Moth on Foils: 31.1 knots (35.8 mph) [Archive] - Page 6

CutOnce

01-11-2011, 05:09 PM

====
I think the biggest surprise is gulari's poor performance-not so much in the light air but even when it was windy. He picked up a bit in the wind and if the wind stays up he may have a slight chance. If the wind drops-no chance at all. Overall a surprising performance. The poor performance of the wing is not too much of a surprise given the rush to get them done and it may be the best thing that could have happened since there won't be so much "Wing Resistance" in the future which may allow wings to be approved by the class as a whole after the Worlds -an excellent development.
The Australians,especially Outteridge, have put on a remarkable display of foiler competence- simply outclassing everybody else-thats a bit of a surprise.
I wish Team USA luck in the next few days...

Being on the first page of the Gold fleet at a 100 boat plus World Championships in anything that floats is a good performance. Local knowledge is a huge advantage in any venue - especially one with challenges like weed, tides and currents. Hold the race in Lake St. Clair and see what happens.

I would not support the position that the wing performance has been poor - it has done quite well considering the time available for development and testing prior to the shipping window. To be honest, I do not expect the class decision making to be affected in the slightest by performance in the current worlds. People's problems with wings in the class had nothing to do with fear of it going faster.

Wing resistance? Nope. You have created a fantasy conflict where you have completely missed the point of the debate. The conflict with the wing is philosophical and financial - not performance-driven. Everybody likes ratcheting up performance - on that there is no debate. Not everybody likes incorporating major cost increases and uncontrolled arms race situations, and not everybody likes driving the class away from it's traditional constituents. You've missed the point entirely if you think Moth sailors are afraid of going faster because of wings.

If Larry and company want the Moth class to be a wing-sailed feeder class for AC talent, then they can fund class members to the tune of $3000 per sail number. For that price they'll get more development than they can shake a stick at for less than it cost for one wing sail on the tri-hulled BMW-Oracle AC boat. Bottom line, the class membership will decide what is best for them to keep the class fun and active.

--
CutOnce

Doug Lord

01-11-2011, 05:21 PM

You've missed the point entirely if you think Moth sailors are afraid of going faster because of wings.
--
CutOnce
==============
That comment doesn't make any sense to me. There was/is a major conflict going on within the class regarding The Wing-documented well here and on Dinghy Anarchy in words and video interviews. If The Wing had done what some had hoped it would do -be demonstrably faster than a soft sail in racing-then the chances of it getting approved by a vote of the class would be unlikely.
With the poor results it has shown it is obvious that there is MUCH more development time required before the wing can be a weapon of choice-if it ever can. The technology for soft sails is highly refined -that and the Moth rules quirks that can limit the effectiveness of the wing(see Tom Speer previously) may prevent viable development in this class.
But I hope development will go forward.....

CutOnce

01-11-2011, 05:58 PM

==============
That comment doesn't make any sense to me.

As I just said, you have missed the point entirely - this is why it doesn't make sense to you. Thanks for proving my point.

Your conclusion is that resistance to the wing sail is due to people's fear of the wing sail being faster and outclassing all conventionally equipped boats in the class. Wrong. The Moth as a development class has a long history of embracing new ideas to advance performance and keep the design from becoming outdated.

It isn't fear of being faster, it is fear of costing more and losing the boat's unique identity as a small, single handed performance dinghy that bring a development class boat into the hands of lots of people where individual development and home builds can challenge at the World's level. The cost of competing in the Moth class at the World's level for an average person has gone from $10K US (for a competitive plywood skiff or skinny hull) in the 90s to $25K US now for a McConaghy/McDougall Mach II. In twenty years, there has been a 150% increase in the minimum cost to sit at the table. Adding wing sails will ratchet that number up significantly more, as the entry-level person joining the class will not have the experience, the facilities and the knowledge to build a competitive wing that can rival what Object 2 will be able to build after they incorporate the lessons learned in Belmont. I would not be surprised if a wing sail cost $3-5K US delivered from a commercial builder like O2. I've seen their prices on Beiker 5 I-14s, and they are worth every penny. Object 2 is NOT a big money maker and their prices are reasonable for the quality of product they produce.

Basically, the class has to consciously choose to leave it's homebuilder, low cost to experiment roots behind to follow the trend into wing sails and the much higher engineering, fabrication and material cost world. Yes, some sophisticated class members can cost-effectively build wings, but these guys like Adam May and Steve Clark that can build wings cheaply are not the rule - they are the exception.

Sailing with wings also changes the crash-right-and-go paradigm of Moth sailing. The example set at Belmont is pretty clear - crashing a wing is a race-ending situation - and even if spares are present and wings are stronger, racing in Moths will change significantly with wings. Making wings stronger adds weight, and added weight will slow things down. Joe Average club racer will not be able to race his wing sail Moth on beer can nights, because he'll be afraid of crash costs.

The real issues behind the conflict are not performance, they are cost and reduced appeal of the class to potential members that may not be able to afford to race. The membership fears are centered on the potential that a wing sailed Moth may move the class more towards the C Class - a smaller class where only the well heeled financially can afford to be competitive.

Everybody in the Moth class wants class performance to increase, but many people are afraid that following the wing sail path will result in damage to the class membership. Lots of people can afford to sit at $5 dollar tables at the casino, but there is a much smaller group that are willing to sit at the $100 dollar tables.

--
CutOnce

Doug Lord

01-11-2011, 06:18 PM

1) Your conclusion is that resistance to the wing sail is due to people's fear of the wing sail being faster and outclassing all conventionally equipped boats in the class. Wrong. The Moth as a development class has a long history of embracing new ideas to advance performance and keep the design from becoming outdated.

2) Sailing with wings also changes the crash-right-and-go paradigm of Moth sailing. The example set at Belmont is pretty clear - crashing a wing is a race-ending situation - and even if spares are present and wings are stronger, racing in Moths will change significantly with wings. Making wings stronger adds weight, and added weight will slow things down. Joe Average club racer will not be able to race his wing sail Moth on beer can nights, because he'll be afraid of crash costs.

3) The real issues behind the conflict are not performance, they are cost and reduced appeal of the class to potential members that may not be able to afford to race. The membership fears are centered on the potential that a wing sailed Moth may move the class more towards the C Class - a smaller class where only the well heeled financially can afford to be competitive.

--
CutOnce
===================
1) Not true. While it IS true that if the wing had blown everybody else off the water it would be doomed in the class, it is not because of any "fear" of performance. It is fear of those elements you mention-cost etc.
As it is, the performance has shown that for a wing to be viable there is much more develpment to be done and that threatens nobody in a development class.

2) Not true-at least no more true than a high tech carbon mast breaking, sail tearing, boom breaking which has happened numerous times. Racing at a high level in a high tech boat means spares, spares, spares. Also, in a Moth wing weight can help with RM upwind or at any time with veal heel.

3) I agree with this with the caveats above. As to the relationship of the C Class saga to the Moth wing those that research the technical aspects will find there is none: the Moth rules may significantly handicap wing development in the Moth class*. Only major experimentation will overcome this potential handicap. The "well heeled" are already owners of International campaigning in the Moth class-no doubt about it-but so far they can't buy a championship no matter how much they spend and that's a tribute to a great old class.

* From Tom Speer, post 90 UWT thread
"The fixed luff length of the Moth will neutralize one of the advantages wings have enjoyed, which is the ability to have a taller rig and still maintain accurate control of twist and camber. So you may not see as big a difference between wings and soft sails in the Moth class as you do in other classes."

CutOnce

01-11-2011, 07:09 PM

I agree with this with the caveats above. As to the relationship of the C Class saga to the Moth wing those that research the technical aspects will find there is none: the Moth rules may significantly handicap wing development in the Moth class*.

Break out the defibrillator. I need a zap to restart my heart. Partial, qualified agreement is a state I never thought to achieve.

There may be ways to work within the Moth luff length rules but move the sail area around to achieve the net effect of higher aspect ratio. If the slot and number of element issues leave room to move, much can be done to raise performance potential as well. There certainly are lots of technical aspects where cross-over from C Class wings can play a major role. Reading Blunted's post, he indicated they had no time to play with twist, and downwind (and lighter wind) aspects of the Moth wing were ignored. Multi-element wings with controllable twist and optimized slots are a totally different animal from what is being sailed at Belmont.

Although luff length is a limitation, it will take a clear interpretation of whatever rules result post-regatta to be able to reach any conclusions about Moth wing sail potential.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it is far too early in the game to reach conclusions - and we don't know what the game is until the class association can decide on rules.

In my opinion, going down the wing road is probably a mistake for the Moth class - as Babbage and others have stated. I'm really interested in the wing technology development, but the high probability of killing the class due to cost would be a mistake.

--
CutOnce

Doug Lord

01-11-2011, 07:42 PM

In my opinion, going down the wing road is probably a mistake for the Moth class - as Babbage and others have stated. I'm really interested in the wing technology development, but the high probability of killing the class due to cost would be a mistake.--
CutOnce
==========
I knew this was hidden somewhere in your psyche! Don't you understand that the results of the wing in this regatta have aleviated almost everybody's fear of the wing-for cost or for any other reason?
The class is a development class! "Going down the wing road" is now more likely than it would have been if the first ones had been the breakthru some feared. It is not and may never be but legislating the wing out when it has not won a single race is not likely. At least Burvills foils were fast.
And you totally ignore the comments from Adam May who said he thought a wing could probably be built for the same cost as a normal rig. Why do you ignore that? Production of a developed wing would surely result in lower costs.
I hope the naysayers(Babbage, AMAC and? ) don't get their way. All the arguments against the wing that you've made are bogus because they are based on too little information. Let the development continue and let there be another vote when all the facts are known in a few years time.
Trifling with "development" in a development class is a road not to be traveled lightly especially with information based on poorly built prototypes that have shown themselves to be no performance threat whatsoever from any perspective.
The Wing development should continue!

Doug Lord

01-12-2011, 07:27 AM

Incredible video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAPyI3jVsjA&feature=player_embedded

From Scuttlebutt Europe:

Extreme conditions today left their marks on me and the boat. Managed to complete 2 of the 3 races but was unable to compete in the third. It was a total physics lesson today with vmg's, displacement and material strength testing.

The first day of gold fleet racing was surreal, lining up against all the top notch guys. And it was windy again.

Successful forward progress involved hiking full out in the straps and balancing the massive puffs, all of which was extremely challenging and rewarding. And then you had to choose which vmg you wanted to go - 12knots high mode (close to the wind) or 17 knots low mode (more open sail trim).

Tacking was different as well. Normally I'd foil-tack/gybe to change direction, but today I had to learn new techniques again. Getting to the other side of the boat for the new tack involved sailing straight into the wind until boat slowed enough for me to control the degree of windward heel for the new tack. (It was too windy for anyone to do a foiling tack, at least not yet; needed to learn the new conditions.)

I mentioned yesterday how the guys were ready to share techniques and ideas. Well, I talked to them afterwards and they told me they had no vang on; I had half, which, apparently, is way too much in 25 knots. Still you live and learn.

I had heard a 'crack' in the rudder gantry a few days ago and had it looked at. We applied some carbon fiber to reinforce the area, but apparently it wasn't enough to do the job. The rudder loads downwind were excessive and extreme, and I heard another 'crack' during the second race. In between the 2nd and 3rd races, as I made my way to the water boat (to get water), the rudder gantry, that holds the rudder to boat, exploded. I'm out for the 3rd race. Mach2 boats are designed very well and strong, but the forces and leverages exerted at these speeds wears and tears any materials on this planet. Maybe someday, we will find a stronger, lighter material!

Overall, I learned a lot, particularly about what angles to use when coming into a mark at Mach2 speed, and that throwing on more reinforcing carbon is one way to ensure I will be able sail another race. Lay day tomorrow and well needed. Six races left. -- Brad Funk, www.FunkSaling.com

CutOnce

01-12-2011, 08:23 AM

==========
I knew this was hidden somewhere in your psyche! Don't you understand that the results of the wing in this regatta have aleviated almost everybody's fear of the wing-for cost or for any other reason?
The class is a development class! "Going down the wing road" is now more likely than it would have been if the first ones had been the breakthru some feared. It is not and may never be but legislating the wing out when it has not won a single race is not likely. At least Burvills foils were fast.
And you totally ignore the comments from Adam May who said he thought a wing could probably be built for the same cost as a normal rig. Why do you ignore that? Production of a developed wing would surely result in lower costs.
I hope the naysayers(Babbage, AMAC and? ) don't get their way. All the arguments against the wing that you've made are bogus because they are based on too little information. Let the development continue and let there be another vote when all the facts are known in a few years time.
Trifling with "development" in a development class is a road not to be traveled lightly especially with information based on poorly built prototypes that have shown themselves to be no performance threat whatsoever from any perspective.
The Wing development should continue!

Doug:

I have no dogs in this fight in regards to wings sails in (or out of) the Moth class. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. From a dinghy sailor perspective, I've watched classes succeed and survive, and I've watched classes fail and die. Sanctioning and promoting major rule changes that will have a significant effect on class membership and affordability has to be done very carefully. I think the class is right to debate this carefully, and I'll respect their decision either way it goes. I take time to understand and appreciate BOTH sides of the issue.

Although it gets attention far beyond it's actual numbers, the Moth class is in a very fragile and vulnerable state - it is the most expensive and costly to operate single hand performance dinghy (at World's caliber boat) there is. Wing sails will increase both those numbers (purchase and operational cost). Do I think cost is an issue affecting the number of people who can participate in a dinghy class? Yes. Certainly is for me, but then again I'm an average Joe who has to work for a living and I'm not going to inherit a estate to fund my sailing addiction.

