Peoples Foiler II-the newest boats [Archive]

Doug Lord

06-21-2007, 09:29 PM

This is going to be about new developments in monofoilers(other than the Moth) 20' and under more or less. Just saw this really interesting monofoiler on SA-still awaiting details:
Foiler for "Normal" Sized People?? - Sailing Anarchy Forums- Post #141:
Address:http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55578&pid=1230022&st=100&
UPDATE-6/22- boat apparently foils upwind and downwind and originates in the UK. Max speed so far 18knots. 10 hours sailing so far. About 8 knots breeze required for 87kg(191 lb.) crew to take off.
Notice the TWO vertical fins at the daggerboard position:
index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=46009
Address:http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=46009
-------------------
RS600FF-RS600FF - you'll believe a boat can fly!
Address:http://www.sailingtalk.com/RS600FF.html Changed:5:03 PM on Wednesday, June 20, 2007
-------------------
Foiling 18-Here is last years thread.Stay tuned because there may be a new thread at any time since there are now TWO bi-foil 18's. Not really a PF candidate but proof that boats bigger than a Moth can foil well:
foiling 18 - Boat Design Forums
Address:http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13513&highlight=Foiling+18
-------------------
The original thread is here:
Peoples Foiler :aeroSKIFF™ / M4 - Boat Design Forums
Address:http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10671&highlight=Peoples+Foiler

Doug Lord

06-21-2007, 10:13 PM

I think a Peoples Foiler will have to take off in the lightest possible wind. Too much of the country has under 10 knot winds so the boat needs to take off in something like a 5 knot breeze. Top end speed doesn't mean much at all when compared to being able to fly in light air in many parts of the country.
The second most important thing for any Peoples Foiler would be a very wide crew weight range-and it can be done. It may even be THE MOST IMPORTANT characteristic of a Peoples Foiler because it would be an extraordinary marketing tool as well as add a lot to the experience of racing these boats. Word of mouth alone would sell a foiler that had this designed in capability-more so than top end speed by a long shot.
==================================

"Peoples Foiler" compared with a Moth:

1)LOA Moth hull: 11' PF hull: 14.6'
-------------------------------
2) BOA Moth 7.1' PF: 12'
------------------------------
3)SA Moth 86 sq.ft. PF: 143 sq.ft.
------------------------------
4)Allup Sailing Weight:
Moth: 206lb. with Veal on board
PF: 340 lb. with a 220lb crew
-----------------------------
5) Mainfoil Area: Moth 1.07sq.ft.(2years old)
PF: 1.72 sq.ft.
----------------------------
6) Foil Loading/mainfoil only based on 80% of allup weight: Moth: 154 lb.sq.ft.
PF: 158 lb.sq.ft.(variable area with tip extensions)

7)Wetted Surface/hull only:
Moth: 14.29sq.ft.
PF: 21.6 sq.ft.
--------------------------
8)THE RATIOS:
a.length to beam: Moth: 10.1/1
PF: 11.2/1

b.SA/wetted Surface Moth: 6.01/1
PF: 6.72/1

c.SA/sq.ft. of mainfoil area:
Moth: 80.37
PF: 83.14
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The PF has BETTER ratio's than the Moth in every catagory and that means a boat using these numbers as targets and refined for the same amount of time a Moth has been would be at least as fast if not a bit faster WITH A 220 LB. CREW. And it would take off in AT LEAST as light a wind as a Moth does but because the class rules allow foil tip extensions it could be reconfigured in less than 5 min to take off even earlier.
This design and these comparisons are predicated on the idea of using a 220lb max crew weight and a well designed, well thought out, effective weight control/ RM control system. But what if you took the extra weight off and a 160- 180 pounder got on this thing for some speed sailing. You'd have huge potential for some mind bogling speeds. Remember: this foiler would be designed to perform at least as well as a Moth with a 220 pounder on board.....

frosh

06-22-2007, 10:44 PM

Yet another attempt by Doug to push his absurd and obviously unpopular concept of the " peoples foiler". Doug, I suggest that you desist from starting more threads in attempt to convince all other forum members that we really need a foiler in our boat stable. I also suggest that you consider the meaning of the word- OXYMORON. Try this link then to assist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

PI Design

06-25-2007, 03:40 AM

Foiling early isn't an especially difficult challenge is it? You just use big foils. Sure, top end speed may suffer but that's not a problem in a one-design class.
The real problem is problem is making the boat simple enough to launch, sail, land and right from a capsize. And making it robust enough. I can't envision any foiler design that will ever equal a 'normal' boat on those scores, and it is those factors that make a 'peoples' boat. The laser must be the benchmark for any 'peoples boat'. It is simple to rig (albeit a lighter mast would be nice), simple to sail, simple to get back ashore, easy to right, cheap to own, easy to store and maintenance free etc.
To my mind the biggest single issue to be resolved is rigging. There are too few places in the world where it is possible to drag a boat into waist deep water, tip it over and insert the foils from underneath. And then do this in reverse when you want to come ashore.

Doug Lord

06-25-2007, 06:59 AM

Pi, dragging a boat out to insert foils from underneath is a MOTH thing-it is NOT a characteristic of dinghy foilers. In fact the Bladerider has retractable foils -it is just too unstable to take full advantage of them. A Peoples Foiler with buoyancy pods solves that problem-among others.

PI Design

06-25-2007, 07:10 AM

Hi Doug,

I didn't realise the Bladerider had retractable foils. How does it work - is the hull recessed where the daggerboard slot is to let the foil be pulled up flush with the hull? And does that mean you have to store the boat with the daggerboard in the fully raised position (as opposed to removed from the hull)?

Doug Lord

06-25-2007, 07:22 AM

Pi, the foil just pulls up untill the t-foil joint hits the bottom. I haven't read of Bladeriders being left with the foils in the boat but I guess they could be. The problem is that the Bladerider design apparently requires that the linkages to the mainfoil flap be hooked up after the foil is lowered and the boat is too unstable to do that while sitting in the boat. On my first bi-foiler the linkages remained hooked up and the boat was trailered with the foils in the retracted position.
I'm not positive but I think the RS600FF foils are retractable.

Doug Lord

07-14-2007, 10:09 PM

At this point the Peoples Foiler and what it might be is as much a subject of philosophy as anything else. Well known Mothie and techno-experimenter Doug Culnane has made some interesting comments on his blog:

Doug Culnane's Blog
Wednesday, 13 June 2007

"It seams like the Moth Class is gathering momentum faster and faster than anyone could predict, (and there have been some what seamed like outrageous predictions). Are we seeing the start of a new sport like kite surfing? If we are then it means bringing the Moth to the masses, which is part of what the Bladerider is trying to do. (I think but it is not too clear to me.)
If the masses are to sail Moths then we will have to see if they are ready for it. There is a big difference between a Moth and a normal production boat. The amount of material in the layup is totally different. There is no way to make a competitive Moth as robust as a Laser. So if masses of people are to get into hydrofoiling then they have to evolve to be able to handle these racing machines. Maybe this is what is happening.
Maybe what is happening is the same thing that happened with Asymmetric spinnakers, trapeze boats, planing hulls, aluminum masts, plywood... If it is we will see 20 different one design production hydrofoil boats popping up soon. This will give people the benefit of one design racing, where you can race in a handicap fleet of 20 very different boats, and be held to ransom by your one supplier...
In the mean time the Moth is continuing to show where it is at. Check out the worlds preview there will be around 70 boats from 15 different countries. http://www.moth-sailing.org/worlds/2007_italy.xml There are loads of new boats, and designs. A lot of the boats are very different, I can not wait to go round the boat park with my tape measure, and camera.
If you still do not think the Moth is on a big hype mode at the moment check the IMCA site stats at: http://www.moth-sailing.org/statistics/. These always peak around the worlds but lets see how much they peak around these worlds."

*
*

Chris Ostlind

07-14-2007, 11:34 PM

So, OK....

The Dougster (as in Culnane) invites us to go to the Moth site and eyeball the web hit stats in order to support the comments that the class is eye-popping in its growth.

Well, the data for the period around the Worlds certainly are impressive, though the stats are fraught with potential misconceptions.

Lots of hits do not tell anything about the numbers of actual individuals who "shopped" the pages during that period. They only indicate the numbers of times the pages were hit during the period. Monster numbers alone only indicate that the page hits, which could easily be accounted for by repeat visits by a group of interested followers, are being registered, not by whom and to what frequency for each individual. Day after day, these guys hit the pages numerous times and BAM... you've got what looks ike a storm of interest.

Me? Why gosh, call me old fashioned, but what hits me more about the whole foiling enterprise in this web data is the fact that month after month the numbers are flat in the toilet for general interest. They only get to entry level phenom respectable when the Worlds took place and then, as you can clearly see, they head back to the nether regions to park themselves for another boring go-round till next year.

This bad news is sobering for anyone willing to see past the fluff. I'm especially pointing to the rather severe dip in the hits in the month of December. Keep in mind that December is summer time in the SoHemi and Australia is the home of this class of boats. If folks in the OZ summer, when the sailing is warmest, are disinterested like these numbers show, then what does that say for the sport and its so-called phenom buzz?

Just curious, but what kinds of hit data are available for the just finished AC event? Anybody have that? You want to see some numbers that blow the roof off? When that data comes public, you'll see why I refer to this foil class as obscure.

Now here's one for ya... There's been lots of talk about the next generation of foiler and how it will instantly obsolete the current boats. There's gonna be an awful lot of pissed-off boys out there when they find out that the $14K+ hotrod they just bought is now no better than mid grunge level and they have to try to dump the current and relatively new ride in order to keep themselves from being tubed badly. An instant, thousands of dollars, loss in that fundamental element... cash.

That's a sure fire way to chase those young, marginal spenders out of the sport and create a level of buzz that has F-You! written all over it. Oh there'll be hype about foiling all right... can't wait to see it.

Trevlyns

07-15-2007, 03:53 AM

Quote Frosh [Another one should bite the dust!]

I must cross swords with you on this one mate! ;) I also used to be a traditionalist but through these forums, and having an open mind, I’m beginning to see the light. :cool:
Advances in sailing technology are inevitable and judging by responses to this (and other) threads, others agree too.
Doug Lord, I applaud you! Keep up the good work lad. :p

frosh

07-15-2007, 06:10 PM

Hi Trev F. You can cross swords with me, no worries mate! I stick by my original contention that although the foiler Moth and any offshoots are an interesting side branch of high performance sailing evolution, the lookers will outweigh the buyers by a factor of much more than 1000 to 1. Compare this to Kite Surfing, where the numbers have grown hugely in the last 5 years, and a significant number of observers of others already doing it, will go and purchase their own kit, and get out on the water.
Lets imagine for the sake of argument that the International Moth Class suddenly went into extinction. What interest then that more than 10 people world-wide, would fork out big money for an 11 foot boat, that has little social or fun sailing potential, and now (in my imagined scenario), no National or World championship for any one to try to cover themselves in glory. And this must also include the small number of professional manufacturers of Moths.
Without the current International Moth Class, and I do not try to denigrate the fantastic performance increases in the Moth recently, I am saying that interest to buy or build a single hander hyper-expensive foiler dinghy, that is very complex, fragile, and unsuited for 99% of even experienced sailors, is not going to happen, and would be viewed as an oddity by the vast majority of small boat sailors.
Therefore I believe that any need for more versions of Foilers that resemble the current Moths is completely unecessary, and would have almost a nil following, as would need to be reflected by purchasers parting with their hard earned. Culnane has his own agenda and interest in anything revolutionary and of extreme performance in certain conditions, due to his personal involvement in speed sailing. The entire sport of small boat sailing has contracted enormously overall, in the last 30 years, and bringing foilers of any shape is going to add zero to an already diminishing market place.
Maybe some Yachting organisation should commission a committee of social psychologists to determine why traditional small boat sailing is becoming a smaller sport, in a world of increasing population, more affluence, and more leisure time than ever before. And we both agree that sailing is fun. I still say, let these clones bite the dust, as they have almost no role in the real world.
BTW your signature indicates "Amateur Designer, and part time Lay-about". What percentage in your opinion, do you attribute to each aspect, now be brutally honest here!

