16-18' "Sit-in" Planing Monohull ("Trapwing")

[bistros]

Originally Posted by sigurd

---Quote---
Your thoughts are worthless.
---End Quote---
U suck!

Going from the philosophical to the more technical subject of the thread; I was a bit nondescriptive in my former post. I was thinking that by putting a small, toed in leeboard on each side of the wing, the wing and ballast would be moved outwards according to heel angle (but depending on speed).

Sigurd, one of the things they teach in Engineering school is to clearly separate your desires on a project from the desires of the client. Without consulting the client, product plans are useless - this is the point I was making.

Doug has confused his personal desires for a high performance / low effort boat for his dotage with the real world needs of the mobility challenged sailor. If he is promoting this concept as a high performance thrill ride for the mobility-challenged without asking them what they want/need, his thoughts ARE useless. So would my thoughts be, and those of anyone else. Proper focused and objective research is the foundation for all product development.

There seems to be a basic disconnect with the real world here - it is one thing to smoke marijuana and pose theoretical random ideas amongst the people around the firepit, but it is an entirely different world accepting a professional commission to deliver a functional product to a client that meets or exceeds their expectations.

Don't know what you do for a living, but if I developed a product specification without consulting a client, and then promoted my idea as suitable and safe for a purpose I did not research I would be out of clients in a heartbeat. I'd also be quickly up for a ethical inquiry or professional accreditation review.

I'm not attacking Doug personally here, I'm defending a profession that has rules and legal ramifications.

--
Bill

The focus of this boat is high performance for all sailors from a unique perspective. Bistros, I have talked to several disabled sailors who think this concept is exciting-and it is. You have proven time and again you don't understand the concept and yet you make asinine pronouncements about it being "dangerous". You don't know enough about it to say that. And you continue to ignore the fact that this sailing concept is designed to appeal to ablebodied sailors as well as disabled- there are a number of versions of the boat that might be more suitable to disabled sailors than the Turbo version.
This is a design forum and the object here ,it seems to me, is to present design ideas and discuss them. You and Ostlind do not "discuss" you ridicule and make pronouncements from a position of ignorance.
In virtually every pronouncement you have made from the beginning on SA thru your posts here, I have proved that you had no clue about what you were saying-yet you continue to do the same thing. Useless....

[Chris Ostlind]

Doug...

Why is it that every time you get spanked by logic and pragmatism, you raise the level of your vitriol to the ugliest places? I'm saddened by this and sincerely wish that you would return the conversation to a civil tone.

There are some serious potential problems in your design submission which you have decided do not need attention, much less an interchange with those who might be able to help you.

I urge you to reconsider your actions.

[bistros]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

The focus of this boat is high performance for all sailors from a unique perspective. Bistros, I have talked to several disabled sailors who think this concept is exciting-and it is. You have proven time and again you don't understand the concept and yet you make asinine pronouncements about it being "dangerous". You don't know enough about it to say that. And you continue to ignore the fact that this sailing concept is designed to appeal to ablebodied sailors as well as disabled- there are a number of versions of the boat that might be more suitable to disabled sailors than the Turbo version.
This is a design forum and the object here ,it seems to me, is to present design ideas and discuss them. You and Ostlind do not "discuss" you ridicule and make pronouncements from a position of ignorance.
In virtually every pronouncement you have made from the beginning on SA thru your posts here, I have proved that you had no clue about what you were saying-yet you continue to do the same thing. Useless....

Doug:

Here are some "ignorant" criteria:

1) You are the one who promoted this project as suitable for mobility-challenged people. Not me.
2) Your presentation of the project has changed over time from a mobility challenged platform into "versions" of the design for different purposes. You attempt to deflect valid critiques by changing the target, not defending your original concept.
3) I could do design drawings of a completely function implementation of this system right now, including the "pull" mechanism to automatically move the ballast once plank movement has started. No big deal. I get it.
4) Systems designed for mobility-challenged people have to fail safely, not dangerously. Hole the "plank" and flood it (not unexpected in a 12' wide lightweight construction wing) with the ballast extended and you've got a recipe for capsize and operator drowning. You are placing a serious amount of faith in one complex moving component that provides both buoyancy and righting moment.
5) Entry and egress are serious issues for the mobility challenged - and having a 12' plank requiring poor docking isn't going to help hoisting wheelchair folks into and out of the boat as simply as the Martin 16s we use at my club.
6) Taking up a 12-14' wide parking spot or dock location isn't going to work in many clubs. The wing (@190+ pounds) is going to have to be easily removable.
7) The lead weight needed for 160 pounds works out to 392 cubic inches (more than two cubic feet) (The previous was in error - actual works out to .229 cubic feet - error pointed out by Doug L.) of volume ((160 pounds x 16 ounces)/6.53 oz per cubic inch). This is a relatively large sized object to slide inside a hollow plank. For the plank to be adequate strength with adequate failure prevention designed in the plank will weight at least 25 to 30 pounds (metal rails for the weight carriage, turning blocks for the wire control lines, locking mechanism etc.) Add that to the 160 pound weight and you've got another 190 pounds to add to your hull weight.
8) The sail area is extreme at 160 sq.ft. upwind. Your specification, not mine. High performance boats with similar upwind sail areas include the 505, Laser 4000, 29er-xx, RS400 etc. All of these are trapeze dinghies/skiffs that require highly mobile crew.

Designers must be prepared to accept product liability that their designs are suitable for the purpose for which they are promoted. Especially in the litigious United States. Mobility challenged people are a product liability category that must be considered very carefully, and obtaining product liability insurance will not be simple with a design that incorporates several risky/unproven features together.

None of the issues I've raised are asinine, ignorant or clueless - the issues are simple reality staring you in the face. Face them now, or face them in product litigation court after you've hurt someone.

I've managed to keep this discussion professional and not on a personal level. Perhaps you could use some of your new "anarchy" mojo to do the same.

--
Bill

Your attempts to ridicule me here and esp. on SA have just backfired big time. I was going to answer you point for point then I got to this,where you say:

"7) The lead weight needed for 160 pounds works out to 392 cubic inches (more than two cubic feet) of volume ((160 pounds x 16 ounces)/6.53 oz per cubic inch). This is a relatively large sized object to slide inside a hollow plank. For the plank to be adequate strength with adequate failure prevention designed in the plank will weight at least 25 to 30 pounds (metal rails for the weight carriage, turning blocks for the wire control lines, locking mechanism etc.) Add that to the 160 pound weight and you've got another 190 pounds to add to your hull weight."
===========================
You are an engineer??!! Thats kinda funny: 160lb lead= 160/700=.228 cubic feet.
.228 cubic ft of lead is 12" by 12" by 2.736" or 393.98cu.in..
This is just another one of your poorly thought out and uninformed comments that even a freshman in high school should be able to figure out!
You said this: "None of the issues I've raised are asinine, ignorant or clueless - the issues are simple reality staring you in the face. Face them now, or face them in product litigation court after you've hurt someone." Amazing Karma........

------------------
I may answer the rest of your stuff when I get thru laughing....sorry.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You(bistros) said: "I've managed to keep this discussion professional and not on a personal level. " Who are you trying to kid??!! If these posts are "professional" I'd like to see unprofessional! Posts 6,17,23,28,30,31 oh yeah-and your SA posts! Give it up, bistros-you have conclusively proved-beyond a shadow of doubt-that you don't know what you're talking about. I tried answering your posts point for point with no editorial comment but your insults and ridicule went one step too far.
Now, its blown up in your face.....
For "professional" look at Steve Clarks post(#20 in this thread)-even though I disagree with him he was first class in the way he presented himself-you and Ostlind could learn....

[Chris Ostlind]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

... even a freshman in high school should be able to figure out!

When you are in the process of being disingenuous, Doug, do you think that you could possibly create an original thought of your own?

Yesterday I posted the source of your stolen idea over on the thread: Where are the catamaran innovations? with the following quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Ostlind

...So simply doused, in fact, that any junior high school debate student can run the table on you without any heavy breathing...

Sheesh!!!!! Has it gotten so low, that someone needs to execute a rip-off and can't even do it with an original thought?

Come on, Big Boy. Surely you have something substantively better which you can toss about as your padded velvet sledgehammer?