Do I think Adam May is out in left field in regards to his optimistic wing sail cost estimates? Absolutely. We just watched some of the best in the world at Object 2 build prototype Moth wings that are not up to the usage (and abuse) levels necessary for Moth racing. The combination of materials, equipment, facilities, quality control and skill is expensive no matter how optimistically you look at it. Adam May's wing hasn't been tested in conditions like Object 2's samples. Beyond the equipment and materials, composite fabrication is a very skilled endeavor, where experience is critical to success. Laminate schedules, layups, curing methods, excess resin elimination, weight optimization and consistent results are all not easy to get right. Yes, I'd bet Steve Clark could do it economically. I know I could not and I've got experience building lightweight dinghies. I'd have to purchase and master vacuum bagging equipment and materials. I'd have to build and refine a huge curing oven. I'd have to get hands-on experience in consistently fabricating composite cored components that meet strength, weight and precision requirements using expensive materials. I'd have to fabricate and build molds and tooling before the first parts could be laid up. Oh, yeah and I'd have to have a facility that can handle working with dangerous chemicals including positive pressure breathing and acceptable environmental standards. My garage doesn't cut it, as I can't risk my family's main income provider breathing epoxy fumes and carbon dust. Ask Paul Beiker about carbon dust while fairing and off-gassing during chemical curing processes. Local bylaws, building codes and hazardous material codes have to be met if I expect my insurance carrier to continue to assume liability insurance. Do I think they'd pay if they found an uninspected composite fabrication facility at the site of a fire? Nope.

Most of the people out there bleating about how wings can be done as cheap as a conventional rig have no real experience building wings for ultralight dinghy sail boat applications. There just are not that many people out there that have done it, and the small group that has already is past the experience, equipment, molds, tooling and materials issues. It is never as simple as it looks from behind a web browser.

From a guy who actually builds things, and has actually been in shops doing these types of things - I do know what it takes, and I do know what it costs to do it safely and right. Don't know when you last built anything, but I already have got myself a serious epoxy sanding dust problem that aggravates my asthma to the point where I can't afford to risk letting things get worse. Everything in the real world costs money. Dust management systems in the shop cost money. Positive pressure breathing systems cost money. The real cost of building your first component has to include the cost it takes to get the facility there. Building a wing cheap isn't worth shortening your life or setting yourself up for retirement with a respirator and O2 tank on your wheelchair.

Yes, I think Adam May's estimates are complete nonsense. Yes, I think the estimates provided by people who haven't built one are nonsense. I think the only people who can actually authoritatively speak are Steve Clark, Paul Larson and Fred Eaton - the guys who signed the checks to get real lightweight sailboat wings made.

No, I do not agree the O2 wings were poorly made and poor performers. They were well made to standards set for the C Class, but that isn't good enough for Moth usage (and abuse) levels.

--
CutOnce

Doug Lord

01-12-2011, 05:16 PM

Doug:

Most of the people out there bleating about how wings can be done as cheap as a conventional rig have no real experience building wings for ultralight dinghy sail boat applications.

Yes, I think Adam May's estimates are complete nonsense.
--
CutOnce

============================
Do you know Adam May's history? I'd say he knows what he is talking about.
He is well known for his innovation and composites knowledge and your remarks are completely out of line. You have a tendency to dump on people whose remarks do not fit your views and that is a shame.

Doug Lord

01-12-2011, 05:18 PM

From Scuttlebutt yesterday:

CARNAGE CONDITIONS
Belmont, NSW, Australia (January 11, 2011) - -"Twentyfour knot gusts pumped
down the race course for a full day of racing at the 2011 Zhik Moth Worlds'
first day of the Final Series. Rarely dropping below a healthy 18 knot East
by Northeasterly, sailors across the fleet had their share of stacks,
crashes and comebacks that has opened up the scorecard.

Looking at the score board, Nathan Outteridge (AUS) continues to dominate,
but got a minuscule chip in his armor when he showed his second
"none-bullet" by finishing 4th in the last race. Out of twelve races he has
won 10 so far. Despite his dominance, however, he holds only a six point
margin over Aussie Joe Turner in second.

While 2009 World Champ Bora Gulari (USA) had a very decent day with a 4, 3,
7 to now sits in 5th overall, and Linsdsay Bergan (USA) is tied for the lead
of top women, others on the American squad will be using Wednesday's lay day
to rebuild. Brad Funk's rudder system exploded, Charlie McKee's wing
exploded, and Dalton Bergan's mast exploded. While Chris Rast's boat did not
explode, he nearly did until he realized his speed woes were the result of a
major leak in the hull.

The day ended with the Moth Class Annual General Meeting, which showed a bit of tension as the future of the wings was discussed. "There were a couple of sailors (and mast makers) that want to downright ban any development of
wings, which I find absolutely absurd in a development class," observed
Rast. "We haven't even yet really started and they already want to ban it? I
can just see the headlines on the sailing websites: Moth Class bans Wings!
Right next to the other headline: The next AC to be sailed with wings!" "

Racing will commence on Thursday and conclude on Friday.

Results: http://www.mothworlds.org/belmont/results/

=======================================
From Scuttlebut:

SEE WHERE MOTHS ARE BUILT
Moth dinghies may seem otherworldly, but they are indeed built on Earth. One
of those places is IYRS in Rhode Island. Composites Technology students will
build a fleet of Moths this term that will become part of the Sail Newport
fleet. See the school's Composites and Marine Systems facility in Bristol
during a January 19 Open House that runs from 4-7 pm (rescheduled from
January 12). You will also see Systems students' projects, some involving
alternative energy sources such as wind generators and solar power. Go to
http://www.iyrs.org to learn more.
===================================================
See post #1241 for Simon Paynes announcement of a new, smaller area foil for high speed.

Doug Lord

01-12-2011, 05:53 PM

Video of The Wing having a bad day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj5HoJhIgLo&feature=player_embedded

CutOnce

01-12-2011, 06:00 PM

He is well known for his innovation and composites knowledge

Exactly. Someone in the industry, with contacts, a complete facility to build things, experience and sponsors is not the right person to judge how much it costs for someone back of the fleet to build anything. Ite certainly helps he's a top racer with sponsorship potential, photogenic and by all reports quite personable.

Nobody from CST or Mach II is calling my shop about slapping on any decals. People deep into a business segment forget the years of time, the thousands of dollars spent on building the shop, experience and the piles of material left over from other projects. Some newbie to Moths will have none of that.

How much is an oven big enough to bake a front skin for a wing mast? How much does it cost to buy a vacuum pump, bagging materials, the pressure regulators etc. to equip a shop for sucking an atmosphere or more for 24 hours? How much does a dust collection system, paint booth & positive pressure breathing system cost? How much does it cost to insure yourself and your shop? How much will it cost to bring it up to code? How much to have it inspected?

Adam May has already been down this road and paid for these things, but someone new will have to do this before they can build their "cheap" wing at home. Steve Clark has his "Lab of Luxury" in Rhode Island. Fred Eaton has his Object 2 facility built inside a facility that does race car aerodynamic carbon parts fabrication (oh, yeah, and Fred is a multimillionaire). Each of these places capable of building a quality wing safely costs tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars or more - and all that is spent before the first acceptable quality wing walks out the door. What about molds? How long does it take to fabricate acceptable molds and pull parts? Who pays for the molds?

Anyone sensible and experienced in building anything knows it takes a lot to get going. Sam Schneider spent two years working in a composites shop with limitless access to resources and expertise to pop one hull out of his own molds. Don't trivialize everything that looks like a roadblock to exciting technology, and don't be convinced that it's cheap and easy. It isn't or it already would have been done.

Adam May knows this. It is easy and relatively cheap for him, but for newbie getting into the game it isn't. Or if you think so, go ahead and do and keep a ledger for costs, and submit your wing to a top Moth sailor for testing. See how long it takes, and what it costs. Since it's cheap and anyone can do it, PROVE IT.

and your remarks are completely out of line. You have a tendency to dump on people whose remarks do not fit your views and that is a shame.

Stop acting like the forum decorum police. Jeff is perfectly capable of moderating here. You keep up with your personal comments and attacks while I am staying on topic, and not talking about you.

I've presented a reasoned and logical case why building lightweight composite wings are not as cheap as buying a mast, boom & sail. Please explain how anyone new can safely build a competitive, lightweight wing for the same price starting from no shop, no materials and no expertise.

--
CutOnce

Doug Lord

01-12-2011, 06:09 PM

Someone in the industry, with contacts, a complete facility to build things, experience and sponsors is not the right person to judge how much it costs for someone back of the fleet to build anything. Ite certainly helps he's a top racer with sponsorship potential, photogenic and by all reports quite personable.

Nobody from CST or Mach II is calling my shop about slapping on any decals. People deep into a business segment forget the years of time, the thousands of dollars spent on building the shop, experience and the piles of material left over from other projects. Some newbie to Moths will have none of that.

How much is an oven big enough to bake a front skin for a wing mast? How much does it cost to buy a vacuum pump, bagging materials, the pressure regulators etc. to equip a shop for sucking an atmosphere or more for 24 hours? How much does a dust collection system, paint booth & positive pressure breathing system cost? How much does it cost to insure yourself and your shop? How much will it cost to bring it up to code? How much to have it inspected?

Adam May has already been down this road and paid for these things, but someone new will have to do this before they can build their "cheap" wing at home. Steve Clark has his "Lab of Luxury" in Rhode Island. Fred Eaton has his Object 2 facility built inside a facility that does race car aerodynamic carbon parts fabrication (oh, yeah, and Fred is a multimillionaire). Each of these places capable of building a quality wing safely costs tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars or more - and all that is spent before the first acceptable quality wing walks out the door. What about molds? How long does it take to fabricate acceptable molds and pull parts? Who pays for the molds?

Anyone sensible and experienced in building anything knows it takes a lot to get going. Sam Schneider spent two years working in a composites shop with limitless access to resources and expertise to pop one hull out of his own molds. Don't trivialize everything that looks like a roadblock to exciting technology, and don't be convinced that it's cheap and easy. It isn't or it already would have been done.

Adam May knows this. It is easy and relatively cheap for him, but for newbie getting into the game it isn't. Or if you think so, go ahead and do and keep a ledger for costs, and submit your wing to a top Moth sailor for testing. See how long it takes, and what it costs. Since it's cheap and anyone can do it, PROVE IT.

Stop acting like the forum decorum police. Jeff is perfectly capable of moderating here. You keep up with your personal comments and attacks while I am staying on topic, and not talking about you.

I've presented a reasoned and logical case why building lightweight composite wings are not as cheap as buying a mast, boom & sail. Please explain how anyone new can safely build a competitive, lightweight wing for the same price starting from no shop, no materials and no expertise.

--
CutOnce
===============

When May was talking about a Wing being available for about the same price as a current rig-mast, sail, boom and hardware he was not talking about someone building a wing. He was talking about The Wing being purchased as a ready to go unit. I think that it is highly unlikely that many people will want to design and build a wing from scratch-or even build from plans. But if-and its a big IF- The Wing is developed, competitive and available there will probably be a market. That development be allowed to continue is key and I hope it will.

click on image:

Cheesy

01-12-2011, 07:40 PM

===============

When May was talking about a Wing being available for about the same price as a current rig-mast, sail, boom and hardware he was not talking about someone building a wing. He was talking about The Wing being purchased as a ready to go unit. I think that it is highly unlikely that many people will want to design and build a wing from scratch-or even build from plans. But if-and its a big IF- The Wing is developed, competitive and available there will probably be a market. That development be allowed to continue is key and I hope it will.

click on image:

"about" is a relative term... Wings being cool and all, I dont see them being competitive price wise with a standard rig, there is just too much carbon in them and too many parts, and then I doubt they will be as durable

P Flados

01-12-2011, 08:52 PM

The posts by Doug and CutOnce both have valid points, but I think there is a bigger picture out there that is somewhere in between.

Most of the current cream of the crop winner circle kind of guys probably sail more more than 150 days a year. The skill level and the experience with getting their boats reliable pays off. For any "average guy" to compete with these guys for a world title is a stretch to begin with. Most moth sailors would probably be happy to be in contention for winning at the Local or Regional races. As Doug has noted, since these guys (Local hot shots) can be competitive with or without a wing, allowing wings at this time does not put the fleet into a “money is no object” arms race.

If a Local hot shot is someone who can build and wants to push technology, a "do it yourself project" is not out of the question. Hand lay-up with maybe a little bit of vacuuming is currently being used by many making the boats. I am convinced that this level of construction can be used to achieve good results. By good results, I am talking good boat speed and reasonable ruggedness/reliability even if weight is more than the high dollar versions. A build at home version may also struggle to be as good as a professional at handling the edges of the operating range. Most of these guys would probably try to hang onto a soft rig or two both for these conditions and for when a wing is out of commission for some other reason.

On the other hand, when development starts to deliver the results I think it can, one or more firms may start offering winning wings. Top level build technology will not be cheap and makers may set a steep entry price for this hot new item. This could be tough for those that would feel pushed into buying "the best rig on the market".

Super light is probably the one goal that both pushes cost up the most and potentially push ruggedness down. Super light is probably not essential for wings to beat soft rigs. Setting a minimum weight for wings (say 125% to 150% of the second generation O2 wings that seem less rugged than desired) would not stop development and in fact would allow for easier build techniques. This would help control cost for those that would be buyers and it would also really help the home build crowd. Making the limit a temporary rule, or just agreeing that the value is subject to change as needed might be worth considering.