Trevlyns

07-16-2007, 12:42 AM

Entirely valid points, Frosh; which proves the old adage “we agree to disagree” ;)
My interest lies in adapting ideas into cruising designs for increased efficiency. I’m really too old for the ‘flying above the water at twice the speed of sound’ thing!
Oh, and the signature thing… I reckon about 1 percent designer, 2 percent layabout and the other 97 percent working my butt off so I can build the boat I designed! :D

TTS

07-24-2007, 01:20 PM

Why don't I add something to this thread. While I do not fully comprehend all of hte physics behind foils, I am getting a better understanding daily on the issue. What i do have to offer though is a highly competitive Boyer MkIV A-Class catamaran that can be used as a trial platform for foils with some limitations. 1) the boat needs to be able to remain as an A-class when not in foil mode. 2) the foiler must be removable. 3) foil attachment points must coincide with the existing mounts, appedages and so on. So the offer is out there. The boat lives in NH, MA and RI.

Doug Lord

08-10-2007, 11:39 AM

This is an idea posted by Aaron on SA:
index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=48885
http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=48885
-------------
The boat is basically a rehash of Dr. Bradfields Rave with -apparently- a main only , extra wand and no ama/buoyancy pod. The mainfoils develop all the righting moment so the crew doesn't have to move a whole lot.
Here is the SA thread:
Buggy - Sailing Anarchy Forums
Address:http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58612&st=0&gopid=1291224&
=========
8/12/07 check the SA thread for Aaron's latest update of his idea......

rapscallion

09-02-2007, 10:14 PM

How about a mini version of the french tri foiler? make it about 23 feet long....

Doug Lord

10-24-2007, 08:12 PM

Check out this site for updates on the RS600FF includng a news blurb that Sam Pascoe sailig an RS600FF recently beat some Moths on foils. Hmmm-more details needed.
Home
Address:http://www.inqbator.org.uk/Default.aspx?alias=www.inqbator.org.uk/rs600ff
-------
Also check out Scott B's site(#2 at Moth worlds)
for some more on the RS600FF including what appears to me to be a not so subtle dig at the RS guys......
The quote:
" It looks like the FullForce guys have got that boat going pretty well....for what it is.
Now get back to making real boats people."
( editorial comment:Unfortunate....)
http://scott.projectsomewhere.com/

Doug Lord

02-04-2008, 06:38 PM

Here is one of the leading candidates:
1)buoyancy pods
2)retractable foils
3)carries much more weight than a Moth:
(One is sailing and one is still just a glint in its owners eye)

Chris Ostlind

02-04-2008, 07:00 PM

I admire the dream scheming and the prototyping by whomever, Doug, but if you put this boat out there commercially with the name People'sFoiler.. the cognoscente are gonna rip you a new one. Once ripped in this fashion, unfortunately, there's a very high probability of being ripped by the potential buyers of said craft... resulting in low to non-existent sales.

If a BR goes down in the mid teens, then what's this gonna fetch, high teens to twenties? Man that's heady shite for a People's anything and therein lies the rub.

And that's if the boat works flawlessly, can be assembled by a dunce and sailed by a neophyte. Steepness all around you. Best of luck

You notice I did not mention weeds, plastic bags or burger wrappers.

Doug Lord

02-04-2008, 07:46 PM

Peoples Foiler is not the name of any current boat or even a glint in a dreamers eye: it is a concept that the people will choose.But it will have features like those described in earlier posts-it will be easy to sail ,affordable , beachsailable-and among other things,take off in lite air. It will take a huge investment by a big company to create a boat in any way worthy of the name.

PI Design

02-05-2008, 03:32 AM

Here is one of the leading candidates:
1)buoyancy pods
2)retractable foils
3)carries much more weight than a Moth:
(One is sailing and one is still just a glint in its owners eye)

You've been a little naughty there Doug. One picture is Simon Maguire's M4, which is (so far) a one-off which has been around a while (and appears to have problems - not the least of which would appear to be that sail which looks terrible). The other is your latest model. They are two different designs from two different designers - not one boat as you imply.
For what its worth though, I think your model looks quite nice and sincerely hope that you develop a full scale version. Keep up the good work!

FarmerColin

02-05-2008, 04:13 AM

""How about a mini version of the french tri foiler? make it about 23 feet long....""

While the French machine is a very fine design I think it will have been optimised for the one task. The angle the front foils are set will have been set knowing the ratio of the driving and lateral forces on the sails at the optimum relative wind direction for the record run. Performance on other points of sailing will, rightly, have been of no interest to them. I suspect that, on a broader reach where the lateral forces are smaller the foils will each be producing significant side forces in opposition to each other and that the induced drag will as a consequence be far higher than could be achieved with near horizontal foils.

SimonN

02-05-2008, 08:27 AM

It's interesting that at the first major event in the UK the Moth and RS600FF went "head to head", the Moth beat the 600FF by a substantial margin, substantial enough to overcome a significant handicap disadvantage and thus win on handicap as well.

Doug Lord

02-05-2008, 06:21 PM

SimonN

02-05-2008, 09:01 PM

The RS600FF has a lot going for it-retractable foils and it can carry substantially more weight than a Moth. It has beaten a Moth and was just beaten by a Moth in the Bloody Mary(Moth 1st, RS600FF 12th out of around 250 boats.
Doug

You were told on SA that a 600FF didn't come 12th and that it was a clerical error that saw it in the results. Sam was the first 600FF in the BM and he was in the 90's. Remember that the race was a pursuit and therefore the Moth overtook the 600FF that had started significantly before it and then pulled out a lead. So, that means that in the 2 big winter races in the UK this year, in wildly different conditions, a Moth has hammered an RS600FF. Please stop basing your performance data on an 600FF publicity site when their claim was about an informal race. As has been shown, when the flag drops, the BS stops. When it has really counted, the results speak for themselves.

However, the RS600FF isn't a bad boat. It has proven to be a cheapish way for people to get into foiling, although it seems to be harder to sail than a Moth. The weight issue seems to be a matter of debate as one of the top Moths in Sydney is saied by somebody who weighs 90kgs. Strangely, he is quick in marginal foiling conditions! However, the bottom line is that about 25 people have converted old RS600's into foilers and to me, that is the key. To them, they don't care if their boat is faster or slower than a Moth. They now have the opportunity to do something Doug doesn't do - go foiling!

Doug Lord

02-05-2008, 10:02 PM

I went by this: www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/?article=139752 (Coroborated by Sail-World as well)
As for the RS600FF site and their claims of Sam Pascoe beating a Moth(s), I'm afraid I'll take what they say over what you say for the time being.
The fact is that the RS600FF carries more weight,is a bit easier to sail(I'm told) than a Moth and utilizes a major ingredient of a Peoples Foiler: retractable foils.
The boat is remarkable in that it was NOT designed as a foiler but is a conversion-like early Moths.
When an easy to sail "Peoples" foiler is introduced with some or all of the features mentioned earlier, it will most certainly be designed as a foiler from scratch-and that will make a huge difference.

SimonN

02-05-2008, 10:39 PM

I went by this: www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/?article=139752 (Coroborated by Sail-World as well)[/QUOTE} Very clever, Doug! Why have you forgotten that on SA, Mike Cooke, who was at the event, pointed out that there were errors made and that the 12th place was a mistake. You seem to deliberately ignore anything that counters your arguement.

[QUOTE}As for the RS600FF site and their claims of Sam Pascoe beating a Moth(s), I'm afraid I'll take what they say over what you say for the time being. And there lies your major problem. You base all your knowledge on what you read on the net, assuming it is all true.

However, I never said that the 600FF didn't beat a Moth. All I said is that you have to put it into context. It was an informal race and teh 600FF was being sailed by a top foilera nd the Moth wasn't. Surely the results at the Bloody Mary and Tiger Trophy are far more relevent.

The fact is that the RS600FF carries more weight And your scientific basis for this is? To date, it is true that most of the sailors who have bought foils for their 600's are heavier than most Moth sailors but I believe the heaviest is probably Andy Rice (he had the first) and he is about 90kgs. That is the same weight as a top competitive Moth sailor here in Sydney.

is a bit easier to sail(I'm told) than a Moth Then why did Andy Rice (see above) tell me that he was struggling with the technique to get the boat to foil upwind, in any wind? Yet, I have given trial sails to over 20 new Moth sailors, all with no experience and all of whom foiled upwind within a short time. Andy told me that he believes the one down side of teh 600FF is that it is harder to sail than is really required for mass adoption. I would love to know who told you about how easy, or otherwise, the 600FF is to sail.

So, Doug, here is the deal. I would rather believe what people tell me directly, rather than what I read on the net. I think you should too.

Doug Lord

02-05-2008, 10:58 PM

Simon, I have no problem believing you at all IF you could back up anything you say with something, anything anywhere in print. I found three reputable sites that said Olly somebody got 12th in the Bloody Mary. Like, I said: for the time being that evidence trumps your hearsay-but I'm open-lets just see some real evidence.
As to which boat is easier to sail I have your hearsay and the websites' hype-not much to choose from.
It's funny: in my previous post I said the RS600FF has beaten a Moth and was just beaten by a Moth-so whats the argument? It is an innovative foiling solution and has some features in common with a potential Peoples Foiler. It is an interesting boat.
For the record I don't think a Peoples Foiler will necessarily beat a Moth-it will just be much easier to sail.....

SimonN

02-05-2008, 11:52 PM

PI Design

02-06-2008, 03:29 AM

Then why did Andy Rice (see above) tell me that he was struggling with the technique to get the boat to foil upwind, in any wind? Yet, I have given trial sails to over 20 new Moth sailors, all with no experience and all of whom foiled upwind within a short time. Andy told me that he believes the one down side of teh 600FF is that it is harder to sail than is really required for mass adoption. I would love to know who told you about how easy, or otherwise, the 600FF is to sail.

The standard non-foiling 600 is too hard to sail for mass adoption. However, Andy Rice told me that he found sailing the 600FF easier than waterstarting in a windsurfer - but then he is an excellent sailor and presumably not a very experienced windsurfer.
From a personal point of view, I am not convinced by the 600FF as I think foiling off a trapeze is a step (or two) too far for most.
I still think that it should be possible to adopt a Laser to foil - you just need large, fat foils. Okay, it won't be as fast as a Moth (nor possibly, a standard Laser), but it would bring foiling to the masses.

SimonN

02-06-2008, 05:04 AM

The standard non-foiling 600 is too hard to sail for mass adoption. However, Andy Rice told me that he found sailing the 600FF easier than waterstarting in a windsurfer - but then he is an excellent sailor and presumably not a very experienced windsurfer.
From a personal point of view, I am not convinced by the 600FF as I think foiling off a trapeze is a step (or two) too far for most.
I still think that it should be possible to adopt a Laser to foil - you just need large, fat foils. Okay, it won't be as fast as a Moth (nor possibly, a standard Laser), but it would bring foiling to the masses.

Andy actually said the same thing to me, particularly when discussing water starting a Moth. I don't think his winsurfing skills are very well developed! As you point out, he's not too shabby in a boat!

The biggest issues with adapting something like a Laser is 1. the extra loads and 2. the rig really isn't suitable. I doubt you would ever go upwind very well, or at least with very little pointing ability although some might say that would be no change!

I think the 600 was a good candidate to be converted due to (relative) low weight and a good power to weight ratio. In addition, it has a highly developed rig, which I believe is an important factor in this type of boat.

