downwind advantage and upwind handicap.
All ocean rowing boats are a compromise of these features.

The classification of rowing boats may have some value, but if one is really interested in rowing a “classic design” there is a nice photo of one on the Wikepedia entry on Samuelsen and Harbo’s crossing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samuelsen_and_Harbo_and_boat.gif

The fore/aft-cabined, self-righting monohulls that most use for ocean crossings are common: but hardly “classic”.

If one wishes to compare apples with apples, one solution is a class race such as Bouvet Guyane which races identical boats on an identical course with an agreed start.
This solution of course stifles innovation and novel approaches to design.
All other attempts to equal the playing field will be prone to pitfalls and compromises of various sorts. To place high windage boats such as the brilliantly conceived/executed JJ with a low windage multihull such as Hallin Marine demonstrates (to me at least), ignorance of the complexities inherent in ocean rowboat design).

Does one put limits on displacement, windage, beam, length, hull number, crew number, or initiate some mathematical approach such as windage per meter of waterline length, windage per crew-member, displacement per waterline meter. Perhaps a naval architect could provide formulas that would attempt to even the playing field but of course there is the issue of weather and how this impacts the formulas…..
How one addresses these questions has an impact on all ocean rowers and probably is best dealt with in a forum that allows participation by all ocean rowers. The AOR is one such forum.
Certainly it is a complicated issue and has far-reaching implications on safety, design innovation, and route choices for years to come.
It would be helpful if all ocean rowers provided some input into the issue. It should not be an issue determined by a few.

Sincerely, Steve Roedde
File:Samuelsen and Harbo and boat.gif – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org”

If you have two phones anyways, than it is maybe worth another try with a later firmware release. You need to store it in a waterproof package, as the contacts corrode badly in salt water environment. I used various chemicals later to clean the contacts, (which still corroded) but at some point you need hard stuff. I can assist you if you need more informations. Dielectric Grease did not work for long. The problem with this phone is: You need always an adapter to load it and to connect it to your laptop and external antenna. (There is NO plug in the phone itself!) This adapter is even worse then the old serial adapter for the 9505A. But at least you could charge the old phones without external adapters.

The SOS and GPS Feature are seriously not helpful. It is really not a question to use this SOS Button in an near emergency situation. It’s totally unreliable. GPS did not work on my first phone at all. On the second, replacement, it takes minutes to get a position even under clear sky. Sending this position via the SMS/SOS feature works maybe for 75%. This is a toy, not more. It looks nice and tough, is pretty small – but it is a design error with it’s adapter and software yet.

The antenna tend to break if you pull it out. I spoke to various resellers about this issue.

If you think the SOS feature and GPS gimmick are helpful: Yes, if you get it working Seriously, this is a expensive crap phone with features that do no work when you really need it, which worse reception than a 9505 …. and a crap adapter. Iridium is obviously still not using their own crap … i can’t believe someone is still selling such a phone in 2012.