Doug Lord

01-12-2011, 09:10 PM

Doug Lord

01-12-2011, 09:34 PM

Prelimnary results of the final racing: see box on right side-- http://www.moth-sailing.org/imca/faces/news.jsp

Zhik 2011 Moth Worlds RESULTS --- Prelim Race 5 --- GOLD-see update below
1-GULARI, 2-Outteridge, 3-Harris, 4-Gudgen, 5-McKnight, 6-Payne

Gulari has apparently won TWO-congratulations Team USA!see update below

Race 4 --- GOLD ---
GULARI gets the bullet!!
2nd-5th all stack it before the line, it's a race to get up and over the line

========================
Also:

Most the fleet is back ashore, few rescues still under way...
The Wing-sail is missing the entire aft component, and the tip, but McKee seems to be foiling along just fine! See picture below-look carefully!
=====
UPDATE: Gulari did not get the race 5 win-13th instead, 5th overall http://www.mothworlds.org/belmont/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gold-after-5-races.pdf

P Flados

01-12-2011, 10:12 PM

Mr. Flados, good comments. I'm afraid I don't see the "homebuilder" element in the new world class Moth. I think that element has been compromised by the use of foils and the technology required to make them world class. Especially now that Si Payne has announced that Mach 2 will offer a new smaller main foil. That could lead to a competitive requirement to have multiple foil sets or to real innovation like removable foil tips. I think all this is good for the fastest, most technologically advanced sailboat under 20'. It is not good for homebuilders and I don't think most homebuilders would even consider building a set of foils-or a wing.
The class is past the homebuilder for the time being but it has earned an enviable position as the most advanced, fastest small sailboat period. Win some lose some.
Development, for the most part will be financed by hot shots, companies and "other interests". And hopefully wing development will continue even though there are major questions about its viability within the Moth rules.

I strongly disagree that homebuilding is done for the Moth class.

I also strongly agree that I do not see a win at the worlds in anything other than a top production (most likely) or custom built (small chance) boat. Not only that, but it will be by the guys that have 10x more time on the water than any average joe.

The homebuilt boat is no big deal. Since winners do not spend much time with the hull in the water, best available design does not mean much. The rack can be built at home, cost can be high if all new parts are used, but broken windsurfer masts can help a lot. Most foils will be bought, but as long as there are more than a couple of suppliers, cost is not a killer. The rig and the loose parts do add up to a lot. Most builders are not regatta winners (yet), but so what. Being mid-pack in a boat you built is not bad for many who are not in it to win come heck or high water.

Doug Lord

01-13-2011, 07:55 AM

New Record!
Scott Babbage has set a new class speed record and heres the evidence:
31.1 knots----35.77mph

CutOnce

01-13-2011, 09:00 AM

I strongly disagree that homebuilding is done for the Moth class.

I also strongly agree that I do not see a win at the worlds in anything other than a top production (most likely) or custom built (small chance) boat. Not only that, but it will be by the guys that have 10x more time on the water than any average joe.

The homebuilt boat is no big deal. Since winners do not spend much time with the hull in the water, best available design does not mean much. The rack can be built at home, cost can be high if all new parts are used, but broken windsurfer masts can help a lot. Most foils will be bought, but as long as there are more than a couple of suppliers, cost is not a killer. The rig and the loose parts do add up to a lot. Most builders are not regatta winners (yet), but so what. Being mid-pack in a boat you built is not bad for many who are not in it to win come heck or high water.

No matter how you slice it, there is not enough volume in the Moth aftermarket parts (foils, wings etc.) to generate any significant economies of scale from a production standpoint, especially if there is an incumbent manufacturer building the boat 95% of the people are sailing.

That doesn't mean people won't build the stuff - just that either they won't make any money or the prices will be stratospheric. Most likely they won't make any money and the prices will also be stratospheric.

Homebuilders like Sam Schneider will always keep trying. Sam's the son of a Naval Architect, pretty amazing amateur NA himself and he's put two and a half years investment of time into learning high end composite building techniques. I have no doubt he'll produce a boat that will rival production quality builders, just like Dave Lister etc.

Part of my taking a stand on some of these issues is the premise was raised by Doug:

"Since the Object 2 wing did not outperform everything, few in the Moth community will be worried about accepting wings into class rules"

This concept basically indicates performance is the important criteria by which class members accept or reject wings. I expect history to change soon (posts will disappear or be re-written).

I think the Moth class members do not care in the slightest whether or not the Object 2 wings in the current regatta are faster or not than current rigs. If the Object 2 wings had proved faster than every rig on the water in Belmont, I do not think anyone would change their position on the issue. It isn't performance thats the issue.

I have to disagree with you on weight - a heavier wing will require the foil to lift more weight and will induce more drag - you can not escape physics. I agree that more weight to windward of the CLR (i.e. windward heel) will have a benefit in regards to righting moment, but that benefit will be offset by increased drag supporting the weight. The concept that more RM and more power nullify increased weight doesn't fly with me. Since the Moth fundamentally caps power by sail area, there is no benefit to increased RM - no one on the race course seems to be hunting for more RM - but they would not object to more power at times.

Yes, I think just about anyone could build a functional wing where higher weight decreases cost. Yes, I believe there is a huge amount of wing performance potential to be explored in 8 square meters of sail area. Moth sailors being Moth sailors, I don't think they would be happy with a 15-20% heavier wing, unless they weigh 140 pounds and have the skill to keep it upright. I don't see a lot more one-man efforts like Adam May has done on the horizon.

I actually agree with Doug on the concept that the next level of performance refinements will focus on foils, rigs (perhaps including wings) and the issues affecting performance while foiling - drag (both aero and hydro), maximizing lift from 8 square meters of sail area and reducing the operator work load to allow better concentration on tactics and course management. The hull is basically a platform to hold all the important bits, and on that we agree. If this premise holds water, and my assumption about market volumes being microscopic is true, this certainly make Moths more expensive to play with.

As I noted a few posts ago, the performance delta amongst the top end of the fleet has narrowed significantly over the last five years. A good part of that is directly attributable to de-facto standardization of the platform - and the fleet sharing how to set up boats for optimal performance. Getting a Mach II tuned is a group shared experience. It's a lot easier to concentrate on sailing when you don't have to worry about getting your boat up to speed. It has gotten a lot more like one-design Mach II racing this year, and a lot less like a random smörgåsbord of eclectic go-fast dreams. I think there is a lot of benefit in refining/automating control systems so the helm can keep their head out of the boat more.

It will be interesting to see how the class membership deal with wings. There certainly is an opportunistic element trying to benefit from AC wing fever, but I'm not sure everyone sails Moths because they are looking for a high paying rodeo ride on the AC cash cow. Magnus hinted that a lot of the benefit of wings was due to it having the complete attention of one of the two man crew in a C Class - and a Moth helm does not have hours of free time to look up and constantly tweak three control settings for twist.

Fun to watch everything from here, but I'd rather be sailing. Our race course can be walked right now because the water has gone solid.

--
CutOnce

Doug Lord

01-13-2011, 09:26 AM

Bistros, you deliberately misquoted me above! If you're going to quote me ,do it accurately instead of putting a paraphrase in quotes. The post below answers your comments above now as it did when you first made them!

===============================

Originally Posted by CutOnce

1) Your conclusion is that resistance to the wing sail is due to people's fear of the wing sail being faster and outclassing all conventionally equipped boats in the class. Wrong. The Moth as a development class has a long history of embracing new ideas to advance performance and keep the design from becoming outdated.

2) Sailing with wings also changes the crash-right-and-go paradigm of Moth sailing. The example set at Belmont is pretty clear - crashing a wing is a race-ending situation - and even if spares are present and wings are stronger, racing in Moths will change significantly with wings. Making wings stronger adds weight, and added weight will slow things down. Joe Average club racer will not be able to race his wing sail Moth on beer can nights, because he'll be afraid of crash costs.

3) The real issues behind the conflict are not performance, they are cost and reduced appeal of the class to potential members that may not be able to afford to race. The membership fears are centered on the potential that a wing sailed Moth may move the class more towards the C Class - a smaller class where only the well heeled financially can afford to be competitive.--
CutOnce

===================
1) Not true. While it IS true that if the wing had blown everybody else off the water it would be doomed in the class, it is not because of any "fear" of performance. It is fear of those elements you mention-cost etc.
As it is, the performance has shown that for a wing to be viable there is much more development to be done and that threatens nobody in a development class.

2) Not true-at least no more true than a high tech carbon mast breaking, sail tearing, boom breaking which has happened numerous times. Racing at a high level in a high tech boat means spares, spares, spares. Also, in a Moth wing weight can help with RM upwind or at any time with veal heel.

3) I agree with this with the caveats above. As to the relationship of the C Class saga to the Moth wing those that research the technical aspects will find there is none: the Moth rules may significantly handicap wing development in the Moth class*. Only major experimentation will overcome this potential handicap. The "well heeled" are already owners of International campaigning in the Moth class-no doubt about it-but so far they can't buy a championship no matter how much they spend and that's a tribute to a great old class.

* From Tom Speer, post 90 UWT thread
"The fixed luff length of the Moth will neutralize one of the advantages wings have enjoyed, which is the ability to have a taller rig and still maintain accurate control of twist and camber. So you may not see as big a difference between wings and soft sails in the Moth class as you do in other classes."[/QUOTE]

Doug Lord

01-13-2011, 12:18 PM

Incredible demonstration of the Worlds Fastest Sailboat under 20':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LFLfH9j1PE&feature=player_embedded

Race 5 & Babbages record http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f3nk-iORbk&feature=player_embedded

Doug Lord

01-13-2011, 04:56 PM

Racing starting soon-(early today) :

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Zhik-2011-Moth-Worlds/160102677355280

RACING DAY 6 FINAL DAY!
creeping up on first race of the day.
RC reports steady 15 knots with gusts to 18 from North North-East.
30 minutes until first start --- Silver fleet. 7 min until start at approx 10am OZ.
==================

Race 6 --- Prelim RESULTS --- GOLD ---
1-BURLING, 2-Outteridge, 3-Slingsby, 4-Gough, 5-Turner, 6-Babbage, 7-McKnight, 8-Harris, 9-Peet, 10-Jensen, 11-Funk, 12-Gulari, 13-Payne

=================

Race 7 --- Prelim Results --- GOLD ---
1-GULARI, 2-Burling, 3-Turner, 4-Outteridge, 5-Crockett, 6-Harris, 7-Paton, 8-Babbage, 9-Sherring, 10-Psarofaghis

=================

Race 8---Prelim Results---GOLD
SLINGSBY gets the gun by a mile!
RESULTS ---
1-SLINGSBY, 2-Babbage, 3-Gulari, 4-Turner, 5-Jensen, 6-Outteridge, 7-Burling, 8-Harris

From the facebook site above(like all prelim results) : Unofficial... but unless our math is horribly wrong...
OUTTERIDGE WINS THE WORLDS
=================

Race 9 --- Prelim RESULTS --- GOLD ---
Babbage takes the gun, TURNER 2nd and 2nd overall for the regatta!
3-Harris, 4-Outteridge, 5-Funk, 6-Gulari, 7-Jensen...

=================

Spreadsheet with preliminary results: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Al0dE82o0HETdFRHR3NJY0d4OUVRZGdaNnE1TmQtekE&authkey=CN6V6_QO&hl=en#gid=0

Doug Lord

01-13-2011, 06:48 PM

I want to thank Jeff for updating the thread title to reflect Scott Babbages new Moth Class record. Thanks!

Doug Lord

01-14-2011, 07:59 AM

Final Results:

http://www.mothworlds.org/belmont/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gold-fleet-final-results.pdf

Congrads to Nathan Outteridge!

Final Day Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c45v8rpEWnE&feature=player_embedded

Doug Lord

01-14-2011, 11:29 AM

According to the front page of SA this is Scott Babbage at 30+. He just set the class record at 31.1 knots:
(click on image)

Doug Lord

01-14-2011, 12:22 PM

Excerpt(written before final results were known) from article on SA front page by Matt Knowles: http://www.sailinganarchy.com/index_page1.php
(emphasis by DL)

There have been two major stories running through the regatta here in Belmont: the US wing sails and the dominant performance of the Australian “Moth Squad.”

The Aussie Moth Squad (primary actors: Joe Turner, Nathan Outteridge, Tom Slingsby, and Ian Jenson) has been dominant. Their sailors hold 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 9th place. Simply put, they have checked all the boxes: start with highly talented sailors with very well set up boats, spend hundreds of hours of practice at the venue, and then harvest success.

As far as we’ve been able to gather the Moth Squad guys have made a few modifications to their Mach2s. The primary changes have been to cut off the tips of their main foils to reduce drag (at a penalty of slightly reduced lift and stability) and running very slow gearing on their wands/flaps. On a Moth, each wand position corresponds to a certain position of the flap on the front horizontal foil. If the wand is at x degrees, the flap is at y degrees. By adjusting the ride height controller (now standard equipment across the fleet), you can make the flap higher or lower (and the boat lower or higher, respectively) for each wand position. Changing the gearing is a bit different: gearing is the rate at which the flap position changes for a given change in wand position. Fast gearing means the flap moves a lot for a given wand movement. Slow gearing means the flap moves more slowly for the same amount of wand movement. A fast ratio can be draggy but also helps keep the boat at a stable altitude. On the other hand, in a flat water venue like Belmont, it is fast to use a very slow ratio, as the Moth Squad has demonstrated.I’ve heard a few grumblings (mostly from other Australians) that the Moth Squadies has been quite exclusive as to who they will train with and also very tight lipped about the changes their made to their boats. I don’t fault the Moth Squad for this at all. Their performance has made clear the value of having a small team of talented guys working hard. Likewise, if they’ve found ways to make their boats faster, I can certainly understand the drive to keep that information close, at least until the end of the regatta. Again, it looks like they’ve got the formula just right, and everything else is just sour grapes.

As for the wings: after a contentious process in the days leading up to Worlds, three wings were successfully measured in. The initial plan was for Bora and Bear (George Peet) to race with them, but the team simply ran out of time to get the wings to where we needed them to be. Even help from the best small-boat wing designers in the world (Steve Killing and Magnus Clarke) can’t beat the clock. The three identical wings the US team brought to Belmont have shown great promise in certain conditions, but also considerable weaknesses. The biggest weakness is light air (marginal foiling). The wings also struggle at times downwind; if they are not set up and trimmed perfectly, they can be slow downhill. George and Bora decided their best chance to win the Worlds was to use soft sails. Had the regatta taken place a few weeks later, that decision could well have been different.
After all that we went through to get the wings measured, we felt that we owed it to the class to show what the wings could and couldn’t do. Charlie McKee stepped up to the plate and has been sailing the wings in both the Australian Nationals / Pre-Worlds and the Worlds. Even with just a few days to learn how to sail a wing moth, Charlie has put up some impressive top-10 race finishes. There have also been a lot of breakages and consequently, a lot of long nights for our expert wing repairman and coach Rob Patterson. I’m sure Charlie would be the first to admit that whatever success he has had on the water has been premised on Rob’s hard work in the container at night.