PI Design

02-06-2008, 05:26 AM

That's all true. I guess the transom on a Laser would strugle to take the loads from a foiling rudder, and the rig wouldn't be able to point high enough with the smalelr apparent wind angles. Both problems are solvable though - I think the point I was trying to make was that ny hull will fly if you give it powerful enough foils, so you don't need to start with a very tippy hull form in the first place if you are prepared to sacrifice some performance.
As you point out, 600s have every thing going for them to be suitable as foilers, apart from the fact they are difficult to sail! MAybe I should try and get my NS14 foiling?!

SimonN

02-06-2008, 06:46 AM

I think the point I was trying to make was that ny hull will fly if you give it powerful enough foils, so you don't need to start with a very tippy hull form in the first place if you are prepared to sacrifice some performance.
I think that Ian Ward showed that you are right on that score. In fact, I think that the hull shape (within reason) doesn't make a huge difference - a knot or 2 in takeoff speed . The thing that does make the difference is power to weight.

Doug Lord

02-06-2008, 06:39 PM

Actually, I think the hull makes a big difference in how early the boat will foil, (and therefore how well the boat will do in marginal conditions)particularly because all these boats begin to foil at a hull speed that can result is a lot of wavemaking drag just before foiling. A high length to beam ratio hull will reach foiling speed significantly before a hull like the RS or Laser because it reduces or eliminates this drag in pre-foiling. That probably hurt the RS in the Bloody Mary. If you look at the important numbers the RS is equal to or better than a Moth in sail loading (lb. per sq.ft. SA) , but probably not as good in seahugging SA/wetted surface or length to beam ratio of the hull. I imagine they are very close in foiling SA/wetted surface. And power to carry sail is likely very close.
========================
Moth vs RS600FF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those that don't know anything about the RS 600 here are the stats. Couldn't find any foil area stats on the RS 600:
LOA 14' 8" ------Moth 11'
Beam 6' 4"- 7' ------Moth 7'1"
Hull Weight 115lb. ------Moth around 20lb.
Boat sailing weight: 167 lb. ------Moth 66 lb.
SA: 131 sq.ft.;reefable ------Moth 86 sq.ft.
All up sailing weight with 160 lb. crew: 327 ------Moth:226
All up weight divided by SA: 2.49lb. per sq.ft.*------Moth: 2.62
*This is power to weight(sail loading)-don't know wetted surface,foil areas 600hull beam etc. 600 has a BETTER power to weight ratio than the Moth but falls short on some other factors including the rig

SimonN

02-06-2008, 07:10 PM

Doug

While you are right that it does make a difference, it really isn't that great. If it really makes such a big difference, why did Wardi manage to get take off at such relatively low speeds with his scow? I think that compared with skiff moths, he did remarkably well.

So why does a 600ff take off later? I think 2 things come into play. First, it is simply heavier. However, it seems to me that one of the biggest factors is the foils themselves. In the Moths, the Bladeriders lift out earlier than most and that is because of the foils. I think that if the 600's had foils that lifted out earlier, they would simply have too much lift as speed increased. I think that one of reasons why Moths, and Bladeriders in particular, sail more level (less bow up) is that you have to because otherwise the angle of the main foil is too much and you pop out. I think that on a larger, heavier boat this is harder to control.

Further evidence that foils are more important than hulls in early take off comes once the boats are in the air! If there is a lull, a Bladerider generally stays foiling longer in less wind than many other designs. I would love to see BR foils on a Prowler, but I bet that it would make the Prowler take of earlier.

However, the bottom line is that for most half decent hulls, we are arguing over a small amount. It also only matters when the boats are in the same class, such as with the Moths. With the 600ff's, everybody has the same gear so who cares if it lifts off at 6 knots or 8 knots. And once in the air, the hull becomes irrelevent, until you come off the foils!

Doug Lord

02-06-2008, 07:31 PM

As I mentioned, the RS600FF has a BETTER power to weight ratio if each boat has the same weight crew. If the Moth sailed with a 144lb. person on board (and a 160lb. person on the RS) it would be EQUAL to a RS. So there are-as you say- other factors but I think the RS has excellent foils but a poor rig compared to a Moth. It is inspiring in that it is so close in speed to the Moth-and sometimes faster-given that it is 2.5 times the sailing weight! It could not do that without excellent foils given the other limiting factors esp. the rig.

PI Design

02-07-2008, 03:28 AM

The 600 rig isn't terrible. Not as refined as a Moth maybe, but fully battened, roachy and with a carbon mast nonetheless. Also, by the time you add on the weight of the crew (using your 160lb for the 600 and 144lb for the moth) the 600 is only 1.6 times heavier not 2.5.
Foiling, of course, can be made to happen at any speed, it just requires higher lift foils if you want to get flying at low speeds or in heavy boat. Obviously there is a practical limit on foil size, but foiling can be made to occur before "hull speed" is reached, if that is what you want. I grant you that foiling at too low speeds will reduce your ultimate top speed, but if the idea of a 'peoples foiler' is to get foiling, then top speed is a secondary issue. I would expect any 'peoples foiler' to have much larger, fatter, higher lift (and higher drag) sections than the Moths use.

SimonN

02-07-2008, 07:04 AM

Doug

I don't know why you insist on using bad data. The normal Moth sailor weighs 10 lbs more. Rohan, Doug's favorite benchmark, weighs 154 lbs. So, the figues work out that the 600ff is under 1.5 times the weight of a Moth.

Pericles

02-07-2008, 07:20 AM

SimonN

Doug insists on using bad data, because good data would (wait for it) blow his cause out of the water. For Doug to have a new thought, first he has to let go of an old one. :D Realistically, is that ever going to happen? :D :D

Pericles

Chris Ostlind

02-07-2008, 11:33 AM

Doug insists on using bad data, because good data would (wait for it) blow his cause out of the water. For Doug to have a new thought, first he has to let go of an old one. :D Realistically, is that ever going to happen? :D :D

Pericles

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." -- Albert Einstein

Doug Lord

02-07-2008, 08:46 PM

I think you 'bad data' people should rethink your comments:
1) RS600FF all up ready to sail weighs AT LEAST 167 lbs. That is 2.53 times MORE than a MOTH! Repeat, the RS600FF weighs ,ready to sail(minus crew), 2.5 times what a Moth weighs, ready to sail(minus crew). That is a HUGE difference and puts the BS to the very experienced foilers(s) from Australia that have said that no foiler heavier than a Moth could foil MUCH LESS beat a Moth in some conditions. This is big ,guys -in many ways starting with the fact that you DON"T NEED AN ALL CARBON HULL. Think how that could reduce costs. If a boat was built with a hull having a length to beam ratio like a Moth with a bigger rig like an RS but better aerodynamically like a Moth rig it could be lighter than an RS and be built from less expensive materials.
So many experienced foilers have been deluded into thinking that to have an effective singlehanded foiler it had to be all carbon and cost a fortune because they believed that WEIGHT was the single most important factor in foiling. IT IS NOT!! The most important single factor to determine "foilability" is not weight but the "Sail Loading"(weight divided by sail area). There are other factors that will contribute to a foilers speed around a course,of course. But no single factor is as important as this power to weight ratio:
1) Weight/SA on the RS 600 with a 160 lb. crew= 2.49 lb. per sq.ft.SA
2) Weight/SA on the Moth with a 154lb. crew(Rohan)=2.558 lb. per sq. ft.SA
This means that even though the RS600FF is 2.5 times,repeat 2.5 times, as heavy as a Moth in racing trim with a crew it has a BETTER power to weight ratio.
Again, this is very significant for the eventual introduction of a reasonably priced peoples foiler. And it flys in the face of the constant drumbeat from some Australian(and other) foilers and foiler wanabes that weight is the single most critical factor-it is not.

Chris Ostlind

02-07-2008, 09:50 PM

There's an inherent human limit, Doug.

Even you, in your guise as Fitness Monster of the Millenium, have a limit as to how much boat you can possibly handle. Make them out of cheaper, heavier materials and you push the rig size. Push it far enough and you simply can't handle the exercise anymore.

Nope, not even you, you shining Golden God of a Man. ;-)

Now how many heavy fiberglass People's foilers are gonna get sold to your magical niche? That, my friend, does not make for a viable product no matter how hard you wish it were so.

You have always wanted to add yet more complex gadgetry to these boats, making them heavier and more fiddly than they need to be. Now you want to make them bigger?

There's an envelope out there in physical space for any product. Go outside the envelope and the product, as a viable commercial entity, ceases to exist. It's just a simple, pragmatic human size paradigm. Violate that pragmatism at your own risk.

Doug Lord

02-07-2008, 10:07 PM

There's an inherent human limit, Doug.

Even you, in your guise as Fitness Monster of the Millenium, have a limit as to how much boat you can possibly handle. Make them out of cheaper, heavier materials and you push the rig size. Push it far enough and you simply can't handle the exercise anymore.

There's an envelope out there in physical space for any product. Go outside the envelope and the product, as a viable commercial entity, ceases to exist. It's just a simple, pragmatic human size paradigm. Violate that pragmatism at your own risk.
=================================
I'm afraid you don't understand : the PROOF of the theory is already sailing-not theoretical at all. The boat that I suggested based on the FACTS proved by the RS would be lighter(much less hull beam) and less costly than an RS(new with foils) and would also differ from the RS in that it would be designed as a foiler from scratch-unlike the RS. It might have slightly less SA than the RS depending on the crew weight range chosen as optimum.
The RS, as shown in the comparison with the Moth, PROVES THE VIABILITY OF THE APPROACH.

SimonN

02-07-2008, 10:09 PM

Doug

Again, you are using "data" to distort the picture. First, it was only 1 Australian who claimed that heavier boats wouldn't foil and you will no doubt remember, or have conveniently forgotten, I argued very strongly against this. However, the key figures to look at are the total weight, including sailor, in order to get a true picture. Taking the weight of just the boat is totally misleading.

Then look at your calculations for how much heavier the all up sailing weight is of the boats.

Moth boat 66lbs helm 154lbs total 220lbs
600 167 160 327lbs

Please can you explain how 327lbs is 2.5 times heavier than 220lbs. I am puzzled because 2.5 times 220 is 550!

However, I don't believe that sail loading is as important as overall weight and size of foils. I reason this because the Moth is foiling earlier than the 600 yet has less power to weight. Now, one might consider that is due to hull desihn but that doesn't explain why the Moth can stay foiling at lower boat speeds than the 600FF. According to your figures, the 600 should stay foiling longer, if power to weight was so important.

Now, this could be down to the foils and I have no figures for the 600 foils. Bigger foils might get the boat up earlier, but what effect would the extra drag have?

There are all sorts of other factors that come into play. For instance, some rigs of the same size are more efficient than others. As Doug has already pointed out, while the 600 rig isn't bad, the Moth rig is really good with camber inducers etc. Even 2 identical mast/sail combinations can give different amounts of power. Only today, I was reading a paper on the effects of rake, which showed that raking the mast by about 17 degrees reduces power by 14%.

The problem Doug has is that he is trying to boil this whole thing down into a very few simple equations when, in fact, there are a whole load of inter-connecting factors going on. If it was simple, maybe there would be more successful foiling projects around, rather than the number of failures we have seen.

Doug Lord

02-07-2008, 10:11 PM

Simon, read my earlier post again VERY carefully!
===============
Most of what you said can be explained by the superior Moth rig. I think the quality and design of the foils for both boats is excellent. Just imagine(IMAGINE) a boat with a high length to beam ratio like a Moth, a high speed rig like a Moth but an a Weight/SA ratio like an RS designed to carry heavier crews and made of less expensive but high quality material. The RS with its reefable rig and retractable foils is an excellent start and proves that their is a LOT of leeway in Foiler design-particularly where weight and cost are concerned.

