CBTF(Canting Ballast Twin Foil)

2, in planning the boat how did you test CBTF-tank testing, vpp or?
Did you get input from CBTFco in evaluating the system for your clients' boat?

[usa2]

VPP. we didnt talk to CBTFco.

[CT 249]

Originally Posted by Andy P

And we must thank CT for bringing rule 52 to our attention regarding foilers in the int moth class!
No action yet on a rule change , so still technicaly illegal.

Hang on, Andy - when I mused about r 52 and foilers, it was in reply to a post about ELECTRONIC height adjustment of foils; someone was talking about developing a battery-powered system and I merely said that probably that would fall foul of the stored energy rule. Apparently after that, some people started to assume that wands were a possible problem.

I've always assumed that the wand itself is not stored energy, any more than some forms of vangs that have a bend batten-type device to support the boom, or perhaps even a pre-bent mast.

Doug, I hardly think I was a leading figure against foilers. I just got into the debate because there were some assertions made that were factually incorrect. For example, there was a claim by one leading foiler proponent that (IIRC) One Design classes always die, whereas development class always survive and that the Moth must develop to survive.

That's wrong; the oldest OD classes in dinghy sailing (dating from the mid 1880s) are still around and only about 4 widespread Oz OD classes have died; the several "frozen" Moth classes are generally more popular than the current development Moth. That's just an example of a common cry that is incorrect. There are many more.

As a couple of the real leaders of the Moth class say, the issues of development and sport and class growth and survival are much more complicated than some of the pro-development lobby think. So all I've ever been trying to do - in this thread as in the Moth one - is to look at some of the issues involved, to try to think about a path that allows development without stuffing up the sport and killing classes. It seems to be a pretty complicated matter.

[Andy P]

Originally Posted by CT 249

Hang on, Andy - when I mused about r 52 and foilers, it was in reply to a post about ELECTRONIC height adjustment of foils; someone was talking about developing a battery-powered system and I merely said that probably that would fall foul of the stored energy rule. Apparently after that, some people started to assume that wands were a possible problem.

I've always assumed that the wand itself is not stored energy, any more than some forms of vangs that have a bend batten-type device to support the boom, or perhaps even a pre-bent mast.

yes but once you've read the rule it does appear to apply to wands etc.
It's not stored power, but it sure isn't manual adjustment!

Isaf have been asked for clarification ( but say the moths must sort it out )
Protest against foiler about rule 52 - the moths must sort it out .
The moths could change or opt out of rule 52, but havn't yet decided what to do. It doesn't really matter - but rules is rules!

I think the problem is really with the wording - I think it proabably MEANS not stored power, but it covers all options to say only manual power. The rule was also originally written ~ 100 yrs ago, with the concept of canting keels and flying foilers totally unknown.

[Andy P]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

Andy, it seems to me that if the Moth Class rules specifically say words to the effect that you can do anything if it is not banned that that effectively trumps Rule 52 under the authority of Rule 86.1 (c)("Class rules may change only racing rules 42,49,50,51,52,53 and 54." Is that not true?

not specifically, but that is the general idea.

so the class could change / opt out of 52 if they voted for it.

Originally Posted by Lorsail

"The International Moth is a singlehanded development class boat.
The intention of these class rules is to give the designer and builder fullest liberty in design and construction,within these rules, to develop and produce faster boats."
Since there is nothing in the rules that prohibits a wand under this preamble I sure would think it would have to be considered legal. But apparently there was a protest using Rule 52 at some recent regatta that was upheld-can you elaborate, Andy?

wand is legal - but the non-manual adjustment of the appendage ( lift foil ) is clearly not!

protest was undecided - sent back to moth class for consideration.

Isaf have been asked for their opinion - and also sent back to moth class for consideration.


The problem is probably the wording - manual power only is easier to enforce and interpret than not stored power etc. This rule was originally written more than 100 yrs ago, before the idea of the canting keels, flying foilers.

[CT 249]

Hmmmm, interesting that ISAF has shuttled it back for consideration. I thought the analogy of the wand and "non manual" devices like bendy rigs (which work without manual power) was pretty good. It seemed to me that therefore the wand would be cleared, but obviously I got it wrong!

[gggGuest]

Hmm, so if ISAF has thrown it back at the class it sounds as if they're either saying that they think its a breach of rule 52 or else that its a can of worms they don't want to open, so will the class please put in a special rule to save them the embarassment of working it out.

On the one hand its obviously not the sort of thing that was being thought about when the rule was drafted, on the other hand I can see the point that water powered adjustment (which is what you could regard the wand as) isn't quite the same as manual adjustment. It feels legit to me though I must say.

[Andy P]

Originally Posted by CT 249

Hmmmm, interesting that ISAF has shuttled it back for consideration. I thought the analogy of the wand and "non manual" devices like bendy rigs (which work without manual power) was pretty good. It seemed to me that therefore the wand would be cleared, but obviously I got it wrong!

I think that isaf are saying they don't want to rule on it, and it's up to the moths to decide whether to ignore it ( cos it doesn't really matter and it's a stoopid rule applied where it's not needed ) , or make a change to rule 52 not applying .

looks like the first option ( ie do nothing till you have to ) is winning at the moment.
maybe 15 ? moth foilers in UK now.

Chris, are the foilers still going to kill the Moth Class?

[Andy P]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

Chris, are the foilers still going to kill the Moth Class?

possibly....

no new conventional boats - all the new UK boats are foil equipped -but could of course be sailed with normal foils - but it's BORING AND SLOW .

And if it's not windy enough, it's even more boring waiting for breeze.

However you still need to learn to moth sail first before you can foil.

And it's still not easy on a foiler!

So the fleet appears to be splitting a bit, with diehards and learners in normal boats, and foiler racing when it's windy enough.

Be interesting to see what happens at this years opens / nationals.

[CT 249]

Sorry, Andy, do you mean it's "boring and slow" sailing a modern narrow Moth (Axeman, HT etc) in light airs with hydrofoils? Or is it "boring and slow" to sail the modern boat with a "conventional" centreboard?

Doug; I won't answer that question because Andy's response ("possibly") says much more than anything I could say.

I don't blame you CT ; Andy's comment surprised the hell out of me!

[usa2]

i think he meant that its boring and slow sailing a modern moth with conventional foils, and then if you have one with foils its boring to wait for the windspeed to be strong enough.

[ErikG]

It's al relative I guess... Having the fastest small conventional dinghy can't be all boring...
But I'd love to learn how to foil. First I'd better get myself a regular Moth and learn to sail that.

[CT 249]

It sounded to me like it does to USA2, but to me the idea that a Hungry Tiger or whatever could be boring in light winds just shows that pure speed and efficiency are no guarantees that a boat will be interesting.

The skinny Moths can be cramped and uncomfortable to sail in light winds (although much better than the Magnum-beam skiffs I've sailed) but it's interesting that they can perhaps be called "boring".