At the 2010 Worlds in Dubai, many people felt that the US team had blown its preparation by focusing on heavy air sailing when the venue turned out to be quite light and the paramount skill was getting on the foils, not going fast once foiling. The obvious question is this: by spending a huge amount of time and money on developing wings, has the US team again blown its preparation when none of our top sailors is even using a wing? The answer is more complicated than a simple yes or no. One could argue that we should have made a conservative investment by maximizing the time on the water we had and focusing on incremental rather than revolutionary improvements. On the other hand, it could be that the Moth Squad was going to be unbeatable at their home venue considering that the US team would lose months of training time due to winter conditions and shipping delays, so perhaps going all-in on wings was the right gamble to make at the time, even though it turned out not to be a winning one. Moreover, this sort of investment in development is the lifeblood of the Moth class, no matter the results here in Belmont.

None of this matters right now. At the moment all we’re focused on is helping Bora do what he needs to do in the next 6 races to win the 2011 Worlds. It’s going to take a huge effort to beat Nathan on his home turf, but the look of confidence on Bora’s face after racing yesterday suggests he has a chance to do it. -Matt Knowles.
-------------------
Rather humorous lead in typo to the above article:

This story is a bit late in running, but it’s a wonderfully coherent explanation of how things went down at the 2011 Zhik Moth Worlds in Belmont, Australia from Mothie blogger, rules guru, and one of our favorite young writers, Matt Knowles. Spoiler alert: Nathan Outteridge won the Worlds with a race to spare, with Moth Squaddie Joe Turner in second and Event Chairman Scott Babbage in third. Gulari was the first non Bora Gulari in third. Here are the results. Also a HUGE thanks to Aussie/French photographer Yann Audic/splash splash photography for this high res work from the Worlds. Please respect his copyright and be sure to check out his full web portfolio for more great shots, and look for more features from Yann to come.

Doug Lord

01-14-2011, 04:04 PM

"technolgica" (Bruce) on DA today:

Posted Today, 04:41 PM

Jethrow, on 14 January 2011 - 04:19 AM, said:

I bet that if you brought in a rule that to compete in a world championship you had to build 90% of equipment on you boat. you would still see most of the same people competing because the guys sailing these goats are having a ball.

Sorry Jethrow but this is simply not right anymore, the demographics of the class have changed significantly, and about 10 boats at the worlds were home builds. The home built numbers are rapidly dwindling. The current success of the class is primarily because of the success of the Bladerider and Mach2 in making boats available.

The current moth sailor at the front 50% of the fleet buys stock M2 kit, tweaks that and spends 3-5 days a week on the water. If you want any sort of result, you simple need to put the hours in on the water, not in the shed.

And it is the ability to be able to do that, that has led to the class being as poplar as it currently is.

My blog
My moth podcast: www.mothcast.net
Search the mothosphere: www.mothosphere.com

Doug Lord

01-15-2011, 08:07 AM

Doug Lord

01-16-2011, 05:19 PM

Phil Stevo on DA:

Posted Today, 05:50 PM

response to blackensign, on 16 January 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

I think what some of the purist developmental mothies need to look at the history of the development of the class. Those with the cash to do whatever they want (which most don't have) seem to be of the opinion that anything that can make the boat go faster should be allowed in the spirit of development, without even thinking about what the class is other than developmental.
This is contrary to the fact in the moth demography. It is the new people in the class who have bought the most expensive factory built boats who are generally against any wing development. It is the home builders and the low cost tinkers who are pro wing. Most of these consider that they can build a wing cheaper than buying a mast boom and sail.

---Moths were always roof toppable but in some places like Japan even the wings needed to be removed for storage and transport. When foils started we all needed a bigger car and a travel box because they were fixed Ts. Now design ingenuity can fit an entire Mach2 is a very small travel box, including dissmantleable foils and two piece mast. I am confident that clever moth designers will soom have wing rigs which can be folded and dismanled enough to be transported on top of the boat.

--A lot of people sail moths becasue its fun to do. Despite the video images from Belmont which might give the impression there were only 20 black boats in the event, there were another 70 people out there without any real ambitions other that to join in and have fun sailing these great boats, They did not put in the long hours practicing technique, they did not invest heavilly in testing multiple masts and sails and they did not purchase extra foils for trimming and adjustment for different conditions, many did not really spend much on their boats at all. But they all enjoy sailing the boats so much that their place in the regatta was not really important. If the top of the fleet decide they need a wing to win, most of the fleet will watch as they did this year, but they will still enjoy racing at the lower level.

---The best way to get into the class is to purchase a well sorted existing boat. Something a few years old which has been looked after and raced so you know it will sail and foil properly. Having all the settings sorted is absolutley necessary. If you are isolated from experienced moth sailors, you will have great difficulty getting it right. There are about 200 good bladriders and maybe 40 good prowlers out there which are worth much less than half a new Mach2.

---Home building your first moth will be time consuming and end up expensive as you rebuild the things you get wrong, break or generally mess up. You will end up with something at least two years out of date, proabbly heavy and slow. Build one later once you get to know what a mothis all about.

end response to blackensign
==================
Measurement of wings is something for the class to sort out. That process has commenced. IMCA will get to vote on several issues WRT wings and measurement in coming months. Bora's wings were measured under ISAF instruction/consession for the regatta only.

The two or three elements of the CCat type wing is one hotly debated topic. Area has never been an issue becaue the class rules and the iSAF Sail Area Measurement Manual do not allow any area loopholes. All area is measured with some discrepancies which will be sorted in the current rule revision. (These include the 50mm luff pocket deduction and the 90mm mast width deduction.)

In design terms rigs with wide masts and soft sails need to be stronger than similar masts with rigid trailing edges becasue the soft sail still applies high luff (compression)and leach (bending)loads to the mast. Consequently the hybrid rig ends up heavier. The CCats found this 25 years ago.

Those of us who looked closely at the O2 wings at Belmont were amazed at how lightly and simply they were built. Yes they broke but not often and lessons were learned which will make the next gereation better in both aerodynamic and structural design, if the class provides the oportunity.
Phil S
Moth AUS 3574, My moth Blog
2011 ZHIK Moth Worlds Belmont NSW

Doug Lord

01-16-2011, 07:54 PM

From Scuttlebutt tonight:

ABSOLUTE DOMINATION
Belmont, NSW, Australia (January 14, 2011) - When Nathan Outteridge (AUS) finished sixth in the next to last race of the 109-boat 2011 Zhik Moth World Championships, it was all he needed to take the title he justly deserved. Outteridge did not need to sail the final race, but did, continuing a week of domination that saw his 6th as the only time he slipped outside of the top five. In fact, Outteridge swept through the Australian Nationals (pre-worlds) by winning four of the five races, swept through the Worlds qualifying series by winning eight of the nine races, and then sailed an exceedingly steady Worlds series in the 55 boat championship fleet.

The final day gave the fleet a reprieve with more manageable winds, courtesy of an earlier schedule that got the fleet started before the wind gods woke up. But this also meant for marginal foiling. “Four to twelve knots made for a rather connect-the-dots frenzy (the dots being the puffs of wind),” shared Brad Funk (USA). “Foil. Stop. Foil again. Stop again. The whole situation made for some laughing and cussing all at the same time. And movement up and back through the fleet. (In one race) I went from 2nd to 25th to 10th to 15th all in three minutes.”

For the American contingent, their campaign was initially marked by a focus on wing sail development, but ultimately was a demonstration of what is now needed to compete at the World level in what proved to be a very long and windy event. While Samantha England (AUS) beat out American Lindsay Bergan by one point for the title of leading lady at 47th and 48th place, Bora Gulari led overall in 6th place. Gulari’s time in the boat remains his advantage, but the edge that helped him win the 2009 Worlds in Cascade Locks, Oregon has been consumed by the class’ continued growth in competition.

CutOnce

01-17-2011, 10:43 AM

From Scuttlebutt tonight:

<snip>
Gulari’s time in the boat remains his advantage, but the edge that helped him win the 2009 Worlds in Cascade Locks, Oregon has been consumed by the class’ continued growth in competition.[/COLOR][/I]

Well, I don't know if I completely agree with Scuttlebutt's assessment. It is pretty clear that much like Hamlin established domination in 505s with Team Tuesday, Outteridge and company followed the same well-established path to success in the Moth class. Time on the boat is one thing, but a program of regular competition and objective head-to-head performance tuning in a group is needed now.

Therein lies the path forward for people wishing to dethrone Outteridge - get a suitable group of sailors together on a regular basis for training and then work the program to success. Bora Gulari has Bear as a training partner, but this has just been proven as not enough - there needs to be five or six people at the same performance level pushing each other and measuring and logging the sessions. Turner, Outteridge and company tweaked their Mach II foils, wand setup etc. in a very scientific manner - there wasn't any doubt what the results would be and exactly what the downside tradeoffs were.

The geography of the United States & Canada is a problem - as is the wide geographical dispersion of talented people. It isn't like Australia with most competitors clustered in three or so centers. For Bora (or anyone here) to succeed, the west coasters, the central people and the east coasters need to get together to make things happen. Concentrated competition is necessary.

I'm not certain about the "Magic Bullet" approach as being valuable to winning the world championships. What I mean with this is searching for a major hardware technological solution to help the win instead of taking the incremental approach focusing on training and optimization of people (software). Wing research and development is fundamentally a search for a magic bullet. I've got to wonder how different/closer the results would have been if Rast, Funk, McKee, Gulari and Peet (etc.) spent the months of wing development time intensively training together 3-4 days per week instead.

What this points to me is that success in the Moth class has changed somewhat from a group of tinkerers and innovators into a sailing class where professional / semiprofessional sailors need the financial resources behind them to afford to train in an organized fashion to a competitive level. Bruce's comments regarding time in the boat versus time in the shed ring true. Time in the boat means that holding down a full time job, living where there is a 4 month season and spending more time tinkering than sailing is no longer possible.

Unlike many people who feel legislation is the cure to progress, I think these changes to the Moth class are permanent. I'm not sure any of this is good for the long term health of the class.

--
CutOnce

P Flados

01-17-2011, 05:44 PM

What this points to me is that success in the Moth class has changed somewhat from a group of tinkerers and innovators into a sailing class where professional / semiprofessional sailors need the financial resources behind them to afford to train in an organized fashion to a competitive level. Bruce's comments regarding time in the boat versus time in the shed ring true. Time in the boat means that holding down a full time job, living where there is a 4 month season and spending more time tinkering than sailing is no longer possible.
CutOnce

Very good summary.

If your definition of success is winning at the worlds on a regular basis, all of the above rings so very true. A "magic bullet" approach can still give a team an advantage, but the competitive training piece would still be a requirement on top of any technological advance. The existing technology is just so good that the very skilled sailor is really tough to beat even if your boat is a little better.

The moth has advance far enough such that big leaps due to gear are not likely and would be hard to come by. On the other hand it is not mature enough such that the "ideal setup" has been fully explored. The two huge advantages of the team training approach are that you can get systematic with the "tweaking" that gives your boat a small edge and at the same time, the sailors get a real feel for what works best under the constantly changing conditions that are faced during actual racing.

The above discussion is the safe bet to top performance at the worlds. The effort by Bora & co. with the wing was something of a gamble, was a good effort and may pay off yet. Given the stated disadvantages of the US fleet (regular group training is hard), it was worth the effort. It would have been hard for Bora to beat Nathan even if he had not been distracted by the wing (home field advantage is real). Also, there is an outside chance that wing technology may advance such that it is an advantage in the next worlds. If so, the US team has a head start compared to everyone other than Adam May.

Once again, the above is all in the context of winning at a world regatta. Lots of people are absolutely thrilled to foil competently and blow past all of the other boats sailing on their home lake on a given weekend. Using a wing that you built yourself would add greatly to this kind of satisfaction.

CT 249

01-17-2011, 08:02 PM

CutOnce

01-18-2011, 08:13 AM

There's no doubt that being a full-time Olympic sailor is a huge advantage. That brings issues to a class, as the Moths may find out.

However, claims that the locals did so well partly because of tide and current are hard to credit given that the lake is tideless and there is therefore basically no current. And the fact that Australia has just 6.5% of the population of the USA but 80% of the area makes it hard to see demographics as an advantage - there's almost as many people in the LA area as in all of Oz. The SF area (7,000 sq miles) has 7.4 million people whereas Sydney (5,300 sq miles) has 4.5 million and the surrounding area has much lower density.

So if we can get 4 talented sailors "together" (actually I think there's about 100 miles between their homes and training bases) then the 19 million in LA or the 7.4 million in SF should be able to get even more, if all other factors were comparable.

Years go, we Aussies used to explain the Olympic success of Kiwis in the same way - by saying that all their top sailors were concentrated in Auckland. That didn't explain how they managed to create a whole bunch of Olympic-level sailors in a city that is smaller than many of ours, or why the Kiwis have collapsed in Olympic terms recently. In the same way, the success of the Moth squad (or our Laser sailors and the rest of the Olympic team) is hard to put down to demographics and geography, which are probably AGAINST such a thinly-populated widespread country.

Similarly, Seattle has at times lead the world in Int 14s and Perth (the world's most isolated major city) has lead the world in foiling Moths. New Zealand had an outstanding sailing record at Olympic level. So did the USA. Both have now slumped while Australia has climbed the ladder, but the demographics and geographies of the countries haven't changed. So demographics aren't that important.

From the outside, sailing in the USA seems very different from sailing in Oz, NZ or the UK. The USA seems to have a very elitist sailing structure. In comparison, sailing in Australia is traditionally more egalitarian. For example, one former sailing Olympian from the same area as Slingsby and Outteridge was an electrician working in coal mines, and the parents of another were cleaners in the local government schools. And down here, we have many clubs that are specifically dinghy or skiff clubs, and that concentration on small boats means that the talent isn't lured into big boats or driven away by people who believe that small boats don't count.