[bistros]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

Your attempts to ridicule me here and esp. on SA have just backfired big time. I was going to answer you point for point then I got to this:

7) The lead weight needed for 160 pounds works out to 392 cubic inches (more than two cubic feet) of volume ((160 pounds x 16 ounces)/6.53 oz per cubic inch). This is a relatively large sized object to slide inside a hollow plank. For the plank to be adequate strength with adequate failure prevention designed in the plank will weight at least 25 to 30 pounds (metal rails for the weight carriage, turning blocks for the wire control lines, locking mechanism etc.) Add that to the 160 pound weight and you've got another 190 pounds to add to your hull weight.
===========================
You are and engineer??!! Thats kinda funny: 160lb lead= 160/700=.228 cubic feet.
.228 cubic ft of lead is 12" by 12" by 2.736" or 393.98cu.in..
This is just another one of your poorly thought out and uninformed comments that even a freshman in high school should be able to figure out!
You said this: "None of the issues I've raised are asinine, ignorant or clueless - the issues are simple reality staring you in the face. Face them now, or face them in product litigation court after you've hurt someone." Amazing Karma........

------------------
I may answer the rest of your stuff when I get thru laughing....sorry.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You(bistros) said: "I've managed to keep this discussion professional and not on a personal level. " Who are you trying to kid??!! If these posts are "professional" I'd like to see unprofessional! Posts 6,17,23,28,30,31 oh yeah-and your SA posts! Give it up, bistros-you have conclusively proved-beyond a shadow of doubt-that you don't know what you're talking about. I tried answering your posts point for point with no editorial comment but your insults and ridicule went one step too far.
Now, its blown up in your face.....
For "professional" look at Steve Clarks post(#20 in this thread)-even though I disagree with him he was first class in the way he presented himself-you and Ostlind could learn....

Doug - I forgot to multiply one factor (144 x 12) - although the cubic inches worked out correctly. I apologize for the error. Professionals acknowledge errors, apologize and get on with life.

Although I did make one error in haste, all of the issues raised are valid and unanswered. Please build this boat and prove me wrong - although I know it will never be built.

In the time I've been on this site I've conceived of a boat, built it, debugged and tuned it and enjoy regularly it on the water. It meets and exceeds the original design criteria in every way.

Successful development speaks for itself, and so does failure. Please update us when your new boat foils. Provide pictures this time.

--
Bill

You can't stop, can you?

[Chris Ostlind]

Why should we, Doug, when you continue to produce a steady stream of comedy material?

By the way... what's next for you... an innovative and truly original Formula One ride for Professor Stephen Hawking?

Originally Posted by bistros

Doug:

Here are some "ignorant" criteria:

1) You are the one who promoted this project as suitable for mobility-challenged people. Not me.
2) Your presentation of the project has changed over time from a mobility challenged platform into "versions" of the design for different purposes. You attempt to deflect valid critiques by changing the target, not defending your original concept.
3) I could do design drawings of a completely function implementation of this system right now, including the "pull" mechanism to automatically move the ballast once plank movement has started. No big deal. I get it.
4) Systems designed for mobility-challenged people have to fail safely, not dangerously. Hole the "plank" and flood it (not unexpected in a 12' wide lightweight construction wing) with the ballast extended and you've got a recipe for capsize and operator drowning. You are placing a serious amount of faith in one complex moving component that provides both buoyancy and righting moment.
5) Entry and egress are serious issues for the mobility challenged - and having a 12' plank requiring poor docking isn't going to help hoisting wheelchair folks into and out of the boat as simply as the Martin 16s we use at my club.
6) Taking up a 12-14' wide parking spot or dock location isn't going to work in many clubs. The wing (@190+ pounds) is going to have to be easily removable.
7) The lead weight needed for 160 pounds works out to 392 cubic inches (more than two cubic feet) (The previous was in error - actual works out to .229 cubic feet - error pointed out by Doug L.) of volume ((160 pounds x 16 ounces)/6.53 oz per cubic inch). This is a relatively large sized object to slide inside a hollow plank. For the plank to be adequate strength with adequate failure prevention designed in the plank will weight at least 25 to 30 pounds (metal rails for the weight carriage, turning blocks for the wire control lines, locking mechanism etc.) Add that to the 160 pound weight and you've got another 190 pounds to add to your hull weight.
8) The sail area is extreme at 160 sq.ft. upwind. Your specification, not mine. High performance boats with similar upwind sail areas include the 505, Laser 4000, 29er-xx, RS400 etc. All of these are trapeze dinghies/skiffs that require highly mobile crew.