Chris Ostlind

02-07-2008, 11:38 PM

The RS, as shown in the comparison with the Moth, PROVES THE VIABILITY OF THE APPROACH.

The boat shown proves nothing of the sort. It only shows that that particular boat, with that rig (and most importantly) with that skipper, can actually foil.

It, unfortunately, says nothing whatsoever to the reality of a production boat which exists in vaporware, with a pie in the sky price tag based on mythical sales potential (again most important) with your amazingly talented People, at the helm.

It's simple speculation.

Once again, we come to this place in the discussion where your dreams need to be fleshed-out by your own personal effort, as nobody seems to be taking the product potential seriously. Selling kits for a limited supply of used boats, for sailors who number in the tens of boats, is not a production run. If you are so adamant about this dreamscape reality, then take the step necessary to prove the reality of the points you have so strongly suggested.

We are into this goofy discussion about People's Foilers, for what now, 2 plus years? We are even doing a People's Foiler II thread, for chrissakes, it's been that long. You have bounced around from one perfect solution to another, based on a shifting paradigm of your own device and still, there is nothing such as you have been suggesting. Shoving a foil up the butt of an RS600 is not proof of concept. It is a chop shop solution that sorta looks like it would be doable.

At some point, Doug, even the most ardent of suitors has to admit that the chick isn't going to go to the dance with you. Anything more in that direction will get you slapped with a restraining order.

As a guy who has fondly watched this dance for some time now, isn't it time to let it go... for at least awhile, so the dust can settle? Isn't there an exciting, experimental boat project sitting in your garage that needs some real focused attention?

Doug Lord

02-07-2008, 11:48 PM

Chris,unfortunately(and I mean that sincerely) you just don't get it.....

Chris Ostlind

02-08-2008, 12:28 AM

OK, Doug,

If that makes you feel more comfortable, then it's OK with me. Perhaps, while you are in the middle of your glowing session, you could just take a moment to look around you on this Forum. Look at how many posts you have made and the remarkable array of very intelligent folks who have had issues with one thing or another, regarding this relentless vision of yours.

Now look at the posts you have made at Sailing Anarchy and the similar pattern of collective behavior that surrounds you there. Does this not strike you as peculiar when two very different groups have virtually the same response to your singular approach to the issues? Yeah, sure, there are cross-over posters who visit both groups, but they are the anomaly and not the norm.

Tell me something (and I'm speaking here to the other you that hovers over your shoulder) is there not a certain repetitive message you have been getting from not one, not two, but literally, dozens of well respected people in the various fields that would surround this whole People's endeavor?

You may resent this. I hope not, as I'm not at all out to get you, but that is the risk one takes to attempt to end the story telling session. Please give it come consideration.

SimonN

02-08-2008, 08:29 AM

But, Doug, I do get it and I will say to you agian, you try to distort the data to support your arguements. You still haven't explained some of the points I have raised. In particular, if the power to weight is better on the 600 and that is the most important factor, why does the 600 drop off the foils sooner than a Moth? It's not hard. If we accept what you say, namely that the 600 foils are OK, then the only reason can be because weight is a bigger factor than you are willing to accept.

However, the biggest falacy is that because the 600ff foils, you are right about the people's foiler. The 600 is a very special case. It is very light compared with most boats, with a sailing weight of only 50% more than a Moth. It has a high power to weight ratio and a sophisticated rig. he other factor you seem to miss is that in non foiling form, the 600 is a difficult boat to sail and, according to people who Im know who own them, they are really hard to sail with foils.

If you want to prove something, build a foiler that works. I do not understand why it is taking you so long. I don't understand why you gave up on your last project before even giving it a proper chance to perform. I don't understand why you are so obsessed with writing about something when it would be so much more fun (for you) to actually go foiling.

Doug Lord

02-08-2008, 09:03 AM

You're not reading what I write, Simon. I'll repeat it. The primary reason a 600 would drop off the foils sooner than a Moth is the fact that the rig is not as good as a Moth rig. The reason the boat would take off later than a Moth even though it has a better power to weight ratio than a Moth is that it has a wider hull, with more wavemaking drag and frictional drag for its size than a Moth for its size.
The most important statistic when looking at both boats-at least for potential implications for foiler design-is the fact that the RS600FF is 2.5 times times heavier than a Moth with both boats ready to sail minus crew. And the 600 foils very well having outpaced a Moth in some conditions.
The 600 demonstrates conclusively that there is a WIDE RANGE of effective weight available in the design of a succesful singlehanded foiler.

Chris Ostlind

02-08-2008, 09:54 AM

The real People's Boat, as it would apply to kids and the industry's need to get more of them sailing. has been there for the past two years, now. No speculation, no development time, no hassle with fiddly bits, no exhorbitant price tags and no objections from Mom and Dad about hanging with that bunch of foiling ruffians. ;-)

The OpenBIC... check this vid clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l6wIzg3SKI show it to your kids and see if you can get them to stop bugging you.

USD$2800 ready to sail, virtually indesctructable, very low maintenance, accepts a good range of body weights, easy to sail, can be beached easily and it is 5 minutes from car to water, ready to go.

We don't need no stinkin' foilers for our young people!

Doug Lord

02-08-2008, 10:46 AM

Sam Pascoe was recognized in a Sail-World.com article(see results website below) about the Tiger Trophy sailied in the UK for being behind but close to Graham Vials in a Moth until disaster struck. Sam, a former Moth British National champion has adopted the RS600FF and is continuosly improving the boat. An excerpt from the Sail-World article:

"'Tiger Winner Graham Vials' This years Tiger represented the largest mix of classes ever seen and the usual contingent of 29ers and 420s was bolstered by an influx of B14s, Fireballs, Phantoms, Foiling Moths, Merlin Rockets and a plethora of other classes.

In race 1, Graham Vials put his memory of the Bloody Mary firmly behind him by lapping the majority of the fast handicap fleet in taking his first race win of the weekend in his Foiling Moth.

Interesting though behind him, it was another foiler, Sam Pascoe (Weir Wood) and an RS600 who was the only one close to him as a vast number of the fleet steadily succumbed to the 2 degree air temperature.

Unfortunately for Sam it was to be the only race he finished. After a collision while he was airborne, he didn't notice a severe wound in the bottom of the boat, until he landed that was, at which point the boat just kept going down, ending what could have been a solid challenge for the trophy. "
===============================
www.tiger-trophy.com

SimonN

02-08-2008, 10:36 PM

Doug

Why focus on the race that Sam didn't finish. What is quantifiable about "behind but close"? Why not focus on the race he did finish, in which he was second on handicap and about 10 minutes behind? Anyway, whichever you want to take, the key was the fact that the 600ff was BEHIND. What part of that do you fail to understand?

As for Sam still improving the boat, that is incorrect. Lynton has stated they will be doing no more development and that the foiling package is now fixed. They have entered into a marketing agreement with LDC to sell both foil packages and new boats.

And considering how much sailing Sam has done compared with Graham, Sam really did have the advantage in that respect. So, Doug, why is it you cannot accept that the Moth is, in many cases, faster than a 600ff? In the bloody Mary and the one race at the TT, it wasn't even close.

Doug Lord

02-08-2008, 11:00 PM

Doug

So, Doug, why is it you cannot accept that the Moth is, in many cases, faster than a 600ff? .

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

I DO accept that the Moth is [so far] ,in many cases, faster than a RS600FF. And I celebrate it in the "Moth on Foils" thread. However, the performance of the RS600FF is really noteworthy because it is a singlehander that is 2.5 times as heavy as a Moth!! You appear not to grasp the significance of this and the implications it has for singlehander bi-foiler design.
The people that ran the Tiger Trophy said that prior to his unfortunate collision Sam Pascoe sailing his RF600FF had a real shot at the trophy. Try to understand what this means, Simon-it reveals an extraordinary potential that you and many others do not appreciate that can result in some new and exciting development in bi-foiler design.

SimonN

02-09-2008, 12:25 AM

Doug, Doug, Doug.

You persist in stating irrelevent information. The physics don't take into account just the weight of the boat. To calculate anything to do with foiling, you need the actual weight sailing, including crew. Considering how much of the all up weight of a Moth the boat actually is (1/3rd) and even with the 600, where it is only about half, why the obsession? The 600 is a remarkably light boat for it's size, rather than a really heavy boat as you seem to imply.

As for not understanding the potential, I find that hard to take from somebody who doesn't foil. I understand it only too well, clearly better than you do, because I know that every successful bi-foiler built is right at the top end of sailing difficulty and the physics cannot change that. The more foiling I do and the more boats that successfully foil, revealing the type of boat that is needed, the more I come to the realisation that foiling will never be a true mass appeal activity.

Doug Lord

02-09-2008, 08:55 AM

[QUOTE=SimonN;184306]Doug, Doug, Doug.

As for not understanding the potential, I find that hard to take from somebody who doesn't foil. .[/QUOTE ]
=============================
But I do foil Simon. And I also have spent many years studying the technology behind foiling. Thats what makes the real world performance of the RS600FF so exciting.

Doug Lord

02-09-2008, 09:14 AM

Heres part of what the RS600FF site says about the boat:
" Why choose RS600FF?
Here are some reasons for you...

* Current top speed of 23.4 knots set by Sam Pascoe in Feb 2007. Sam’s speed record in the Moth is 26 knots, but he says: “I think the RS600FF will be faster….”

* Strict one-design. The RS600FF abides by the existing rules of the RS600 class – with the obvious exception of the hydrofoil package. When the racing circuit gets underway, sailors will not be allowed to customise their boats. The RS600FF is all about cost-effective foiling.

* Ease of launching. Liftable foils make this the most user-friendly ‘foiler’ on the market.

* Quick conversion. In just a few hours you can convert your RS600 so it’s ready for foiling. Want to switch back to the RS600 for some conventional sailing? No problem, the foiling package has been designed as a ‘bolt-on, bolt-off’ package which means you still have your standard RS600 any time you want it."
==========================
==========================

What is also interesting is that this boat is only the 2nd bi-foil monofoiler to be put on the market since the advent of bi-foil technology. And it is not even designed as a foiler-it is a conversion. Just imagine what is possible with all that is now known -particularly as regards weight and a singlehanded foiler.

www.rs600ff.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND WATCH THE SAM PASCOE VIDEO ON THE RS SITE!