Such things may be much more important than any supposed geographic advantage. To be honest, when it comes to supposed issues with high performance sailing, sailors in the USA seem to ignore such factors and blame non-sailors and US Sailing, rather than look at the factors US sailors themselves can control.

BTW P Flados, can you tell us where these "lots of people" are????? Foilers are fantastic, but on any given day there are many. many more "lots of people" who are out sailing other craft. You haven't given any factual basis (i.e. number of leisure foilers, evidence that obsolescent foilers are being snapped up, etc) for your repeated claim that there will be a clamour for obsolescent foilers.

Certainly there ARE people who just go out and foil for fun - I know some. But whether there is a significant number is another matter. Certainly there is not a very strong demand for outmoded craft in other development classes, even when the outmoded craft remain very high in performance.

How many development classes race in your part of the world?

Nice 1000th post.

There is a huge cultural difference difference in regards to yachting in North America. It isn't regarded as a respected proletarian sport. When I mention to neighbors that I'm a member of a sailing club, they immediately assume I'm a trust fund boomer with money to burn drinking Chardonnay wearing an ascot. Not true.

Sailing as a serious sport is not invisible in Australia. There is a long tradition of wagering, sponsors and clubs. Although you make a case regarding geography, in reality if you drew a 100 mile circle around Sydney you'd have more dry sailing clubs and performance dinghy venues than exist in all of Canada. I would not be surprised if the total count there was not greater than all of the comparable clubs in the US. I say comparable meaning clubs with active dinghy race programs using boat classes designed after the first half of the last century.

You seem to think North American sailors have some degree of control over their dinghy options - in reality they do not as fleet discipline is pretty strong. In computer terms it is pretty much FIFO (fit in or frig off). If the local fleet sails Albacores, you sail an Albacore. My club briefly flirted with 49ers - getting up to four at one point, and the I14s quickly absorbed the misguided heathens. And I'm in one of two progressive skiff-friendly clubs in the country. We've got one lonely aged Prowler that gets used infrequently when it's owner can't get crew in his I14 or 505.

I agree that there isn't line ups of people looking for used foilers. I've been in the club bar listening to the majority of bar crew talking about the lone dude crashing frequently on his Prowler like he's mad as a hatter. I haven't seen queues of skiff sailors begging to get a chance on the Prowler. There is more interest in the kite boards that sail from a nearby beach, because at least they've got shore crew wearing little waiting.

Although here on boatdesign.net there are vocal North American people that are obsessed with performance technology, in reality there really aren't many people here even aware it (foiling, wing sails etc.) exists. Realistically, 95% of North American sailors think of dinghies as kid's toys they send their children to learn sail in before they can be useful citizens working the bow on their keel boats once they grow up.

--
CutOnce

Doug Lord

01-18-2011, 08:33 AM

More and more people all over the world are recognizing the significance of the Moth-and not just from the technical side:

The Moths are a stratospheric class that the world is watching right now with collective gasps of amazement. The intrigue these little boats are causing just can't go un-checked by the Olympic authorities and the dead-heads at ISAF. This class is the key to a brighter future for sailing at all levels and the good they can do for attracting generations going forward into the sport is not to be underestimated or ignored.

from http://www.rule69blog.com/archive/2011/january/1550/

Eralnd44

01-18-2011, 09:26 AM

This more explanation on big words as to post above on rule69 page out of magnus.

"I've been a tub-thumper for the Moth for decades now and they will always feature heavily on this site. I'm an unashamed fan" Is same medicine as to doug lord.
how many are Moth as to Laser. maybe Laser make more to sail on this year than Moth is all time.

Doug Lord

01-18-2011, 10:43 AM

From Phil S on DA today:

Posted 16 January 2011 - 02:29 AM

The status of wings is a bit obscure still.

I have not seen the ISAF wording but my understanding is that wings as such are not banned but the class measurement rules do not say how they should be measured and so they can not be provided with a valid measurement certficate to be class compliant. For Belmont ISAF specified that they be measured by the ISAF Sail Area Manual (as per CCats) and they were allowed to race after they were deemed under size via this method. Now the regatta is over the wings are no longer Moth legal as the ISAF decision has time lapsed.

The construction and design of several wings stirred us enough controversy mid 2010 and highlighted several dicrepancies, inconsistancies and irregularities in the present Class rule wording. Adam initiated discussion in about Sept 2010 to sort these things out, but the Wing legality debate took over all interest and not much progress has occurred.

This process has restarted. I expect the outcome will most likely be two motions to be put forward to IMCA members and member associations. These would likely be

#1. A tidy up of the rules to remove inconsistancies and ambiguities especially with regard to wide wing mast, and by extension wing sails. As these are not presently banned we need to define how they should be measured equitably with present soft sail rigs. Examples are the 50mm luff pocket deduction and the 90mm wing mast area deduction.
#2. A separate vote to decide if and what wings sails should be banned.

If #2 is passed we will need to decide and agree a definition of when a wing mast/soft sail combo becomes a banned wing rig, ie how big a wing mast will be allowed. This one was built for a scow moth in the 1980s so a precident has been set. Its about 500mm wide. A smaller 150mm wide mast competed at Belmont.

If #2 is not passed we will need to decide and agree on what limitation will be applied. For example many moth sailors consider the multi-element wings to be beyond the class restriction of one sail only. Also the present mast length rule far exceeds the sail luff rule and its generally agreed that wing rigs should not exceed the luff limit on the leading edge. I expect that we can include these restrictions in the #1 rule tidy up even if they become redundant (for the time being) as a result of the #2 vote.

The class administration desire that this process be completed before the nothern summer championships like the Euros. Phil S
Moth AUS 3574, My moth Blog
2011 ZHIK Moth Worlds Belmont NSW

wet feet

01-18-2011, 04:04 PM

SteveMellet

01-18-2011, 04:05 PM

Just a small tribute to Rohan Veal the first foiler World Champion and pioneer of the technique where the whole CG of the boat moves to weather sailing upwind-the first boat in sailing history to be able to do this. It is a contribution to sailing that will have tremendous ramifications as larger bi-foilers are developed:

(click on image)

Doug, I know that windsurfers are NOT boats (by the definition of many here), but would it not be correct to credit the windsurfer for showing us how this technique can increase performance by reducing the weight of the sailor carried by the "sailing vessel", and using the inclined rig to produce a lifting force which helps reduce wetted surface area (in the case of the foiling moth, helping it to foil earlier?). If I`m not mistaken, this contribution to sailing was made in the late 70`s/early 80`s.. by millions of recreational windsurfers who had no idea that having a good time on the water was to have such large ramifications on the future of sailing !

Doug Lord

01-18-2011, 04:23 PM

Doug, I know that windsurfers are NOT boats (by the definition of many here), but would it not be correct to credit the windsurfer for showing us how this technique can increase performance by reducing the weight of the sailor carried by the "sailing vessel", and using the inclined rig to produce a lifting force which helps reduce wetted surface area (in the case of the foiling moth, helping it to foil earlier?). If I`m not mistaken, this contribution to sailing was made in the late 70`s/early 80`s.. by millions of recreational windsurfers who had no idea that having a good time on the water was to have such large ramifications on the future of sailing !

---------------------
Steve, you're partly right ,of course. But "veal heel" is something that can only be done only by a bi-foiler(or bi-foiler with power foils) and that is because in addition to using the rig to unload the foils and using the angled main foil to unload the vertical fin "veel heel" moves the CG of the hull to weather. It is the only form of windward heel where the CG of the hull moves physically to windward. Veal heel also functions in 3D since the altitude of the boat has no bearing on the benefits of the technique but varying altitude may produce other benefits independent of veal heel.
From a sailboat design perspective, the use of veel heel can produce increases in RM on the order of 30% on a Moth and 41-2% on a 60' Moth. That is ,basically, "free" RM that requires no crew movement*, no additional weight as well as no movable ballast to achieve**. It is a MAJOR design consideration for large bi-foilers still to come....

* crew can be at max outboard position and by using this technique increase RM dramatically without changing position relative to the boat

** it does require movable ballast to maintain in some cases.

picture from Bill Beavers paper on the Moth-PM me if you'd like a copy...

Doug Lord

01-18-2011, 04:37 PM

Doug, I know that windsurfers are NOT boats (by the definition of many here),.....
=========
Steve, you might find this interesting:

---------------

Here is the US Coast Guard position on sailboards.

USCG on the question:

Q: What is the difference between a "sailboat" and a "sailboard?"

A: While many sailboard manufacturers advertise their products as "sailboats," there are major differences between the two. A sailboat has a fixed mast that the operator does not need to hold up. The design of a sailboat is such that the operator and any passengers can sit down. A sailboard has a free fall system for the sail and mast. In order to sail a sailboard, the operator must stand up and hold up the mast. If a sailboard carries more than one person, it is designed so that each person operates a separate sail while standing on the board.

http://www.windvisions.com/USCGdefinition.html
===================================================

CutOnce

01-18-2011, 04:37 PM

It's a very long time since I last sailed a Moth and the one thing I would not wish upon the class is Olympic selection.A one design foiler might be entertaining for the spectators and the politicians involved in the whole circus could amuse themselves for a very long time agonising over definitions and minutiae.Moth sailors could continue to innovate and have fun for no other purpose than to demonstrate the superiority of their ideas and their sailing ability on the race course.

+1

Don't kill the Moth with the Olympic curse. What Outteridge/Turner did was superior to Olympic medals and the idiotic professional athlete laden circus that surrounds the whole spectacle. The Olympics are just another two week long made-for-television reality program with more fit people than usual.

Five ringed circus indeed. Corrupt leadership. Corrosive to sports. Anyone remember the giant algae sewage basin used for the last Olympic sailing venue? Imagine urine turbocharged green slime and fresh turds on Moth foils?

--
CutOnce

Doug Lord

01-18-2011, 04:43 PM

+1

Don't kill the Moth with the Olympic curse. What Outteridge/Turner did was superior to Olympic medals and the idiotic professional athlete laden circus that surrounds the whole spectacle. The Olympics are just another two week long made-for-television reality program with more fit people than usual.

Five ringed circus indeed. Corrupt leadership. Corrosive to sports. Anyone remember the giant algae sewage basin used for the last Olympic sailing venue? Imagine urine turbocharged green slime and fresh turds on Moth foils?

--
CutOnce

---------------
Bistros, while I tend to agree with wet feet a bit, your post is downright disgusting-a lot of great athletes spend a lot of time in Olympic preparation including Nathan Outteridge-2011 Moth World Champion. Painting all these athletes with your disagreeable brush does a disservice to a lot of people! You should apologize!

49er Olympic Race Results after 6 Races.

49er - Open - Overall Results

Standing Nation Athletes Race-points (highest tossed) - Total (Net)

1 AUS Nathan Outteridge, Ben Austin (DQ) 1 7 3 1 1 - 33 (13)

2 DEN Jonas Warrer,Martin Kirketerp Ibsen 2 4 (10) 4 2 3 - 25 (15)

3 ITA Pietro Sibello, Gianfranco Sibello 3 (9) 1 1 6 9 - 29 (20)

Doug Lord

01-18-2011, 04:57 PM

Great comment by "atg" on DA today:

Enough of the paranoid JSP rhetoric/trolling; anyone can post that stuff on the internet also. This isn't some sort of populist uprising; it is a development class. Similarly, it isn't about preserving the status quo, or maintaining a market for manufacturers, though you seem very committed to some notion you have about what the Class should look like, and how important it should be to look like that, and about which reasons for wanting to sail moths are legitimate. Funny, I don't hear anyone jumping on your bandwagon here. Which "boys" are nominating you their proxy internet spokesperson, precisely?

I happen to believe the burden of proof lies upon you, actually - not proponents of development - to show that wings are impractical, expensive Class killers. So get busy and build one, document your costs, headache, man hours and experiences. Then tell us from an experienced perspective why you don't favor them.

The reason the burden of proof lies upon the naysayers is simple: The stated aim of the Class rules is to allow freedom in the design and construction of faster Moths. That is a fundamental principle that I support. It has nothing to do with how much things cost, how big the class is one year or how small the next. It is, quite simply, about freedom to do what you want to your boat to go fast within the rules. Everything you say about wings was said about foils, and proven false. If you don't like the fact that the Class is development-oriented, then start your own Class, rather than mucking up a Class that has been working well for sixty or seventy years now.

If wings are heavy, expensive, fragile or impractical, there is no better way of proving it than to let some guys build and sail them for awhile. No one really knows what the market will bear in terms of cost, and no one knows how much it costs to make these things yet. No one knows how much they would have to weigh to be robust. So there is a lot to learn before the class can make an informed decision. Nige is spot on when he says the Class is perfectly capable of deciding the matter based upon facts rather than fearmongering.

CutOnce

01-18-2011, 10:47 PM

---------------
Bistros, while I tend to agree with wet feet a bit, your post is downright disgusting-a lot of great athletes spend a lot of time in Olympic preparation including Nathan Outteridge-2011 Moth World Champion. Painting all these athletes with your disagreeable brush does a disservice to a lot of people! You should apologize!

Picturesque Qingdao:

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/world/gallery/2008/jun/30/olympicgames2008/GD7832938@Workers-clean-up-blue-4233.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/world/gallery/2008/jun/30/olympicgames2008/GD7833620@A-man-walks-through-b-5040.jpg

Low paid workers were sent out constantly to rake the hyperfertilized scum off the sailing venue. Sailors were afraid to capsize and swallow the water. No one wanted to train at the venue, and there certainly wasn't any voluntary swimming going on.