--
Bill

=================
1) I said this:"A well designed, tested and proven version of this boat(that was self-righting) COULD offer disabled sailors(and/or grumpy old men like me) a high performance single-handed alternative to the 2.4 meter. BUT,and this is important: to be viable this boat does not have to be suitable for disabled sailors! Don't view this concept ONLY thru the lens of what might be suitable for disabled sailors." I have repeatedly said that the Turbo version of the concept pushes the limits. Even so the only way it is viable for disabled sailors is if it is self-righting: that is NOT the fastest version of this concept but would undoubtedly be the fastest boat suitable for disabled sailing. Excellent design, engineering and testing along with input from disabled sailors would be critical for making a production version( NO plans currently)
accessible. Same for the able bodied version which would be the fastest,period without using the keel.
------------------
2) Absolutely 100% false! From the very begining several years ago this concept was framed in terms of different "versions" from nice and easy to the Turbo version.
-----------------
3) I just bet you could! Only thing is the system I have does this simultaneously-not after the wing starts moving!
----------------
4) Again, you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't understand my system,but further, you show that you cannot CONCEIVE how this could be designed. First the premise is faulty: the likelyhood of the wing being holed while it was underwater is extremely unlikely since it is above water 99.99% of the time. But if it was holed the buoyancy at the end of the wing would prevent a disaster.
Its not a matter of faith-it is a matter of intelligent design and engineering.
----------------
5) This boat is designed to be beach sailable-same places almost any cat or the Weta can be launched will work fine. Disabled access would be customized for the nature of the challenge the skipper faces. For transport,the wing is slightly rasied and pivoted parallel to the centerline of the boat.
---------------
6) See 5.
---------------
7) LEAD-see my previous post. The lead is molded to the wing shape. The bottom half of the curved wing includes a molded in "rail" that guides the lead
so that it is physically impossible for it to get stuck and so sliding friction is at a minimum.
----------------
8) This boat has a highly mobile robotic crew-whether it is manually or electrically moved. The CE of the rig on this boat is lower than on any comparable boat that I know of. And the RM developed by the "crew" is ample
for this SA.
----------------

See my gallery here and on SA-I do a lot of building. I don't mind informed constructive criticism-your brand and Ostlinds is neither constructive nor well informed-for the most part.

[Chris Ostlind]

What you really mean is that you used to build stuff. From your gallery here on BD.net, it doesn't look like you've built squat in more than five years. Even then, the boat you say you built, couldn't foil and you, by your own admission, unceremoniously scrapped it out as a floaty toy at a kids' windsurf school.

Before you get all up on your back legs with pseudo righteous indignance, I invite you to produce substantiated proofs of your foiling experience with the boat which was your latest (5 plus years ago) completed exercise. A collection of postable photos, or a steady video clip of the hallowed event will do nicely. Failing that set of proofs, the nice readers here have no choice but to put the claim of foiling in the "Yeah, right!, sure you did!" bin.

The real problem here, Doug, is that you detest anyone or anything, who calls your fluffed-up claims or prognostications of the future of boating, to task. You just can't stand constructive criticism in direct opposition to your glowing concepts.

There isn't a designer, or engineer alive who can exhibit that kind of behavior and survive in a professional capacity. Mostly, the folks who operate at this end of the creative spectrum exhibit a rigorous self-critical process, which tends to shakeout most of the BS. They also ask for observations from a vast array of learned individuals from varying disciplines as they relate to the new idea and after listening with respect, they fold that information into the process. They do not attempt to shout-down the questioners and critical thinkers with endless streams of the same imagery, repetitive sets of purely speculative numerical data and anxious language designed to push the dialogue into the stratosphere.