Doug Lord

03-12-2008, 08:58 PM

For those interested how the various foilers compare :
M4 ADDED:
=====================================
FOILER WEIGHT

Here I'm trying to point to point out that the comparison of foilers of different weights WITHOUT considering POWER is ridiculous. Numerous experienced foilers(who should know better) tenaciously cling to "facts" that don't add up and hearsay about the role of weight in foiling. Few times if ever has anyone tried to explain why a boat like the RS600FF can be so similar to a Moth in performance yet weigh so much more(2.5 times more!). Many people seem content with old wives tales like" only the Moth can foil upwind" and similar absurdities. Thats too bad because foiler design and experimentation suffers when ignorance dominates the discussion.- as when anyone says that weight is the primary comparative measure between different foilers.WEIGHT IS CRITICAL WHEN COMPARING THE PERFORMANCE OF TWO IDENTICAL FOILERS but WEIGHT AND POWER must be considered together when comparing different boats.======================
Moth-
SA: 88.8sq.ft
Sailing Weight(includes crew): 220lb.
main foil area: 1.19 sq. ft.
Foil Loading(Lbs per sq. ft. at 80% max boat weight with crew):147.89
W/SA: 2.47lb. per sq.ft.(sail loading)
SA per sq.ft. of main foil area(a SA/ws ratio shortened to cover planform area of main foil only): 74.62
=======================
For ease of comparison foil areas for the next two boats were arrived at by using the same FOIL LOADING as a Moth.
Only upwind SA is considered. Moth crew=154lb.RS crew=160lb.; 18 crew =3X160lb.
=======================
RS600FF
SA: 131 sq. ft.
Sailing Weight(includes crew): 327lb.
Main foil area: 1.76 sq.ft.
Foil Loading: 147.89 lb. per sq.ft.
W/SA: 2.49 lb. per sq.ft.
SA per sq. ft. main foil area: 74.43
======================
M4
SA: 107 sq.ft.
Sailing Weight(includes crew): 259
Mainfoil area: 1.4 sq.ft.
Foil Loading: 147.89 lb.
W/SA: 2.42lb. per sq.ft.
SA per sq.ft.main foil area: 76.42
========================
Foiling 18
SA: 354 sq.ft.
Sailing Weight(includes crew): 854lb
Mainfoil area: 4.61 sq.ft.
Foil Loading: 147.89lb. per sq. ft.
W/SA: 2.41lb. per sq.ft.
SA per sq.ft. main foil area: 76.78
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note the different weights of the boats . Then note the Sa/per sq.ft. main foil area-this is a comparison of Sail area to wetted surface when the boat is flying using just the planform area of the main foil for comparison-THEY ARE NEARLY THE SAME FOR ALL THREE BOATS. Note the W/SA is almost identical for all three boats. This means that all three boats will foil at about the same time adjusted for differences in rig efficiency(Moth probably the best) and for hull L/B ratio as a measure of early takeoff potential(Moth by far the best). As I just said there are other factors and details that will marginally affect performance but this clearly shows how close all three boats are in their ability to fly despite the fact that the RS is 2.5 times heavier than a Moth andthe 18 is 5.6 times as heavy as a Moth.
What counts is power to weight ratio as a first look. A more detailed look showing a comparison of SA/ws ratios for all three boats reinforces the accuracy of the power to weight ratio.

Doug Lord

03-15-2008, 03:45 PM

Interesting article in the Daily Sail about RS600FF foiler developments:
http://www.thedailysail.com/ISM/articles.nsf/Features/03579BFE26A19D788025740A003070D6?OpenDocument&Page=1&Login
Linton Jenkins, the man behind the RS600FF, on the future of foiler development:
"All this talk of foiling trapeze boats does beg the question exactly how far could this technology be taken? “In about six years time I think that the whole set up will be down to such a fine art that it will be easy to sail. As soon as you do that you enter into two man boats, and away you go. I think we will see a two person class built for foiling although people might try them for a while in International 14s etc,” says Jenkins. With this in mind it is possible to imagine a world not too far from now where all the high performance boats are high performance foilers. Jenkins is clearly a convert and as he says; “Foiling is the only way of getting a boat to go quick, get it out of the water, end of story.”
Old and new RS600FF rigs:

PI Design

03-17-2008, 10:51 AM

Heres part of what the RS600FF site says about the boat:
" Why choose RS600FF?
Here are some reasons for you...

* * Strict one-design. The RS600FF abides by the existing rules of the RS600 class – with the obvious exception of the hydrofoil package. When the racing circuit gets underway, sailors will not be allowed to customise their boats. The RS600FF is all about cost-effective foiling.

Well the new 600FF sail means that is not true any more. That square top is not legal for the normal 600.
Also, I would be nervous about Linton's quote:
"In about six years time I think that the whole set up will be down to such a fine art that it will be easy to sail."
That makes it sound like they are going to continue to tinker with the 600FF, which is hardly in keepinh with strict one-design.

Doug Lord

03-17-2008, 12:53 PM

Every new boat-particularly new high tech boats will run into mods they feel they need to make. Bladerider has done it well. I hope that LDC will handle their relations with the guys using the old stuff fairly.
The pressure must be on because the RS600FF is very close to Moth performance and I imagine they want to get the boat as good as possible before locking it in. Just heard from Jenkins himself that the new area is the same as the old area....

Doug Lord

04-16-2008, 06:59 PM

I'm working on getting more details about this boat. For now I know that it was designed by Jean-Marc Monnard and foils were added in the last few months-very cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73JgJuRaZK0

Chris Ostlind

04-16-2008, 10:56 PM

Doug,

Perhaps you could attribute your posting of this photo and link as having come from Sailing Anarchy's, Dinghy Anarchy Forum?

See it all here: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=71099

It was not Doug Lord who scooped this bit of info, but it was another Doug... one very smart foiling guy by the name of Doug Culnane who first popped the scoop with the vid clip.

Perhaps the most intriguing new foiler in this sphere of doings is the, "When Pigs Fly", effort being handled by Rohan Veal. (see photo attached provided through the courtesy of OnFrozenPond at SA)

While he has not, apparently, conquered the People's Foiler dilemma, as set forth by our very own Doug Lord, he has, at least, gotten past the business of accomodating porkers who wish to experience the thrill. ;-)

Doug Lord

04-17-2008, 06:21 PM

Here are the specs for Jean-Marc Monnards boat:
13' single handled displacement dinghy JM42, 2001
hull length : 4.00 m / 13.12'
beam max : 2.00 m / 6.5
beam wl : 1.13 m / 3.7'
draft canoebody : 0.09 m / 3.5"
draft max : 0.95 m / 3.1'
displacement in measurement trim : 75 kg / 165lb.
keel and ballast : none
trapezes : none
mainsail area : 11.7 m2 / 125.89
fore sail : none
mast height above wl : 6.39 m / 20.9'
mast construction : rotating wing mast in high modulus carbon by Wilke
hull construction : sandwich glass epoxy pvc-core
built by : jean-marc monnard
architecture : jean-marc monnard, damien cardenoso & seb schmidt
certification : prototype

Capn Mud

04-19-2008, 07:27 AM

Refer below taken from the Weta Marine FAQ page....http://www.wetamarine.com/FAQ.aspx

Is there a longer version of the Weta Sport Trimaran?
Currently the 4.4 is the only model and has total focus. Weta Marine may develop a longer version of the Weta or perhaps a high performance fully carbon version of the Weta 4.4 with hydrofoils.

Now i am new (extremely) to all this so I have no idea....

How will it work do you think? Will the rig need changing or would a "kit" involving foiled centreboard and rudder (and wand) be sufficient?

What will it do to the cost of what is already a USD10k boat?

Doug Lord

04-19-2008, 08:34 AM

bistros

04-24-2008, 02:04 PM

Interesting post, thanks! The Weta is a great design-I've even thought of getting one. Adding "foil assist" like the ORMA tri's would be interesting and -with more SA- would allow the boat to fly the main hull providing the structure was ok. They would probably add a rudder t-foil as well... I'd bet that it would add at least two grand to the boat cost.

$2000 for a lifting T-foil daggerboard and a T-foil rudder? Stop chewing the magic mushrooms!

I guess you are getting great prices from Fastacraft due to your long standing self promotion as poster child of foiling for the massive. I would have estimated that a rudder/daggerboard T-foil combo for the Weta would be more like $7-8000AUS -IF you could get Mr. Illett and folks to even consider building them due to their high workload on building Prowlers. Then you'd have to re-engineer the whole Weta design for new load levels and much higher strength (and much worse and frequent crashes).

You really aren't doing anyone a favor by underpricing the realistic cost/skills of foiling. You will disappoint many interested folks when they find out the truth. The added drag due to the T-foils would make the Weta into a dog in sub-foiling winds. The balance requirements of foiling the Weta, without dragging either ama would make this much harder to sail than a foiler Moth. Oh, I forgot ... you don't listen to anyone who disagrees with you, or those who actually sail full size boats. I can just see you there with your fingers in your ears chanting "nah, nah, nah, nah" continuously like a three year old.

LIfting foils on the Weta will take a broad appeal, broad wind condition and well-liked design and turn it into a one-wind-condition expensive piece of crap sail-able by about 0.001% of the people on the water.

Gary Baigent

04-24-2008, 05:59 PM

Doug Lord

04-24-2008, 06:08 PM

You're way off base! You didn't read my postvery well because I was talking about foil assist vs a vs the ORMA tris NOT a bi-foiler conversion like you talked about. I think the estimate for a production version of a foil assist 14' WETA is relatively accurate. Foil assist would increase speed and improve handling in heavy air. Depending on an engineering analysis of the current boat a larger boat with foils may be the best solution with foil assist or a full flying system.
A bi-foiler version is probably out of the question since the boat is too heavy.
A monofoiler with buoyancy pods(much smaller amas) would be a better way to go for the ultimate in performance.

Chris Ostlind

04-24-2008, 11:31 PM

bistros

04-25-2008, 08:14 AM

Hey Bistro
Instead of frothing angrily at the mouth a la Chris Ostlind and other flat earthers, check out the Weta site - they suggest themselves the thoughts of a larger and an all carbon Weta with lifting foils - take a deep breath man.

Just checked. No froth. And my world view is curved. Thanks for the concern, but my lung function is normal as well.

All carbon Weta? Priceless! Well maybe not priceless but certainly far pricier than the current product. I'd bet that it will never happen - before you even get into deep cost analysis, it would have to cost as much as a carbon I-14 just from a materials standpoint. Beiker 5 I-14's go for $35,000 and (far) up - and that doesn't include a complex T-foil daggerboard with wand mechanism. Russel Miller / Phil Locker / Larry Tuttle / John Illett quality foils cost BIG bucks - have you actually looked into pricing? I have, and I've paid real dollars.

My issue with Mr. Lord's self-issued fatwa to promote foiling for the masses is that he never faces the reality of real-world cost and skill level. He without fail underprices and overpromises performance. His ongoing justification for his nonsense pricing is "a BIG company" could do it. Face it, this is not a volume market, and NO big companies are going to invest in a niche market with no serious volume. Fastacraft and Bladerider are about as big as it gets in a performance niche market. You won't see Laser/Vanguard, Performance Sailcraft, RS or any other of the the industry leaders joining this particular pilgrimage to capitalist Mecca. If it isn't moldable by infidels in Tupperware plastic with +1000 unit potential, it isn't interesting to them. This stuff is built by people who love the products and aren't in it to get shareholders rich.

Gary, before you get a seat at the foiling table, make sure you can ante up the real cash. The cheapest buy (US$ - not home build) foiling option is the Bladerider at $14,500 - Prowlers are a little more at $16,000. This is for a relatively simple monohull design. A "foil assist" carbon Weta-like tri hull with a larger rig could easily cost $30,000 or much more. And that isn't leaving a lot of profit (probably zero) on the table for the folks that build it. The reason the Weta is becoming interesting to the North American market is due to two factors - reasonable cost and the enthusiastic support and promotion of Meade Goudgeon.

It's dead easy on Internet forums to underprice and overpromise. Anyone expecting to stay in business for longer than six months better not. Or they better keep their night job delivering pizza to the good folks of the Florida coast.

Doug Lord

04-25-2008, 08:02 PM

Fastacraft and Bladerider are about as big as it gets in a performance niche market. You won't see Laser/Vanguard, Performance Sailcraft, RS or any other of the the industry leaders joining this particular pilgrimage to capitalist Mecca. If it isn't moldable by infidels in Tupperware plastic with +1000 unit potential, it isn't interesting to them. This stuff is built by people who love the products and aren't in it to get shareholders rich.