My position, without apology is that sailing world championships are far more valuable and objective way to evaluate performance. The Olympics stopped being a valid forum in my opinion when professional athletes were allowed to compete with amateurs. The playing fields are not level. The committees that select venues are for sale, and there is no transparency to their proceedings, "gifts" accepted from bidding countries are not documented. Olympic boat selection is ridiculous and biased - and my home, Canada sponsored Paul Henderson as a senior IOC member - one of the most biased and political problems for boat selection in history. Henderson was also ISAF President during a lot of the time sailing began it's decline.

My post is very honest - and the Olympics are disgusting. When the Olympics are transparent, when team funding and training provides level playing fields and when boat selection is publicly done by people who actively sail competitively instead of partisan dinosaurs with "Buy me!" lapel pins perhaps I'll think better. Don't you remember IOC committees killing multihulls to establish better medal prospects for IOC committee member countries?

My opinions are provided without apology, and who exactly are you to be demanding apologies. How's the build of your boat going? Got any pictures of progress there champ?

--
CutOnce

Doug Lord

01-19-2011, 05:27 PM

Great interview with Charlie McKee about his experience sailing The Wing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZyDlxXSSrM

click on image/ by Thiery Martinez

dylantorquerol

01-19-2011, 07:13 PM

Doug Lord

01-19-2011, 07:27 PM

About the wing: During the 2011 Moth Worlds, all of the three wing sails built for the moth were all snapped/broken within a few races. I think the wing sail is pretty cool, but any ideas how they could make it stronger?
===========
Listen to the video above-McKee says an extra layer of carbon on the leading edge fixed everything-at least that's what it sounded like to me. From a structural standpoint, I'm sure there are numerous minor teething issues that will be resolved over time. From a performance standpoint a lot more work will probably have to be done across the board from design on thru to building and perhaps even optimization of the boat design to the advantages of the wing. For instance, it may be possible to move the daggerboard forward increasing the distance of the main foil from the rudder foil which could enhance pitch stability. Lots to look at-it will be interesting to see if a wing can be made to function well within the constraints of the Moth rules.

Doug Lord

01-20-2011, 04:00 PM

Excellent wand info here: http://wiki.mothosphere.com/index.php?title=Wands

Fairly useful foil info here: http://wiki.mothosphere.com/index.php?title=Foils

Doug Lord

01-20-2011, 08:56 PM

Phil S on DA today, 1/20/11:

Posted Today, 08:14 PM

The moth class has always been a great boat, and its not just foils today which has made it popular with those who sail it and even more popular with the internet sailors who do not. Its small compact, convenient and relatively inexpensive compared to other high performance boats, and it makes good video.

Before the 1970s the class had big numbers in many countries, but then the Laser appeared with a huge international promotion budget and the moth faded as the laser succeeded. The small boat buying public were enticed by the supposed equity of one design and the supposed economy of scale in building high volume product. So by the turn of this century we had 130,000 lasers and only about 250 moths in the world. Foiling did not change much for the next 6 years until AMAC and Rohan started Bladerider and again invested heavilly in promotion. Other people took over the company and even though they sold over 200 Bladeriders, the company went belly up owing a lot of people a lot of money. The Moth market is not the same as the laser market. Mach2 seems to be more successful, winning most regattas since it appeared, they have sold 150 odd boats in a couple of years without adding much to the Bladrider effort in the marketting area. They are being more cautious and seem to have a better product. None of the other moth builders are making many boats at all, less than they were making before Bladerider. There remains maybe fewer than a thousand moths sailors registered with IMCA, I do not have accurate numbers.

So the class is not really as strong as it might appear, spectacular and noteworthy but not really big in numbers. It is still fragile and when people like Steve Clark and Peter(Snubby)Moor advise caution we should at least listen to their opinions. Peter was 1975 Moth WC and PRO for Belmont as well as key person in amalgamation of the International 14 class in the 70s and 80s. He has seen how changes affect class numbers in moths and in I14s.

The Moth class has become a media event. The Belmont regatta looks like breaking about even financially despite generous sponsorship but because we needed to spend much more than was raised in satisfying the media demands of the international public and placing the sponsors names in front of them. For the sailors the regatta could have been exactly the same with no sponsors and no media. We would still have had the same racing, the same champion, the same parties and the same good time. But none of you in internet land would have known much about it. So I hope this big media effort and big spend by the class has the effect of encouraging many of you into buying moths. If not, at some time in the future when we can not afford the media spend you will have to travel yourself to the big regattas to know what is happenning in the class.

If we make a bad decision on the wing vote that time may be sooner than it should be. I like wings and want to build one, but if the IMCA votes to ban them, I will comply for the benefit of this great class. Phil S
Moth AUS 3574, My moth Blog
2011 ZHIK Moth Worlds Belmont NSW

========================================
From Steve Clark on DA today,1/22/11:

Posted Today, 04:14 PM

Actually, the biggest concern I had for Phil was the hope that he could enjoy the worlds and not get all twisted up politically.
The biggest risk is that people overreact, hurt each others feelings, insult each other and generally make it hell to hang around the Moth fleet. Sailing is something we do for enjoyment, if a class stops being fun, it fails. Heated discussions like those surrounding the wing and the worlds have the potential to be far more damaging than the technology ever could be. Ultimately a sailboat class is a group of people who affiliate around an object. The affiliation between the people is more important than the object, although it is never seen that way.
If things are allowed to run their course, the wing will either win on its merits, or remain too impractical to be taken seriously by serious competitor.
The time in between MAY see both wings and sails competing and alternately winning and losing regattas. It is most likely that the "serious" guys will sail the most proven and competitive technology, and the tinkerers and technological enthusiasts will dick around with wings. They may win a regatta or two which might never happen if the alternate technology is banned.
So, in my view, the best outcome is a split decision as long as people can stay enthusiastic and have fun.
SHC
Beatings will continue until morale improves.

=========================
Particularly relevant comment here by Phil S, 1/22/11-considering recent discussion here:

Posted Today, 04:38 PM (emphasis DL)

And Steve we did all have a great time at the regatta. IMCA and ISAF sorted out the wng issue before hand and maybe because they were not as fast as some thought they would be first up, they became a side show and not a focal point. I agree with Steve that if they do not get banned they will likely remain a side show until the top sailors are confident that a serious advantage is available. My opinion too is that it will be a shame if that oportunity is denied.
Phil S
Moth AUS 3574, My moth Blog
2011 ZHIK Moth Worlds Belmont NSW

Doug Lord

02-01-2011, 09:04 PM

Great Moth Wing vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuIDfNuQIPQ&feature=player_embedded

Doug Lord

02-11-2011, 01:16 PM

From Phil S on DA today:

Posted Today, 03:02 AM

This is based on some preliminary discussion amoungst those involved in preparing the IMCA proposals, I do not know if this will be the final way it will go but its what some of us see as the best way to sort out the class issues.

I think there will need to be a 60% majority in favour of the vote to ban wingrigs, or whatever we decide the wording of a wingrig is going to be, rather than a 60% vote to allow them. There will be separate vote to tidy up the rules, some of which ISAF has recommended, which still needs to be done for good equity reasons independant of whether the class alows wing rigs.

If by chance the anti wing people see the tidy up motion wording as allowing wings and if consequently it does not gain the 60% needed, the status quo wrt to our rules will remain. In preparing the proposals and the vote we have to make sure that everyone knows that these are two different issues to be decided by two different votes.

If the vote is against the tidy up proposals then the anomolies and ambiguities in the present rules will remain in force, in fact they will have been endorsed by the lost vote to remove them.

As a result we should expect a lot of weird rigs, like the 6.25m high wing Dave Lister proposed to build for Belmont. It always satified the wording of the rule if not the intent. Only the multi element rig would remain unmeasurable. A no gap wing could still be measured and it could be as tall as the mast length limit. Remember that wing masts with or without sails attached can be measured according to our current rules and several wing masts have existed and been measured over at least 30 years.

So IMCA members please be aware that there are two separate issues, We most certainly need to tidy up our rules and we should all accept the text being prepared by our committee after lots of discussion and consultation about where problems exist. You will also get a vote on wing rig legality and this has to be taken as a separate issue. Both votes need a 60% majority to succeed and the class definately needs the tidy up vote to be successful. Phil S
Moth AUS 3574, My moth Blog
2011 ZHIK Moth Worlds Belmont NSW

Doug Lord

03-01-2011, 08:21 PM

Excellent video-spills at Belmont. Phil S says these crashes were filmed from the committee boat at the end of racing. He says the crashes were-mostly- done as a convenient way of stopping....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwYMr53YpD0&feature=player_embedded

Doug Lord

03-04-2011, 12:39 PM

From Composites Manufacturing, March/April 2011:

The International Yacht Restoration School's newly launched Composites Technology program offers students in-depth instruction in both theory and manufacturing technique. The innovative 9 month program began in September 2010 and is offered at the schools Bristol,R.I. campus according to Henry Elliot an instructor at the school.
Students in the Composites Technology program are building a fleet of Moths. Once launched, the boats will become available to the public at Sail Newport, a local community sailing center.

Doug Lord

05-04-2011, 09:57 PM

Here is a French designed Moth with a stepped hull:

click on image--

Doug Lord

06-02-2011, 08:00 PM

from Scuttlebutt tonight: (emphasis DL)

MOTH NORTH AMERICAN CHAMPIONSHIPS UNDERWAY
By Chris Eriksen

In the world of small-boat racing, there are basically two kinds of boats -
one-design classes and development classes. In a one-design class, each boat
is made as identical to every other boat as possible so that the competition
is among skippers and crews. One-design classes are generally controlled by
strict rules that restrict innovation.

In development classes, however, while the skill of skippers and crews is
hugely important, individual innovation is encouraged within the very basic
rules of the class. An example of this is the International A-class
catamaran. It basically has four rules limiting overall length, width and
sail area, but within those rules generally anything goes.

The International Moth is a long-time development class. Originally created
in the United States, it combined with a similar Australian boat and became
a worldwide class. The class saw the development in Switzerland of hiking
racks or wings that extended the skipper farther outboard for enhanced
stability, a feature now seen on other development and even one-design
boats. A one-design variant of a European Moth became the Europe dinghy,
from 1992 to 2004 the women's single-handed Olympic boat.

But the introduction of hydrofoils onto the daggerboard and rudder of the
Moth has revitalized the class. It is now at the very leading edge of
excitement and challenge in the sport of sailing. And Alamitos Bay has
become a noted center of Moth sailing, hosting this weekend the
International Moth 2011 North American Championship.

The regatta starts Friday, June 3, and runs through Sunday, June 5. What it
lacks in sheer numbers - there ought to be fewer than a dozen boats - they
more than make up for in intensity. Racing a modern "foiling Moth" is a very
intricate balancing act. Controlling the set of the sails, angle of the boat
to the wind and trim of the foils leads to a very fast ride, both upwind and
downwind - but get any of it wrong and the boat will capsize or pitchpole,
often spectacularly. -- Read on: http://tinyurl.com/3pkt5ry

* Even website: http://www.abyc.org/event.cfm?id=412
(sized down gary 6-3-11)

Click on image(Thierry Martinez):

Gary Baigent

06-03-2011, 12:39 AM

You MUST stop shouting, Doug - it's embarrassing - we all know the foiling Moth is an incredible design, no need to crow.

Paul B

06-03-2011, 01:46 AM

And Alamitos Bay has
become a noted center of Moth sailing, hosting this weekend the
International Moth 2011 North American Championship.

Chris is a good guy, but there is some hyperbole in his press release.

ABYC is not a center of Moth activity. I think the last time they had a start in a regatta earlier this year they had about 4 boats. Only one was from ABYC.

This NAs looks like it is shaping up as a 7 boat fleet, with only one from ABYC.

wet feet

06-03-2011, 02:41 PM

I would like a bit more information about chronology of wing development on Moths.Where does "Hannibal Crossing the Alps" fit with the Swiss boats?Or Russell Bowler's boat with the nine foot wingspan?That was the boat that caused a beam limitation rule to be added to the few rules then in existence.

CT 249

06-05-2011, 06:50 AM

Doug Lord

06-05-2011, 08:14 AM

Hey Paul, be fair....the fleet grew to 10 starters....:p

Amazing boats, yes. The future of sailing? Well, in a considerably shorter period simple, cheap classes like the RS Feva and 100 have gone from zero to 40-115 in their nationals. If they keep on growing, the US foilers may even end up being bigger than the '60s design vintage classic Moths......

WF- who created Hannibal??? Chris Eyre?? I know about Russ' boat and the Austin A40 that played a role in the wing limit, but Hannibal only rings a minor bell.
------------------
Foiler Moths have revitalized the Moth class in many areas of the world and continue to draw attention in every venue. The boat is the fastest sailboat under 20' and has begun a revolution in sailboat design that will transform sailing in the years to come with new foiler designs that emphasize ease of sailing, comfort, high performance and user friendliness, etc.
The bi-foiler configuration was unheard of in successful sailboat design just 12 years ago and now has been proven to be the fastest design configuration for a monohull sailboat-and this is only the begining.

wet feet

06-05-2011, 09:28 AM

Hey Paul, be fair....the fleet grew to 10 starters....:p

Amazing boats, yes. The future of sailing? Well, in a considerably shorter period simple, cheap classes like the RS Feva and 100 have gone from zero to 40-115 in their nationals. If they keep on growing, the US foilers may even end up being bigger than the '60s design vintage classic Moths......

WF- who created Hannibal??? Chris Eyre?? I know about Russ' boat and the Austin A40 that played a role in the wing limit, but Hannibal only rings a minor bell.

Mark Dunlop created Hannibal,he designed and built a few very original Moths over the years and Chris Eyre has described him as having a better understanding of hull shapes than almost anybody else in Moth sailing.Somebody really ought to write the complete history of the class.

Paul B

06-06-2011, 11:47 PM

Hey Paul, be fair....the fleet grew to 10 starters....:p

Actually, they had an 11th boat that started one race only.

About half the boats did not complete 20 to 40% of the races.

This points out the same thing we see at many of the "high performance skiff" regattas out here. Usually almost 50% of the boats are just in survival mode. A number of boats are racing. Only about 10-20% of the boats are actually competing.