You want to be treated with respect, then show the common decency to listen, graciously acknowledge the points made by others, even if you do not agree and have the temerity to make changes in your proposal from the input received. You are not an island, dude. You're just another appendage peninsula among many who are doing the same things as are you.

You put your stuff up here on a public forum and then get all huffy when it doesn't wind-up the way you had expected. My friend, I kindly suggest that you simply keep your ideas to yourself if you do not like the potential criticism that may come from individuals who have far more knowledge on any particular subject than do you. None of us are perfect, Doug. I don't think that most here would even be bothered by the odd comment that is harshly phrased, but holy cow... just act like a reasonable guy and have some grace.

They didn't kick you off of Sailing Anarchy for a month because you were the sweetest guy on the Forum... so get a clue, will ya?

[mark_m]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

=================
---------------
7) LEAD-see my previous post. The lead is molded to the wing shape. The bottom half of the curved wing includes a molded in "rail" that guides the lead
so that it is physically impossible for it to get stuck and so sliding friction is at a minimum.
----------------
8) This boat has a highly mobile robotic crew-whether it is manually or electrically moved. The CE of the rig on this boat is lower than on any comparable boat that I know of. And the RM developed by the "crew" is ample
for this SA.
----------------

I wouldn't be counting on the whole ballast being lead. If you want it to move in and out with mimimal effort from the crew, it's going to need substantial motors and batteries. To meet your low weight criteria, these need to be the moving balast. Since you've got more sail area than a Musto skiff, the 'crew' is going to have to move around more than they would on the Musto. Also If this is a low effort boat, you aren't going to be vigerously playing the main, so the crew is going to have to work extra hard. So in shifty wind they're going to have to move fast and often.
But I'm still intrigued by the concept, so I put together a spreadsheet to see how much power/energy you would need to drive this robotic crew:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...RdY7sKt6hJFfUA
I've assumed that the balast is accelerated horizontally where as in reality the majority of the time the mass will be moving up hill.
My conclusion is that even if the whole of the balast is made up of motor and battery, in shifty winds you aren't going to be sailing for very long.
I also don't think the manual balast movement is going to work. At the moment I can't move my own weight fast enough to get a moth to balance, I would hate to have to move a lump of lead around using only my arms. I don't care if the runners are frictionless, you still have to accelerate it up a rapidly steepening ramp everytime you hit a gust.

Basically, sailing high performance boats in strong shifty winds is hard work.

Originally Posted by mark_m

I wouldn't be counting on the whole ballast being lead. If you want it to move in and out with mimimal effort from the crew, it's going to need substantial motors and batteries. To meet your low weight criteria, these need to be the moving balast. Since you've got more sail area than a Musto skiff, the 'crew' is going to have to move around more than they would on the Musto. Also If this is a low effort boat, you aren't going to be vigerously playing the main, so the crew is going to have to work extra hard. So in shifty wind they're going to have to move fast and often.
But I'm still intrigued by the concept, so I put together a spreadsheet to see how much power/energy you would need to drive this robotic crew:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...RdY7sKt6hJFfUA
I've assumed that the balast is accelerated horizontally where as in reality the majority of the time the mass will be moving up hill.
My conclusion is that even if the whole of the balast is made up of motor and battery, in shifty winds you aren't going to be sailing for very long.
I also don't think the manual balast movement is going to work. At the moment I can't move my own weight fast enough to get a moth to balance, I would hate to have to move a lump of lead around using only my arms. I don't care if the runners are frictionless, you still have to accelerate it up a rapidly steepening ramp everytime you hit a gust.

Basically, sailing high performance boats in strong shifty winds is hard work.

========================
Thanks for your effort, Mark. Do I understand that you based this on moving 160lb 12 feet in 1 second?

Originally Posted by bistros

12 feet? The net movement of the battery is 18 feet. The battery may be moving 12' in the track inside the wingwang, but the wingwang is also moving 6 feet. The battery has to move the net distance uphill, downhill or on a level plain. Gravity doesn't take a vacation because you are moving two things at once.

Your calculations clearly specify a 9' lever arm off center for the RM 2x9'=18'.

--
Bill

--------------------------
Mr. "engineer" , I believe he used a speed of 12' in one second for his calculations.