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

B, your comments are completely off base and without merit for the most part. RS(LDC) is already embracing(to some extent ,anyway) the RS600FF foiler! ( http://www.thedailysail.com/ISM/articles.nsf/Features/03579BFE26A19D788025740A003070D6?OpenDocument&Page=1&Login)

Not only that, but the RS has PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt the viabilty of a DESIGNED FROM SCRATCH Peoples Foiler.
What they've done is take an epoxy glass(not carbon) wide hull and converted it to a foiler that is very close to the Moth in performance. The RS600FF weighs at least 167lb(2.5 times what a Moth weighs). This is important because using what has been learned from the Moth a high L/b hull could be designed with buoyancy pods that would be much lighter than an RS(but still heavier than a Moth) and could use much more economical building techniques than one involving an all carbon hull. That boat could be significantly less expensive than a Moth or an RS. You speak of foil builders as if they were magic gurus's-any production sailboat company of the right size to build a Peoples Foiler could have foils designed for them that they do the tooling for. No boat company capable of launching a Peoples Foiler would have to rely on Full Force or Ilett for hydrofoils-that is just plain rididulous!
-------------------------------
Which brings us back to a foil assist WETA: this company could EASILY do the tooling for a foil set that would work-they wouldn't have to buy them from anyone. Foil Assist would allow a main foil on each side-either straight or curved with between 1/3 and one half the area of a full flying main foil and very easy for a competent tooler within the company to build. The structure would have to be looked at but my guess is that it is ALREADY strong enough for this option.
You have a peculiar and vastly uninformed way of looking at the potential application of foils in either a Peoples Foiler or WETA. You're just dead wrong...

bistros

04-25-2008, 08:24 PM

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

B, your comments are completely off base and without merit for the most part. RS(LDC) is already embracing(to some extent ,anyway) the RS600FF foiler! ( http://www.thedailysail.com/ISM/articles.nsf/Features/03579BFE26A19D788025740A003070D6?OpenDocument&Page=1&Login)

Not only that, but the RS has PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt the viabilty of a DESIGNED FROM SCRATCH Peoples Foiler.

Doug, RS/LDC had nothing to do with the RS600FF - as you well know. Lynton James and Full Force boats did all the design and development work. RS may have jumped on the bandwagon as a sales exercise AFTER all the real work was done. Nice mis-statement of facts, as below you refer to Full Force yourself.

RS/LDC proved nothing other than they were happy to have Full Force help them sell some boats. Give the credit where it is due, and don't bend the truth to prove your arguments.

------------------------------
What they've done is take an epoxy glass(not carbon) wide hull and converted it to a foiler that is very close to the Moth in performance. The RS600FF weighs at least 167lb(2.5 times what a Moth weighs). This is important because using what has been learned from the Moth a high L/b hull could be designed with buoyancy pods that would be much lighter than an RS(but still heavier than a Moth) and could use much more economical building techniques than one involving an all carbon hull. That boat could be significantly less expensive than a Moth or an RS. You speak of foil builders as if they were magic gurus's-any production sailboat company of the right size to build a Peoples Foiler could have foils designed for them that they do the tooling for. No boat company capable of launching a Peoples Foiler would have to rely on Full Force or Ilett for hydrofoils-that is just plain rididulous!
-------------------------------
Which brings us back to a foil assist WETA: this company could EASILY do the tooling for a foil set that would work-they wouldn't have to buy them from anyone. Foil Assist would allow a main foil on each side-either straight or curved with between 1/3 and one half the area of a full flying main foil and very easy for a competent tooler within the company to build. The structure would have to be looked at but my guess is that it is ALREADY strong enough for this option.
You have a peculiar and vastly uninformed way of looking at the potential application of foils in either a Peoples Foiler or WETA. You're just dead wrong...

Doug, I've not said you were ridiculous, vastly uninformed, without merit or completely off base. You have embraced "truthiness" in Steven Colbert's true meaning and your cost estimates are in 1950 dollars. I've not taken this personal - and remember, this is an internet forum.

You would have more credibility with your "audience" if you wrote with less hyperbole, less personal attack and more facts.

Cheers!

Doug Lord

04-25-2008, 08:36 PM

"I've not taken this personal"-Bistros. Right. Thats funny considering your previous two posts! As best I can tell I was responding to the assertions you made-and not characterising you personally. You know like me issuing a fatwa-not personal,right?
------------------------
The RS600FF certainly has proved that a Peoples Foiler could be built out of materials a lot less expensive than carbon.Their hull is wide and not ideal for a foiler. And an ideal hull could be built for a lot less weight/cost than either their boat or a Moth. And I find it amazing that no one has yet taken advantage of the improvements to handling and speed of "foil assist" on a boat like a WETA-after development the cost per boat of a system produced in house would be very modest.
------------
For a long,long time many people including some famous foilers have labored under the impression that no boat heavier than a Moth could foil,period.* Now we have the unequivocal PROOF that a boat weighing 2.5 times a Moth and built out of epoxy glass not carbon can not only foil but beat the Moth in some conditions.
* Of course their previous position has been eroded by the foiling 14's and now the foiling 18's!

Capn Mud

04-26-2008, 05:12 AM

What they've done is take an epoxy glass(not carbon) wide hull and converted it to a foiler that is very close to the Moth in performance. The RS600FF weighs at least 167lb(2.5 times what a Moth weighs). This is important because using what has been learned from the Moth a high L/b hull could be designed with buoyancy pods that would be much lighter than an RS(but still heavier than a Moth) and could use much more economical building techniques than one involving an all carbon hull. That boat could be significantly less expensive than a Moth or an RS. You speak of foil builders as if they were magic gurus's-any production sailboat company of the right size to build a Peoples Foiler could have foils designed for them that they do the tooling for. No boat company capable of launching a Peoples Foiler would have to rely on Full Force or Ilett for hydrofoils-that is just plain rididulous!
-------------------------------
Which brings us back to a foil assist WETA: this company could EASILY do the tooling for a foil set that would work-they wouldn't have to buy them from anyone. Foil Assist would allow a main foil on each side-either straight or curved with between 1/3 and one half the area of a full flying main foil and very easy for a competent tooler within the company to build. The structure would have to be looked at but my guess is that it is ALREADY strong enough for this option.

OK - This simple sailor is getting confused. Some say yay and others nay....

I am about to take delivery of my Weta (I hope - assuming Indonesian Customs dont hold it up waiting for a brown paper bag)..... if and when Weta Marine go the route above am I likely to be able to buy a "Foiler Weta conversion kit" or would it be a whole new boat? Current boat weight is quoted is about 100 kg (which means with me aboard about 210 kgs).

What would such a conversion kit include?
- Foils obviously - if I understand you correctly Doug new foils (curved?) to be fitted where? Plus a T-Foil rudder
- Larger sail area was also mentioned at some point?
- Would rejigging for the foiling kit preclude using the boat as she was originally designed (like when teaching your kids sailing)?

LIfting foils on the Weta will take a broad appeal, broad wind condition and well-liked design and turn it into a one-wind-condition expensive piece of crap sail-able by about 0.001% of the people on the water.

Bistros, can you explain further. Why one condition? How hard would it be to learn to sail it? Having sailed dinghies a fair bit (mostly lasers) I look at the foiling moths and wonder how you learn to do that - but it looks such fun I would love to try.

Foiling Weta - something for a new Weta owner to look forward to - or not?

Doug Lord

04-26-2008, 09:12 AM

Mud there is a huge difference between what I was talking about on the WETA and what Bistros was talking about. He was talking about adding a foil set similar to a Moth to the WETA. That would NOT work without HUGE modifications especially to the rig since the boat is way too heavy as it is for full flying foiling. It would need 168sq.ft.(15.6sq.m) of SA to fly with the same takeoff profile as a Moth-and that would require serious mods and be very costly.
I have described "foil assist" which would use a small lifting foil(and trunk) in each ama plus a t-foil rudder. The boat MAY be strong enough for this but their engineer would have to look at it. The gain would be dynamic lift on the ama so in stronger winds it didn't get immersed as far as it does now which would allow it to fly the main hull. The rudder t-foil would control pitching. IF the WETA guys did this you'd have to send your amas back to have the trunks installed,and buy a t-foil rudder and the two forward foils. DO NOT attempt such a mod yourself without,at least, the direct input from the WETA designer. These mods- w/o adding more SA- would be in the range I suggested IF WETA did the mods in-house. With the foil assist system the boat could carry more SA but then it would be likely that the structure would be compromised. A foil assist version would be easy to "depower" and regardless of the mods you added to it you could always remove the main foils and add the original rig(if the WETA system included a new rig) to tame it for teaching your kids.
I would suggest that you enjoy the boat as it is and only consider foils IF Weta offers an in-house package as a series of options.

edvb

04-26-2008, 05:16 PM

Sounds like a conversion to a CATRI style Tri to me.

Doug Lord

04-26-2008, 05:20 PM

No, more like an ORMA:just the ama boards and one t-foil. Not the multiple foils of the Catri.

Chris Ostlind

04-26-2008, 05:54 PM

Couldn't it have been designed out by:
- Making the amas the same length as the main hull - or at least extend forward to in line with the bow; and/or
- Giving the ama bow a long overhang or an upturned bow a bit like a Hobie? (Granted this would have a negative impact on its aesthetic appeal - but even so)...

Or is there something I have not considered properly such as additional weight , strength of a longer ama or something?

Hey Mud Man,

Your questions are properly asked. Why isn't the ama biased well forward to help resist some of the illustrated pitchpoling? Now, before anyone gets into my face that the clip showed the boats in the highest of wind speeds and one should expect them to experience pitching issues... I get it. Still, it would be really nice if the fullest part of the bouyant form were more up front so that beginners could get full advantage of the self-stabilizing effect.

The designers probably had a strong notion that this boat would be sailed actively, meaning that the driver and crew would be moving around a lot to counteract the forces being brought to bear on the boat. To that end, it looks to meet a nice compromise between an efficient, fun boat and one that is economical to produce and subsequently own for the recreational sailor.

If there's one point about the Weta that I'd like to see different, it would be to make the akas with rounded turns in them, rather than the hard angles they currently display. I'm just not keen on sharp angular surfaces on recreational sport boats that are going to see lots of spills. Other than that, I like the boat a lot.

As for installing lifting foils in the amas to allow it to go faster, carry more sail area in bigger winds, prevent pitchpole and all the other less desireable factors mentioned... Take a moment and read this link about a boat that did just that and learned about the realities the hard way.

http://www.cheekeemonkee.com/documents/Round_the_County_2004.pdf

In this piece, you will see that the ama, itself, did not break apart. It was the ama to aka juncture which did, causing a huge amount of damage that resulted in a complete re-engineer of the aka beams and total replacement.

Without sitting down and running all the numbers and guessing at the Weta structure as it now sits, my take would be that the Weta will need all new aka beams/tubes, a totally different mounting structure at the ama/aka connection and possibly new amas which can handle different lateral forces as well as increased fore/aft loadings. The boat is going to weigh more, which will take it away from its existing status as a very light and sporty machine.

At this point, one would then start to consider a larger rig (as has been mentioned) to make up for the heavier boat, but that launches the design spiral of stronger and bigger everything else to compensate. All this will take the used-to-be-affordable price into the out-of-reach category for many recreational sailors

Groupama3, a very fast and all-out racing maxi-trimaran recently saw its leeward ama simply break in half at the juncture of the forward beam and just in front of the lifting foil location. This is a boat that was designed from the beginning to accept the loads of the ama mounted lifting foil and handle the huge seas of the Southern Ocean. Yet, it broke an ama in half just off New Zealand and had to be towed in, upside down and shipped to France in pieces.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the Weta is a wonderful new design for recreational sailing. It's a distinct departure from typical, skinny hulled trimaran. It is, essentially, a two-up skiff hull form with amas for enhanced stability. This enhanced stability is what makes the boat so attractive for beginners and those not embedded in the all-out race scene.

To start fiddling with the design, so that it can meet some mythical capability zone for which it was never designed is probably not in the best interest of the manufacturer, or the targeted buying public. Right now, there are very few things to fiddle with on the Weta and it gives a really fun and spirited ride for the owners. Install more bits that have to be monitored/operated, that have to be built differently and are directed at a different type of sailing audience is counter productive at this point.

A whole new boat, with a completely different end purpose, directed at a much smaller niche audience can be done. It won't sell as many products, will cost considerably more for the consumer and require a lot more sailing awareness to operate. To me, that sounds like a boat that is moving away from the design brief to which the Weta was intended in the first place.