During an I14 Nationals a few years ago I watched some of the crews totally exhausted at the end of their day (not the end of the racing day) due to multiple capsizes and the effort to keep the boats up. I vividly remember one crew returning early to the dinghy ramp, so exhausted they could not do anything but flop onto the dock and lie there while we helped get their boat on the dolly. I felt bad for those guys. They had bitten off a lot more than they could chew.

The thing that is good to see is when "survivors" come back the next year as "racers". But in a high performance dinghy you have to dedicate a lot of time in the boat to make that happen. Most people don't have the free time and available cash to get into the "competing" category.

Doug Lord

06-26-2011, 04:36 PM

Short trailer for new film about the most significant new dinghy in the last 100+ years:

http://vimeo.com/24748463

Doug Lord

06-28-2011, 02:24 PM

Mach II video from US site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-zWDrlPOo8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.mach2mothusa.com/

petereng

06-28-2011, 05:25 PM

Doug Lord

06-28-2011, 05:49 PM

Hi Doug,
I rarely get involved in political comment, but you must be careful making large statements like "most significant new dinghy in 100 years". The foiling moth represents the pinnackle of a lot of peoples work over the last 50 years. It just becomes possible now due to cumulative and systemic results of political, economic, material, personal endeavours and various other factors that amount to life. There have been many foilers out there since the 60's they just havn't had the home or the purpose to rise to the public level the Moth has achived. The Moth itself is an acheivement but we can acheive more. With the recent Americas Cup exposure of Wings and Cats, a seemingly disconnect with the usual Americas Cup & sailing tradition (if there is in fact an AC tradition) may bode well that Sailing may catch up or finally get in step with technology and modern values. On the 100 year thing if 134 years is close enough Nathanael Hereschoff's catamarans beat all comers in England and the USA. This is by far a more significant vessel than the Moth. It has all the features of a "modern" (vs polynesian cats that have been around for millenia) catamaran with no precedence. It was banned and at that point I think sailing was stunted. Up to that point things were not banned but allowed to develop. Please actually study the history before making statements. I accept some statements made by marketeers, like are being made by the AC45 people with a grain of salt. I forgive marketeers for not doing their research. They live in a world of hype and spin but for us mere mortals I think we can do better. Peter S
===============
Peter, Hereshoffs cat wasn't a dinghy but sure was extraordinary as you say. I think I'll stand by the Moth being the most significant dinghy in the last 100 years.
While there sure were foilers before the Moth their was never a dinghy foiler that sailed on just two foils successfully around a course. There never was an 11' dinghy that consistently beat every small boat under 20' multi or mono.
Back to the two foils thing(bi-foiler configuration): I was told by a major innovator in sailing hydrofoils that a two foil foiler would not work in 1998-it did in 1999.
I think the Moth does deserve this honor because the bi-foiler configuration has opened up a whole new way to sail-and design boats. This configuration is not limited to 11 foot dinghies or 30' dinghies/keelboats or 60' keelboats-we haven't begun to see the potential unleashed by this development. Keelboats on just two foils that use veal heel to develop 40% of their righting moment-not possible before the Moth . Two in-line foils used on a small trimaran or catamaran to lift the main hull early and control the sailing angle and pitch angle is another area of application of the technology.
It is an extraordinary development whose ramifications are not yet fully appreciated by most sailors or designers.
100 years is a good round figure that I think really does apply here. And it is significant history that we are lucky enough to see unfolding right before our eyes.

petereng

06-28-2011, 06:15 PM

Doug Lord

06-28-2011, 06:30 PM

Hi Doug... I shall make political comment even rarer now! On another matter, there was a Moth Analysis article I think by a british tech person and they put a Moth and a dummy in a wind tunnel. I had a copy some time ago but I lost it on an old computer. Do you know where it is or maybe you have a copy? I've searched and searched the internet but can't find it. I may start on a Moth since I have been involved with one over the last few weeks. Doug, I'm one of those characters that over the years have been told by many people various things won't work or are impossible but have made them work. All things are possible except backwards time travel. But I'm very open to be proven wrong on that one. Peter S :) (PS-fwd time travel is possible).
===============
Peter, I strongly urge you to take a hard look at the bi-foiler configuration in applications on larger boats including keelboats. Pay particular attention to "Veal heel" sometimes called "weather heel" by the unconverted. Veal heel can only happen on a bi-foiler on foils-it is the only form of weather heel that actually moves the CG of the hull to windward along with everything else. It can generate up to 40+ % of the RM on any boat that is able to use it-that is a colossal breakthru in design.
Here is your paper(if you have any trouble let me know-I can e-mail it to you):

CT 249

06-28-2011, 07:12 PM

Hi Doug,
With the recent Americas Cup exposure of Wings and Cats, a seemingly disconnect with the usual Americas Cup & sailing tradition (if there is in fact an AC tradition) may bode well that Sailing may catch up or finally get in step with technology and modern values. On the 100 year thing if 134 years is close enough Nathanael Hereschoff's catamarans beat all comers in England and the USA. This is by far a more significant vessel than the Moth. It has all the features of a "modern" (vs polynesian cats that have been around for millenia) catamaran with no precedence. It was banned and at that point I think sailing was stunted. Up to that point things were not banned but allowed to develop.

Peter;

Herreshoff's cats were definitely not banned. Amaryllis was disqualified from only one race. That may appear harsher to us, in the 21st century, than it did to those in the 19th century who were faced with the arrival of a completely different type of craft into a race full of boats that had developed from working boats and were often later sold as working boats. It was perhaps similar to a Formula 1 car appearing at a time when every previous racing car had been developed from trucks.

The cats were raced by several yacht club commodores and were allowed to race even by the New York Yacht Club, whose founder was a cat pioneer. The cats raced in their own class but that was 1000% normal - at that time schooners only raced other schooners, catboats only raced other catboats, sloops only raced other sloops, etc.

The cats were treated just like Canoes, Raters, scows and almost all other types in that they were expected to race among their own type. Their treatment was actually much more welcoming than that of proas (which were banned from races by organisations such as those that run the French trans-Atlantic races and the NZ Multihull Yacht Club) or foilers (banned by such open classes as the As) or even tris (not allowed to race in the A,B,C or D class).

Even if the cats HAD been banned by the NY club, there are indications that such a ban would not have stopped their progress. Centreboards had been banned in the UK (early centre of yacht racing) but that did not stop them from racing in the USA. Sliding planks were banned on UK canoes because they were too hard to use on the canoe's home waters, but that did not stop them from being used in the USA. Cats were raced and sailed in New Orleans, the Great Salt Lake, Sydney and other places. Being banned from one city in a big wide world does not stop people in other areas from sailing a type, just as the fact that the ban on sandbaggers in NY did not stop people from Sydney sailing similar boats.

Considering that the very early cats had been pioneered or encouraged by such extremely wealthy and/or influential people as the founder of the NYYC and owner of America; King Charles II; Samuel Pepys, sometimes known as the father of the Royal navy; William Petty, member of the world's greatest scientific body of the time; the Commodore of the New Jersey Yacht Club; the President of the Mattituck Boating Club, and the Commodore of the Atlantic Yacht Club (power cat) it is surely impossible to say that they were discriminated against.

The very first regatta of the National Yachting Association of the United States in NY included a cat division, which got MORE prize money per boat than any other. It was stated at the time that the committee even tried to find a cat that could compete with Amaryllis in speed. When a national association gives more money and tries to get more entries for cats, it's hardly banning them or discouraging them.

It is incorrect to say "up to that point things were not banned but allowed to develop." Shifting ballast in large yachts had been banned after the Mohawk disaster in the USA, and for some time previously in the UK. Centreboards had been banned by some major clubs in Australia some time before the cats came out. Many boats were "banned" from classes they did not fit into - cutters were "banned" from racing with schooners most of the time.

Nat Herreshoff himself said that cats would not "displace our ordinary style of yachts". He also said that cats were not suited for extended cruising. He later wrote the Universal Rule for monos to prevent excessive development of light scow types. In other words, Herreshoff was actually regularly in FAVOUR of bans. He did not ask for cats to take over, only for "a club and an annual regatta" for cats. Francis Herreshoff was actually quite critical of cats in some ways.

Nat Herreshoff got MORE than he asked for. Instead of discouraging cats, many of the most influential sailors got into them. Instead of being banned, they were treated at least as well as other craft. Instead of getting one annual regatta, they were welcomed into many.

The cats were NOT banned - that is the simple and plain truth.

Secondly, it would be interesting to find any true basis for saying that sailing is "out of step with technology and modern values". Sailing has long been up with Formula 1, for example, in its use of materials such as carbon fibre. Commercial airliners are only recently getting around to using advanced composites in the way sailboats have been doing for decades.

Not only that, where is the evidence that incorporating modern technology to increase performance actually improves the sport? Most sailors are fairly smart, pretty knowledgeable and experienced. They mostly choose slower, simpler, cheaper craft. Unless one is arrogant enough to assume that one (for some unknown reason) is definitely better at working out what other people should sail than they are, shouldn't we accept that they choose to sail what suits them best?

In this way, maybe the NY cats died out (as they did) for reasons that are not discreditable to anyone? That's the impression I get from spending hours reading the LF Herreshoff letters, as well as occasional independent information such as the history of the New Orleans YC and early cats from Foy, Mander etc. There was no conspiracy, no hate, no power-broking, no anti-development attitude- it was just that at that time intelligent open-minded people found that monohull sailing generally suited them better as a leisure pursuit.

That doesn't mean that modern cats are worse, or better, than monos. It just means that at the time they did not attract enough interest.

PS - I agree with your point to Doug - Moths are great, but to call them the most significant class for 100 years is a stretch.

PPS - what Herreshoff cat sailed in the UK and beat all comers?

petereng

06-28-2011, 07:17 PM

Hi Doug - Thank you for the paper. I appreciate the application of weather heel on the Moth. Unfortunately it is not a scalable or generalisable (if thats a word) virtue. It is a solution that fits a circumstance and a particular set of boat rules.

What I am trying to say is that Sailing as a sport is very inhibited in its potential. Unfortunately all sports are the same. Its the nature of sport vs utility. Cars are far more advanced and continue to advance because we see the benefit (maybe) in the advancement economically. In terms of being an athlete there is no benefit in advancing a boats design. We can prove whether one sailing "athlete" is better than the other with a hanky and a log vs 2 of the most advanced sailing boats on the planet. When sailing boats were linked to economic development they progressed on a daily basis. If something could be done easier or cheaper then it happened as it made sense. Once it became a sport its modus operandi had to change. Its the same in motorsport and bicycles and nearly any equipment oriented sport, especially sports linked to the Olympics. For many years I built bicycles for elite athletes and Olympians. I was pushing the boundaries of design for the athelete so they could go faster or at least think they could go faster. It was and will continue to be a problem balancing what an athlete "is" and can do vs what the equipment does for that athlete (its the same debate as the drug debate). I notice that in many of the press releases and videos about the current Americas Cup they refer to the sailors as athletes. They are trying to decouple the old expectations/perceptions and images of what sailors where and bring the new viewers perceptions into line with what we think modern professional sports people are (maybe). ie Athletes not sailors. Its possible to build a wonderful and fast sail boat right now. But it has to have a purpose, an arena, a job to do, then there has to be a will to do it and the resources and determination to realise it. Then anything is possible. When fuel becomes expensive or scarce perhaps we will see freightor sailboats plying the seas again and I bet they wont be square riggers made from timber! Lecture ends here. Peter S

petereng

06-28-2011, 07:27 PM

Doug Lord

06-28-2011, 07:28 PM

Hi Doug - Thank you for the paper. I appreciate the application of weather heel on the Moth. Unfortunately it is not a scalable or generalisable (if thats a word) virtue. It is a solution that fits a circumstance and a particular set of boat rules.

====================
Peter, veal heel works on any bi-foiler from 36" to 60' on up IF you can initiate it and control it-which can be done.

CT 249

06-28-2011, 08:13 PM

Hello CT 249, and thank you for the information. I was reading an article by Nathaniels son and he used the word "banned". He said his father was most dissapointed in the attitude of many people towards his cats. Nathaniel was definitely a genius and it's clear this did not stop him from doing what he did. Its fair to have different classes of racing boats and this is natural. I have no political agenda here it seems I'll have to do more reading up on sailing history. Peter S

Hi Peter, and thanks for taking my essay the right way! I love multis (we sold the cat some time ago but I'm currently sailing a 9m tri in shorthanded events) but as you note they don't suit everyone.

Yes, LF's Herreshoff's use of the term "banned" (while often quoted) is incorrect, and also at odds with his later remarks on why the cats of the time died out, as contained in the Mystic Seaport Museum archives. There's also a mention of articles by Nat and his brother on cats in The Rudder and Yachting in 1947 which could produce some interesting info on what happened; I must track them down one day.

I've only found out this stuff since information such as LF Herreshoff's letters and the archives of the NY Times were put on line, so I can understand why earlier generations believed the incorrect story that cats were banned.

I can understand why the story is popular, because it's a great story - it's got a neat conclusion, it contains a plot, it has conspiracies, heroes and villians - it's just wrong!:)

Gary Baigent

06-28-2011, 08:48 PM

CT249, since I haven't read the archival stuff on Amaryllis, give you benefit of doubt on banishment or not. However, there was in Christchurch, on the estuary, way back in 1933 a catamaran designed and built by the clever and innovative Stanley Mander (father of medalist Peter Mander) who built an 18 foot catamaran which sailed so fast that no-one was interested in racing against it for it could do three laps of the estuary course to other centreboarders two. And that may be closer to the reaction of sailors in the US ... the catamarans were so fast they ostracized themselves; still happening today - but there are more enlightened sailors about to counteract inherent yachting conservatism. But I bet, "no-one was interested" was highly euphemistic - because we know from today's reactions, there is considerable anger/mouth frothing created by "the faster, cleverer design." Plus ca change plus .....