Enjoy your boat and have a blast with it. Don't monkey it up with a bunch of supposedly, go-fast junk that costs a bunch more. If that's what you really want, then buy a different boat.

edvb

04-26-2008, 06:54 PM

Well done Chris.

In this day and age getting the boat on the water in the least amount of time and effort and having it perform well in a variety of conditions is becoming a key selling point in todays market. Being able to do it solo is a great plus. Keeping the price down is the other factor. The Weta is an excellent example of this formula. So is the Hobie Adventure Island. Two large companies with the Hobie Trifoiler and the Windrider Rave could not make a go of it as it is such a niche group. The Bladerider is having limited success but is getting close to the high end of the spectrum that a average person can afford.

I have been working on my Raptor for the last couple of years to speed up the setup time to the point that the only thing needed to do is remove the sail bag, and insert the mast with the rolled up sail into the mast base on the boat and it is ready to go as all the lines and the boom is attached.The boat fits perfectly in one stall of the the garage this way. It also is unique with the Foil Stabilization on the Ama but is not what what an average person wants even if it sails and paddles great. The average kayaker when I was at a show thought it was great but even at 6K when I bought it was outside the price range they were looking at. That is why the Hobie Adventure Island is doing so well.

We have these debates on the forum on a type of machine that most likely will never be produced in quantity for the average person as when it is all said and done it will never fit the formula above.

bistros

04-26-2008, 08:45 PM

OK - This simple sailor is getting confused. Some say yay and others nay....

I am about to take delivery of my Weta (I hope - assuming Indonesian Customs dont hold it up waiting for a brown paper bag)..... if and when Weta Marine go the route above am I likely to be able to buy a "Foiler Weta conversion kit" or would it be a whole new boat? Current boat weight is quoted is about 100 kg (which means with me aboard about 210 kgs).

Congrats on buying a great boat, that has excellent performance over a wide variety of conditions.

OK - This simple sailor is getting confused. Some say yay Bistros, can you explain further. Why one condition? How hard would it be to learn to sail it? Having sailed dinghies a fair bit (mostly lasers) I look at the foiling moths and wonder how you learn to do that - but it looks such fun I would love to try.

Foiling, like most things is simple in concept and somewhat more complex in execution. Just like an airplane, there is motion in multiple dimensions to deal with. Up/down which is grossly controlled by a mechanically driven wand that changes the main foil's lift via a trailing edge flap. Left/right thankfully uses standard rudder(s).

Gross control of angle of attack is done via a variable lift horizontal foil on the rudder - and the helm has a twist grip on the tiller extensions to control this. This is like typical T-foil rudders on I-14s.

Fine control of angle of attack is done in small foilers by altering fore/aft trim - the helm moves forward to decrease foils angle of attack, and aft to increase it.

Foilers are dramatically faster under the right conditions than normal boats - and as speeds increase, so does the stress on the hull during crashes. Lifting the boat completely out of the water on the very small area of the foil requires the hull be seriously engineered for the activity. A normal boat is not designed for this stress. Adapting a standard boat by bolting on foils is a recipe for future structural problems over the long term, unless the daggerboard truck is designed to bear the whole weight of boat and crew from the get-go. This is an area for concern regarding the adaptation of the RS600 by Full Force (RS600FF).

Foilers like the Moth work well in foiling conditions only - too little wind and the added drag of T-foils front and back make them slower than other comparable boats. Too much wind and they can be a real handful to sail as well. In North America, many venues like mine are primarily light wind sites - and a foiler would only be an advantage a few times a season. The rest of the time they are not fun.

A Moth foiler is about ten inches (25cm) wide and 11 feet long - they are only truly balanced when foiling in the right winds, by an expert helm. In light winds they are pure misery to sail - narrow, tippy and slow.

The Weta is a great boat as is. An all carbon, upsized version with "foil assist" would be VERY expensive and would not achieve the same high speed potential of a monofoiler like the Moth. In my personal opinion, a semi-foiling Weta is a bad compromise that reduces the functionality of the design, and doesn't achieve the full potential of foiling.

For what it's worth, you are getting a great boat that will be diminished by bastardizing it for "foil assist". The good Mr. Lord is quite fanatical about foiling in general, so please consider his pro-foiling in every circumstance comments carefully. If you care to visit Sailing Anarchy's Dinghy Anarchy forum, many well known foiling people at the world championship level will be willing to give an opinion on Mr. Lord's expertise. Search the dinghy anarchy forum for STFU, and you will find most of the comments directed at Mr. Lord.

Capn Mud

04-27-2008, 10:56 PM

http://www.cheekeemonkee.com/documen...ounty_2004.pdf

In this piece, you will see that the ama, itself, did not break apart. It was the ama to aka juncture which did, causing a huge amount of damage that resulted in a complete re-engineer of the aka beams and total replacement.
:eek:

I have an F27 (well a share in one anyway) and I thought it was almost indestructible... never digs its nose - seems to pull its head out more the more the wind.....

But I never thought of what I see here.... gotta read it in detail yet.

Thanks for all the good posts, very interesting and informative. Gotta work - maybe some follow ups later.

Capn Mud

04-28-2008, 06:07 AM

DO NOT attempt such a mod yourself without,at least, the direct input from the WETA designer. These mods- w/o adding more SA- would be in the range I suggested IF WETA did the mods in-house. With the foil assist system the boat could carry more SA but then it would be likely that the structure would be compromised. A foil assist version would be easy to "depower" and regardless of the mods you added to it you could always remove the main foils and add the original rig(if the WETA system included a new rig) to tame it for teaching your kids.
I would suggest that you enjoy the boat as it is and only consider foils IF Weta offers an in-house package as a series of options.

Dont worry Doug I wouldn't even consider it - despite being an engineer by profession I barely know which is the correct end of a hammer - about the most unhandy guy I know.

Still, it would be really nice if the fullest part of the bouyant form were more up front so that beginners could get full advantage of the self-stabilizing effect.

The designers probably had a strong notion that this boat would be sailed actively, meaning that the driver and crew would be moving around a lot to counteract the forces being brought to bear on the boat. To that end, it looks to meet a nice compromise between an efficient, fun boat and one that is economical to produce and subsequently own for the recreational sailor.

That all makes eminent sense to me - thanks Chris. I just have to work harder and stop being a lazy b..... ;-)

As for installing lifting foils in the amas to allow it to go faster, carry more sail area in bigger winds, prevent pitchpole and all the other less desireable factors mentioned... Take a moment and read this link about a boat that did just that and learned about the realities the hard way.

http://www.cheekeemonkee.com/documen...ounty_2004.pdf

Foilers are dramatically faster under the right conditions than normal boats - and as speeds increase, so does the stress on the hull during crashes. Lifting the boat completely out of the water on the very small area of the foil requires the hull be seriously engineered for the activity. A normal boat is not designed for this stress. Adapting a standard boat by bolting on foils is a recipe for future structural problems over the long term, unless the daggerboard truck is designed to bear the whole weight of boat and crew from the get-go.

OK - I understand the issue now - makes sense. And my unmodified F27 is probably relatively safe from this sort of event - :cool:

In summary - leave the foiling to the pros and see if it suits IF the Weta boys ever decide to try it on their design.

Thanks everyone :-)

tspeer

05-07-2008, 12:42 AM

...
As for installing lifting foils in the amas to allow it to go faster, carry more sail area in bigger winds, prevent pitchpole and all the other less desireable factors mentioned... Take a moment and read this link about a boat that did just that and learned about the realities the hard way.

http://www.cheekeemonkee.com/documents/Round_the_County_2004.pdf
...

There's no doubt the foils applied loads that were outside Ian Farrier's original design calculations.

However, I know the builder that made the replacement beams for Cheekeemonkee. They took the good beams from the other side and had them tested to destruction. They broke at about 70% (IIRC) of their design loads.

The best load calculations in the world won't help if the structure isn't built to withstand the design loads.

Doug Lord

09-24-2008, 08:43 PM

RHough

09-25-2008, 05:29 AM

More on this soon-its 4.9m LOA ,weighs 121lb all up ready to sail plus a 190lb. crew-316lb sailing weight W/SA=2.35
And most spectacularly Clive has developed an electronic control system-it still uses a wand but there is an electronic interface to the RUDDER foil.
Thats right- altitude control by rudder foil only. I believe he is expeimenting with extending the electronic system to both foils but I'm not sure.

Anybody else think this a bad idea? Altitude is foiling height right?

To maintain altitude at varying speeds the lift force must remain the same, but the CL must change. Changing the CL means changing the AoA of a fixed section or changing the camber of a flapped section.

To change the AoA of the main lifting foil requires a change in pitch angle of the entire boat. That means enough control authority to control pitch moment. Changes in pitch upset the airflow on the sail. The drive force that is a pitch down moment will change with each altitude correction. I can see all sorts of unstable couples being created.

It seems to me that the direct altitude control of a camber changing main foil that does not rely on or cause a pitch excursion is a much simpler solution.

Then there is the whole automated stability system using stored power vs the rules of sailing question. ;)

Just because something *can* be done does not make it desirable. One of the neat things about Moth foilers is the simple, no power required wand system.

Is enough performance gained to offset the extra weight of the power assist system? Is the boat sailable after a automated control system failure?

Doug Lord

09-26-2008, 07:32 PM

SimonN

09-26-2008, 07:37 PM

I think in almost any foiler system from manual to electronic from midship wand to bow wand simultaneous control(with 100% adjustable mixing) may be the best system.
Just as a historical note: the first two person bi-foiler(David Luggs I-14) was controlled manually with a twist grip on the extension tillers within months of John Iletts first sail with a wand. Luggs manual system controlled the rudder foil only.

And why do you think that Ilett went away from manual control and why everybody who has tried it on a bi-foiler has also given up? I presume it is because they are idiots, who know no better:confused:

Doug Lord

09-26-2008, 08:27 PM

For those wandering about Clive Everest-designer of the foiler above with an electronic control system here is some history written by Andy Rice in 2004:
-------------------------------
Clive Everest has also been inspired to draw the lines for his own foiling machine. Best known as the designer of successful singlehanded classes, the RS600 trapeze boat and the RS300 hiking dinghy, Everest is an unreformed speed junkie. He has raced International 14s, 18-foot Skiffs and most recently an A-Class catamaran. He also has a history in Moths, including designing the world championship-winning Moth of the early 90s and finishing second in his own right as a sailor. He was also part of a pioneering group who experimented with foiling over a decade ago. “I was involved with Moths when we were experimenting with a tri-foil arrangement, but then the class banned it,” he says. “These days at 13 stone I’m too heavy to campaign a Moth competitively; you’ve got to be about 10 stone and I think the weights might come down even further with the foils. But I was totally inspired by what Rohan Veal was doing so I decided to design my own boat, with no rules or restrictions to worry about.”

His own RS300 design, itself a derivative of the Moth, has proven fast and easily driven in light winds so Everest took this as the basis of his new foiler. “The only time the hull’s going to be in the water is in light winds, so the RS300 seemed like a good place to start.” Because Everest only expects to be sitting on the water in conditions of 7 knots or less, he has had the top 150mm of freeboard chopped off the RS300 hull to save weight, and has commissioned Richard Woof of RMW Marine boatbuilders to construct the hull of carbon.

To this hull Everest is attaching carbon trapezing racks for added leverage. The rudder and rudder box are standard 49er equipment, with the addition of a T-foil wing to the base of the rudder. The rig consists of a carbon mast and fully-battened Mylar sail. So far, the basic configuration differs very little from the Rohan Veal Moth, but where it differs is in Everest’s approach to the foil arrangement. “I have adopted a tri-foil arrangement similar to what you see on a commercial passenger-carrying hydrofoil ferry,” explains Everest. “We experimented with this set-up on the Moths 10 or 15 years ago but because the class banned it, Rohan has had to go for his more complex T-foil arrangement.”

Unlike the T-foil system, Everest’s tri-foil configuration has no moving parts and there is less tweaking and calibration involved as a result. The hull is supported on two carbon foils, one from each trapeze rack, angled at approximately 45 degrees underneath the centre of the hull, with the T-foil rudder providing a small element of lift at the transom. It will run closer to the surface and will provide a more stable ride than the high-flying Moth of Rohan Veal. It may look a little less spectacular but should prove equally fast, if not faster, with anticipated speeds of up to 25 knots. “I wanted something simple and maintenance free. I’ve got a young family and limited time to go sailing, so the tri-foil will just let me get on with the fun part,” explains Everest, who plans to club race his foiler during the summer in Chichester Harbour. “The aim is to give the fast twin-trapeze boats like the International 14s a good run for their money.”

Everest’s Achilles heel is going to be in the sub-foiling conditions when all that hydrofoil becomes added drag, but he has given himself a big rig and big foils to promote early foiling, at the expense of reduced top speed. And unlike the Moth, he has the added turbo of a small gennaker which he will hoist downwind in light to moderate conditions. “Because of the amount of apparent wind, the sail is very flat - more like a Code Zero than a gennaker. But once the wind is above a Force 3 to 4 I expect to be generating enough power around the course with just the mainsail.”

Chris Ostlind

09-27-2008, 09:14 AM

And why do you think that Ilett went away from manual control and why everybody who has tried it on a bi-foiler has also given up? I presume it is because they are idiots, who know no better:confused:

Doug,

An hour after Simon asked the above question of you, you went ahead and posted an historical reference to Everest, completely ignoring the principal question he posed. Please have the courtesy to answer what has become the signal point in the entire discussion about this drive to incorporate a manual wand system that you feel is so important.

From what I can tell from all your writings, the only boat with this particular feature that you have ever owned, was your ill-fated and now discarded aerofoiler. There isn't any proof that your boat even foiled, much less was accurately responsive to the manual control system, so why would any of these very experienced guys find your position so compelling now? They have tried this approach and found it wanting. Subsequent use of the less fiddly and much simpler system currently employed has shown that the wand-to-foil design concept is more than functional.

What, exactly, is it that you'd like to say, that has not already been explored by others with a great deal more design, build and foiling time with these systems than you?

So, there you have it, Doug; a respectfully posed set of questions with no histrionics, personal attacks, back-handed slaps, whatever... Please answer the questions, come to some level of understanding about the issues involved and if you please; let the subject go, both here and also over at Sailing Anarchy. I'm guessing that you have much better things with which you can spend your time than this...?

Chris
Lunada Design
www.lunadadesign.com

Doug Lord

09-27-2008, 11:30 AM

RHough

09-27-2008, 01:59 PM

Manual control is not easy-to use it effectively in racing would require hours and hours of practice. But once you nail it I'm fairly certain it would be a bit faster than a wand. The wand is a very effective system but for racing I think a manual system would be faster IF you were willing to put the time in to learn it well. And there is no simpler system.
I think a combination wand/manual system would be ideal for jumping-an avenue of foiler flying that has mainly been explored accidently and that could develop into an extremely popular offshoot of "normal" foiling. Manual control is NOT a system that I advocate for a Peoples Foiler wanabe-at least right now.
Clives current system and future variations of his system are working in the direction of making foiling easier which is what a Peoples Foiler is all about.

I think you are wrong, the more a boat "sails itself" the more of the skipper's attention can be "out of the boat" and racing. Even if after hours of practice manual control becomes second nature, some part of the brain must be focused on boat adjustment, that reduces the available processing time for tactics and strategy. Nowhere is this more important than in single-handed sailing.

In a crewed situation the goal is to remove the driver from the boat and sailing controls so that 100% of his attention is on racing decision making. Every extra manual adjustment reduces the capacity for other things.

Only in a "I'm just mucking about" situation would manual control be of value. And then, only for people that want to turn their boat into a marine version of a low-rider and make it jump up and down to impress the girls.

Doug Lord

09-27-2008, 02:03 PM

I may be wrong but I think its worth looking in to.

SimonN

09-27-2008, 07:00 PM

Manual control is not easy-to use it effectively in racing would require hours and hours of practice. But once you nail it I'm fairly certain it would be a bit faster than a wand. The wand is a very effective system but for racing I think a manual system would be faster IF you were willing to put the time in to learn it well. Your own words explain why manual control is not the way to go. If you were building a boat you were trying to get the highest top speed out of for a limited distance, it might be worth exploring. However, we aren't. We are talking about a boat that is raced around a course, maybe for hours each day.

Any system that needs hours and hours of practice to be able to use cannot be good for racing. You have consistantly refused to answer what will happen during the times you cannot concentrate 100% on keeping the boat flying. What happens when you look ove your shoulder, looking for the windward mark which is lost in waves. You aren't paying attention to the waves for, say 5 seconds. Or, what happens when you have close boat handling at a mark and you suddenly have to avoid a boat you haven't seen. It is at times like these that even the greatest sailors make mistakes and it is why we spend so much time trying to make rigs automatic and as simple as possible.

However, what you want to do is to make the most difficult boat there is even more difficult to sail. It makes no sense. You can sail around the course 2 or 3 knots slower and beat a boat that has a capsize! Another example is that failing to pull off a foiling gybe loses maybe as much as 100 metres!

And there is no simpler system. Again, I fail to understand how this can be so. You say you want to link the rudder and main foil yet the link between them isn't constant. Sometimes you need the 2 foils to alter the same way, sometimes in opposite directions. Often, you need to adjust one and not the other and finally, you need to be able to adjust them by different amounts. That sounds pretty complex to me. The advantage of a well set up wand is that it sorts out the main foil as a concequence of everything else you do in the boat.

I may be wrong but I think its worth looking in to.Why are you so unable to accept that this has been looked at and dismissed? You even quote examples of manual systems which have now been abandoned.

Doug Lord

09-27-2008, 07:24 PM

Well, thats interesting. Most sailors that are serious about racing already spend a good deal of time practicing. There are are lots of people who say windsurfing takes lots of practice to get right. I'm sure the pilots of the aircraft in the Reno air races practice a lot to allow themselves to race effectively.
It seems to me that a manual system that eliminates the dragging wand reduces weight and complication even with a main + rudder foil combo.
My limited experience with it on my boat was positive even though,at first, the system didn't work too well.
I've talked to both David Lugg and Alan Smith who were responsible for the manual control system on the first two person bifoiler and they both said the system worked well.
As I said: it's worth looking further into it-and I am.

RHough

09-27-2008, 09:36 PM

I've talked to both David Lugg and Alan Smith who were responsible for the manual control system on the first two person bifoiler and they both said the system worked well.
As I said: it's worth looking further into it-and I am.

Since you are still at the point of being able to foil at all, I can see where you might think that manual control will work. It might ... for someone that just wants to foil at all.

Take two guys, first happy to foil at all. One of them spends 50 hours learning to control the boat. The other spends 50 hours tuning an automatic system.

Lets say that the manual control guy gets to the point that only 15% of his attention is needed to trim the foil system. The guy with the automated system needs 0% of his attention on the foil system.

Guess who is going to win races?

I know you are a clever guy, and I admire what you have achieved with your RC boats. Take your known successful foiling tri, and convert it to manual control on a separate channel and see how much harder it is to sail. You will not be able to look ahead of the boat as much as you can with the automated system, the same is true of 12" = 1ft scale boats.

Having a manual override for stunting makes some sense. But refusing to use an automated system for basic stability is insane.

Doug Lord

09-27-2008, 09:48 PM

Two guys in Gainesville added 100% manual control to two Rave multifoilers. In terms of work load this is most interesting because on the Rave(like the F3)
manual foil control means control of the boat's altitude and RM(roll control).
Very little to no input is necessary on the Rave or F3 for pitch so the primary
workload is altitude and roll. And according to them the boats worked well and were frequently raced.
---------------
John Slattebo(designer of the Raptor) on manual control:
[4 Mar 01, updated 3 Nov 02] I designed several manual controlled foil stabilized outriggers. From the first one it was plain to see that manual controlled full foilers was the way to go to generate performance all around the course. Sailing is just too dynamic not to have manual controls. I invited Greg Ketterman to sail my boat proposing to change his tri-foil to manual control but he explained that for he was working on larger designs where this might not be possible. I think it is inevitable. Let me know if you are interested in more details as to how we controlled them. I have several designs and several published articles about these boats. Last article was in Multihulls March/April issue. A Yahoo search for John Slattebo will reveal two more. -- John Slattebo (raptor16@sbcglobal.net) website: (http://hydrovisions.com/)
-----------------
Doran Oster's Manual Altitude Control System for the Rave(for his boat and Hollis Cafee's boat): http://www.doranoster.com/pdf/Hand-Controls-for-Rave.pdf

RHough

09-27-2008, 10:27 PM

Two guys in Gainesville added 100% manual control to two Rave multifoilers. In terms of work load this is most interesting because on the Rave(like the F3)
manual foil control means control of the boat's altitude and RM(roll control).
Very little to no input is necessary on the Rave or F3 for pitch so the primary
workload is altitude and roll. And according to them the boats worked well and were frequently raced.
---------------
John Slattebo(designer of the Raptor) on manual control:
[4 Mar 01, updated 3 Nov 02] I designed several manual controlled foil stabilized outriggers. From the first one it was plain to see that manual controlled full foilers was the way to go to generate performance all around the course. Sailing is just too dynamic not to have manual controls. I invited Greg Ketterman to sail my boat proposing to change his tri-foil to manual control but he explained that for he was working on larger designs where this might not be possible. I think it is inevitable. Let me know if you are interested in more details as to how we controlled them. I have several designs and several published articles about these boats. Last article was in Multihulls March/April issue. A Yahoo search for John Slattebo will reveal two more. -- John Slattebo (raptor16@sbcglobal.net) website: (http://hydrovisions.com/)

Doug, you refuse to address civil, logically stated opinions and respond instead with hearsay and 6 year old quotes from a guy that sells these:

http://hydrovisions.com/images/graphics/tacking-raptor.gif

I think you and others here have the ability to think 'out of the box', but sadly it appears that you cannot look at your ideas objectively when trying to apply them practically. I think that is a shame, since it keeps people from taking any of your ideas seriously. It puts you into the same club as the whale bumps on foils and golf ball dimple drag reduction guys, and I think you don't deserve to have your ideas dismissed that way.

I give up.

Doug Lord

09-27-2008, 10:32 PM

Did you read the Oster pdf? You know I think it is a damn shame you would be so dismissive when manual control has been used successfully on two monofoilers and two multifoilers. That should, at least, suggest that it is an area worth more investigation. So be it....
---------

SimonN

09-27-2008, 10:45 PM

Doug

Cotton sails and wooden spars were used sucessfully in the past and even metal mast and woven sails more recently. However, that isn't a reason not to use carbon masts and film sails today.

I accept that IN THE PAST people used manual control but that was before decent wand systems were around. Manual was tried on Moths but abandoned.

Finally, please stop quoting stuff on the Rave. You have argued that the Rave proves nothing for bi-foilers and you cannot have it both ways. In the case of manual control, the very fact that the sailor sits in one position all the time and can cleat the sails makes manual more practical than on another type of boat.

Doug Lord

09-27-2008, 10:54 PM

Doug

I accept that IN THE PAST people used manual control but that was before decent wand systems were around. .
======================
Thats not true! The Rave wand systems were being sold before the first Moth
sailed using a wand. In fact,the new planing wands developed by Bradfield were available when Oster was racing.
Ignoring the potential of manual control is your choice but you may be missing an important area of development.

Paul B

09-28-2008, 10:01 PM