CT 249

06-28-2011, 11:15 PM

I don't think there's any doubt on the historical record, Gary. Outing magazine, the NY Times, and LFH's records all confirm that cats were not banned and in fact received the same treatment as other types. The Man himself, Nat Herreshoff, was happy to say that cats would not dominate and that "freaks" (to use his term) should be banned even if they were "faster, cleverer" designs.

Sure, some may froth at "faster, cleverer designs", but there is also a large amount of people who slag off others by insulting slower boats, thereby arrogantly assuming that their own tastes are better. If people feel that they can slag off slower or older boats, surely they can't complain if slow- or old-boat sailors slag them off as well?

To say that there is "inherent yachting conservatism" could be seen to be implying that there is a superior or value-free vantage point from which one can judge how well yachting reacts to technological development. I'm not sure, personally, whether any such vantage point exists. For example, to assume that a craft that is faster is therefore a superior craft is a value-based judgement. To say that people are "conservative" in their attitude to development implies that they are wrong - yet how often do we have a reasoned, constructed argument to demonstrate the alleged error? Normally it's an accusation with no logical foundatiion.

The fact that you refer to "more enlightened sailors" indicates that you think that others are less enlightened and therefore inferior. I still don't believe that it is right to call other people inferior because their personal tastes differ from yours..... that seems basically extraordinarily arrogant. I never want to sail a Heron but if Joe Blow does, the best of luck to him - why assume that he's not enlightened?

The tale of the Mander cats seems to demonstrate that a certain type may not succeed for reasons that have nothing to do with conservatism, or prejudice, or the merits of the type. Peter Mander says that his dad's cat was (if I recall correctly) "no fun for him" because it could do three laps of the course - it wasn't that it was no fun for other competitors. His brief account (and, I think, the brief mention in the CYC history) do not say there was any prejudice against the cat - Mander specifically denies that he was prejudiced against cats but he personally preferred to race other, slower, boats.

There is no evidence that the Mander cats stopped racing because of conversatism, or prejudice - they just did not achieve the desired object of providing the most enjoyable racing experience for their owner.

Peter Mander can be seen as a classic case. He had been brought up with cats, he specifically denied being prejudiced against them, but he preferred to sail slower craft of a different sort. What's wrong with that?

To bring the conversation around full circle - it seems that for these reasons, it's hard for some of us to see the Moth (or perhaps any boat) as the biggest advance for 100 years. Given what most people choose to sail and for an array of practical reasons (i.e. many people sail on small and fluky waterways where most people find a fast boat is a PITA) to isolate one high-speed boat as "the biggest advance" could be seen to be using very narrow criteria.

Gary Baigent

06-29-2011, 12:20 AM

Some good points CT - BUT (and this is not relating to their family's catamaran but with Z Class dinghies), the Mander boys came from a unique sailing family, original thinking was encouraged by their free thinking father and they grew up designing special dinghies. Graham Mander was considered “a clever, shifty chap” because of his “suspicious” backyard modifications to his Z Class Takapuna dinghy. Peter wrote later in his biography, “Even though literature on overseas yachting development invariably came from Britain, the Northern Hemisphere influence amongst sailors here is minimal – and the reason that multitudes of overseas dinghy designs are not here is because they are duller than comparable craft sailing in New Zealand.” Notice the word duller, which to to me, means slowness, plodding and so on, the opposite of sparkling and speed.
This attitude was not accepted by Anglophiles here and the Manders were construed as, “Upstart estuary people with their deplorable bunch of butter boxes.” This had no effect on the brothers who were full of bright schemes, were hard sailors but they were seen as a threat to established behaviour of the day and some blatant victimization occurred regarding their altered Idle Along when members of an Auckland regatta conference were determined to get the boat rejected – and were successful.
Now this is with slower, acceptable Takapuna dinghies, yet we see the same old reactionary response. Enlightenment, in my book, has nothing to do with superiority, as you imply, simply means that some are open to new thought or even radical thought - without it becoming a threat to those who paranoiac-like, take it as an attack on their reason for being.

Doug Lord

07-14-2011, 08:11 AM

from Scuttlebutt Europe today:

Zhik 2011 Moth Nationals Heralds a New Champion

Stokes Bay provided what is surely one of the most memorable Moth National Championships and certainly a talking point for many years to come. With conditions ranging from 25knots and big confusing sea state to shifty marginal winds against a strong tide, many of the competitors were pushed to new levels in trying to adapt.

The man who managed to adapt best and put together an excellent regatta was ex Olympian, ex Moth National Champion and newly crowned 2011 National Champion Jason Belben.

Saturday became the turning point of the event with winds again in the early 20s and a very confused sea state that saw carnage at the windward mark. As the leaders rounded, many following found themselves unable to bear off for the downwind leg and most of the top 15 pitchpoled around he spacer mark providing a minefield to negotiate as well as the difficult swell and chop.

After two races it was decided to abandon racing for the day with so many broken boats and sailors.

Sunday and final race day, the competitors were greeted with a flat Stokes Bay and a gentle 8 knots on the course which would present a completely different set of challenges to the sailors.

This would be where tactics, flawless boat handling and equipment would decide the winner.

The final race was won convincingly by Jason. So after many years of Simon Payne (Mach 2) dominating, Jason Belben is crowned National Champion (Aardvark Ninja) using the latest iteration of Ellway foils.

Top 10 final standings:

Jason Belben (Stokes Bay SC)
Arnaud Psarofaghis (Switzerland)
Chris Rashley (Royal London Yacht Club/ Stokes Bay SC)
Simon Payne (Hayling Island SC)
Mike Lennon (Hayling Island SC)
Richard Lovering (Hayling Island SC)
Ricky Tagg (Hayling Island)
Pete Barton (Lymington Town SC)
Tom Offer (Rock SC)
Jason Russell (Hayling Island SC)

Doug Lord

07-21-2011, 09:50 PM

Good video from Germany: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xR-CW_053Y
Mostly light air....

Doug Lord

07-22-2011, 09:00 AM

Heres another really neat video from the front page of SA this morning:
http://vimeo.com/26566231

Karl Wittnebel

09-10-2011, 10:02 PM

Um, Paul B if you were there, you know that the reason so many boats didn't complete more races is because there was f-all wind for most of them, and many of the sailors weren't willing to race in that condition. The top three places were taken by people weighing less than 165lb, mostly because they were the only ones who could reliably foil. It had nothing to do with anyone being in "survival mode".

Who decided who was"racing" and who was "competing"? You?

Moths can be a handful for a variety of reasons. In this case however, the reality of our regatta had very little to do with the point you are trying to make. Sure, development classes are challenging. Sure, they are expensive. and yes, they will never dominate popular sailing in terms of numbers. But when you "feel bad" for sailors who have been in serial capsize mode all day but return to the dock with a great story, what are you really saying about yourself? That you don't think trying and failing is ever justified in dinghy sailing? If so, that's rather pathetic, and precisely the wrong message to send to younger sailors. If I had to pick a role model, forgive me for reaching a little higher:

The Man in the Arena
is the title of a speech given by Teddy Roosevelt at the Sorbonne in Paris, France on April 23, 1910. It was subsequently re-printed in his book Citizenship in a Republic.

The speech is notable for the extended passage:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
__________________

There are plenty of challenging recreational activities I am happy to let others undertake. But I will never fault them for trying - to me a sailor who collapses on the dock after a day's sailing deserves some measure of admiration and encouragement - not sympathy.

Peace,
Karl

Actually, they had an 11th boat that started one race only.

About half the boats did not complete 20 to 40% of the races.

This points out the same thing we see at many of the "high performance skiff" regattas out here. Usually almost 50% of the boats are just in survival mode. A number of boats are racing. Only about 10-20% of the boats are actually competing.

During an I14 Nationals a few years ago I watched some of the crews totally exhausted at the end of their day (not the end of the racing day) due to multiple capsizes and the effort to keep the boats up. I vividly remember one crew returning early to the dinghy ramp, so exhausted they could not do anything but flop onto the dock and lie there while we helped get their boat on the dolly. I felt bad for those guys. They had bitten off a lot more than they could chew.

The thing that is good to see is when "survivors" come back the next year as "racers". But in a high performance dinghy you have to dedicate a lot of time in the boat to make that happen. Most people don't have the free time and available cash to get into the "competing" category.

Doug Lord

09-11-2011, 09:09 AM

Very well done ,Karl!
----------------
Next weekend in Switzerland is a sort of test race(as I understand it) involving three cats and a Moth. I'll follow it in this thread: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/test-race-39658.html

Doug Lord

09-27-2011, 07:46 PM

From Scuttlebutt tonight:

STATE OF THE CLASS

Ever since foils were added to the International Moth in 2003, the class
has been elevated both literally and figuratively. Growth in the U.S. was
flying high for the 2009 CST Composites Moth World Championship in Cascade
Locks, Oregon, where 33-year old Bora Gulari became the first American in
33 years to win the title.

Now two years later, Scuttlebutt checked in with class promoters Matt
Knowles and Anthony Kotoun who file this report on the State of the Class:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Moth class in the US is in a good place right now, but we also have
work to do. First, our strengths: we have small but growing fleets
scattered around the US (mostly Southern California, the Pacific NW,
Newport, and Annapolis areas), we have a number of US sailors who have
demonstrated that they can compete internationally at the highest level,
and we have an even bigger group of dedicated Moth sailors who are doing
lots of racing and pushing the development envelope at every turn.

Perhaps the best thing we have is lots of Moth sailors out there just
enjoying the foiling experience. The thrill of foiling has attracted many,
and the word is spreading! The boat itself is also a strength. A new Moth
is a turn-key operation that -- with a few hours assembly -- can be foiling
well straight out of the box. The boats are getting faster, way more
reliable, and easier to sail every day.

But we also have challenges. Above all else, we need to increase the rate
of growth in our fleets to sustain more local and regional racing. While
the fact that the boats are insanely easy to ship around makes traveling a
breeze, having more local and regional races will solidify the class. Part
of the challenge is convincing folks with older foiling Moths that they
should not stay on the sidelines just because they are not riding the
latest & greatest. Likewise, we need to continue to pull new people into
the class.

Things are going in the right direction. 10 years ago, the US Moth class
was dead. Today, it is growing. The challenge for the class now is to keep
up the momentum. So how do we get to where we want to go? Here is our
three-part plan: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/11/0913/

Doug Lord

10-06-2011, 10:35 AM

As I read the following wing rigs with slots are out!

http://www.moth-sailing.org/download/2011_RulesWorkingGroupNotice3.pdf

peterchech

10-06-2011, 05:29 PM

Back to practical... I follow all these foiling threads silently, because I have nothing to really contribute but learn so much by reading. And I love the concept of foils generally. Buuuuut.... I don't have lots of cash, and so probably couldn't buy a new foiling moth or even just the foils. And honestly, fabricating precise carbon fiber foils is almost certainly beyond my ability (I'm the after work stitch and glue type of builder if you know what I mean...)

So... is there any application of all this wonderful foiling technology to a backyard builder on a modest budget?

Or will I just have to wait until that day in the possibly far away future when foiling catches on big time, then buy used 20 years afterwards lol? Hell, the price of used multihulls is STILL sky high compared to monos, so I can only imagine how long I'll have to wait to afford a foiler...

Doug Lord

10-06-2011, 05:41 PM

Peter, there are companies that sell production foils-you can just build the boat. I would think that getting used Moth foils might be possible now since a lot of the old foils have been improved upon.
But setting up a foiler-any monofoiler or multifoiler-requires really good instruction/plans. I'm not aware of plans for any complete foilers available anywhere. If you're serious write to John Ilett( "fastacraft", Perth ,Australia)-he might be helpful. You could also go to the International Moth Class site and contact some of the other manufacturers just to see what they say.
The R Class guys are building there own foils and might sell a set.
HydroSail(Bradfields Company) sells foils for larger boats including for the Osprey but they're pretty expensive.

Doug Lord

11-10-2011, 09:33 PM

Looks like wing sails with slots are out.
http://www.moth-sailing.org/imca/faces/news.jsp

Doug Lord

01-10-2012, 09:29 AM

The records / pioneers page has theoretically been updated on the International Moth site.
1) Under the heading of "Pioneer" the name of John Ilett is missing! It was Ilett that adapted Bradfields wand altitude control system to the Moth in a unique way that paved the way forward for every modern Moth.
This is a flat disgrace.
2) One of the most important techniques in sailing a Moth(or any bi-foiler) is "veal heel" pioneered by Rohan Veal. No mention of this on the pioneers page or anywhere else!!! Not only is this a technique unique to bi-foilers(not just the Moth) it is a technique that allows an increase in RM(righting moment) with no increase in weight on the order of 20-40%. It is not just "weather heel", it is a technique possible only on bi-foilers where the CG of the hull(and everything else) moves significantly to weather. And thats not the only advantage of "veal heel": the daggerboard is unloaded since the hydrofoil is developing lateral resistance in addition to vertical lift. This makes ventilation of the vertical fin(daggerboard) much less likely. And from Bill Beaver: it allows a lift component from the sail and shifts the helmsmans weight closer to the water decreasing the impact of his/her wind shadow and putting him/her in a slower moving part of the wind boundary layer.
Its a damn shame that such important elements of the pioneering history of the Moth foiler have been ignored by the very class that benefits most from these discoveries!

http://www.moth-sailing.org/imca/faces/Records.jsp

Illett is mentioned in the very last sentence on this page: http://www.moth-sailing.org/imca/faces/History.jsp;jsessionid=92EA944BBFB8F7EAA70F11D3A189AD75

-----------------
There is a rumor on the UK Moth site that the peak speed class record is now 33 knots(37.95mph). When I find the story(if any) I'll ask Jeff to update the title of this thread.
----

Pictures,L to R : 1) by James Boyd of the Daily Sail, 2) by "kit" from SA Miami winter series 2012, 3) from Bill Beaver illustrating RM gain from veal heel, 4) Veal Heel sketch-click on image for clarity 5) Rohan Veal from Lake Garda: