Design Challenge: Trapwing-"on-deck" ballast-12'-22'

Stubby,

With all due respect to your opinions and wishes, as Paul has said above, our favorite, "complexity in sailing", guru has been the generator of frequent outbursts that have far surpassed the posted opinions on his design work.

It would seem to me that if you are going to bring a contraption like this to the pages of boatdesign.net, you are seeking opinions on the merits of same from the gathered members. This is a good thing, as I see it, if the person doing the submitting is open to any and all ideas that may be presented. Unfortunately, there has been a significant history on this site in which our friend has referred to the opinions of others as absurd, silly and a host of other choice phrases for which he has gained renown. Words and phrases, mind you, that are designed to raise the amplitude of the rhetoric so that he can be heard above his own din.

I say that his design work should be what speaks for him and if it is poorly conceived, then he should be ready to accept those facts and drop back and rethink the design elements. If he still insists that the design is properly thought-through, then it is incumbent upon him to build a full-sized, working example as proposed and prove to all of us that he has a clear vision worthy of consideration.

For the last six years, we have seen no full size working models of anything from our friend. There have been something like six, or more, (I lost count some time back, actually) favorite flavors of the month for our good buddy and not one of them was taken to completion. Yet the ugly rhetoric from our friend continues if one opines as to the lack of a working reality in his latest go-round. Wait and see, it's bound to happen all over again and the game will be abundantly clear to you when it does.

When someone (our friend) isn't listening and this is especially true when the generous contributing opinion givers have significantly more experience as designers and sailors, as has happened in the past AND our friend postures excessively with careless and condescending language... it does not generally lead to a pleasant discourse.

Our buddy has called-out at least half a dozen world champion sailors, another dozen, or so, top designers who operate regularly at the cutting edge of their craft... accusing them of being out of touch and that they don't know what they are doing. That it is he, and only he, who has a finger on the pulse of the performance sailing world. We've grown to understand over the last five years, or so, that our friend is not here to listen and gain knowledge, he is here to make sure that you know how super creative he is in his zeal to over-design every single craft of which he has had a part.

Again, the man is not listening.

Best of luck to you.

 

ok i didn't realize that, but I like the idea, its an interesting one. OK maybe some models would be good. Maybe he has gone about it the wrong way, I'm not saying he is right I'm just saying I like the idea.

 

Doug, you're likening a conventional sliding seat, or trapese, or even crew sitting on the rail on unballasted, or lightly ballasted dinghies - to your extremist sliding beam TUW overweight contraption. The comparison is such that there is no comparison. Yours is supposedly for some physically impaired person sitting central and staying central, operating battery powered mechanisms, not an agile crew sliding his or her own weight in/out, but yours is ... here I push the button and the weighty ballast moves out, whoops too far, lull, oh, here comes a gust, bzzz bzz, out she goes further, my, oh my, more wind coming, bzzz bzz, operate the front end loader extension, get it right out there, way out there, gee Doug, thanks for the extreme beam, oh, oh, huge power boat passing close by, big lull, big wake, whoops, whats the sulfurous smell? oh, oh, water up my nose, help, help.

 

And while that is happening, Gary, along comes Mr. Simple Trimaran with righting moment built in to the form itself. Skipper is comfortable, relaxed, not fiddling with a pair of joysticks... just tooling along at speed, taking in the wind patterns and enjoying the heck out of the day on the water.

Uh-oh... Mr. Simple Trimaran just blew past Mr. WING Trapped gizmo craft and the dude on board, rather than harried and bagged-out, is smiling and taking a bite of his sandwich.

http://ww7.investorrelations.co.uk/challenger/photo.jsp

Back at the ramp, Mr. Simple is all loaded-up and about to jam on home when he spies Mr. Trapped WING, off to the side of the ramp in the shallows, still trying to get his recalcitrant Gizmo WING to slide this way, or was it that way and rotate like this, or was like that and now, on which end is the battery supposed be... Oh, my gosh! there goes the spindly deck mounts for the sealed WING Trapper and we're gonna miss the regatta next week while down for repairs.

Two weeks later, the ad reads, "WINGED-out Trapper for sale... cheap. I just want it outta here so I can get a tri and spend more time on the water" He didn't mention how much the Gizmo Trapper boat cost him in the first place and the ad went unanswered.

Ahhh, the joys of hyper-tech.

 

========================
I believe you are quite mistaken: the boat will be about 180lb minus ballast which is 20lb lighter than the 15' Windmill, just a little heavier than the Tasar and a bit less than an I-14. Much less than a 505, 49er. And all those boats are 2-4' shorter. And if you want to include ballast, then add the crew weight to all these boats!
Many disabled boats are sailed with electric systems-they can be very reliable or disabled sailors wouldn't use them. See earlier in the thread.
This boat and/or versions of it can be sailed 100% manually as well. This is a broad concept, model tested for years.
It will be an exciting,fast, self-righting(with keel ballast) boat the likes of which has not been done by anyone yet.
For you to use the "rationale" you are is unfortunate because I-and a few others-believe that this boat can provide a new kind of sailing that is very fast, fun, thrilling and NOT physically demanding while providing a safe and easy to transport platform.
Yes we can!

 

As a matter of interest, how will a reasonably durable boat, with the added structure of the sliding beam and control systems, come in lighter than the 49er and not much over the Tasar without being extremely expensive? I believe that the weight of an HSP, with a much finer main hull and light lightly-stressed alloy tubes, as similar to the weight target for your design. The 15' Supernova tri was some 90kg, and it was designed by a successful designer nad was not overweight.

Secondly, are you sure that the sliding beam is higher above the water than that of an IC or Skate? Can you provide us with measurements? If so, who gave you the Skate ones - Maxy?

Thirdly, why would this boat be less complicated to tack than an IC with self-tacker, which is in some respects the closest comparable boat?

If I recall correctly, in a typical tack from threequarter to opposite tack reach, the skipper will have to;

1) sheet on both sails while;
2) turning the boat and;
3) operating the ballast-control position lever through a very wide variety of positions as the heeling force changes as the angle and pressure change; and then through the tack

1) steer the boat through the tack while;
2) adjusting sail trim and;
3) moving the beam from side to side (the beam and ballast positions are independent, aren't they?) and;
4) moving the ballast at a non-constant rate in accordance with the changes in apparent pressure and angle.

This appears to be a much more complex procedure than most craft; arguably more complex than (for example) tacking a Skiff or Canoe, which are normally considered to be quite difficult tasks. Yes, you have years of experience in R/C boats - others of us have years of experience in life-size boats of a complexity and of dimensions similar to this craft and we do not believe that it would be as easy as you believe. Repeatedly saying that you believe it would work is not enough evidence for us to be convinced - I've seen the problems that good sailors have just steering a Canoe or HSP through a tack and even allowing for a very light keel etc, I can't see why this boat would be any easier.

Furthermore, the buoyancy pods look very small for something that is designed to compensate for the situation where you are caught aback in (say) 25 knots of breeze, with the ballast on the wrong side. For example, the pods in the Bethwaite HSP look to be of similar size and they were not always enough to keep the boat upright in that situation even without a crew and ballast.

As you have requested feedback, could you please provide us with theoretical proof of self-righting, using some accepted formulae for wind pressure etc? I note once again that something like a 16 Foot Skiff can often require the full crew (520 lb+) on the centreboard for righting on a windy day. In addition, have you allowed for the effect of the beam, which will act as a turtling force because of windage (if projecting above the water) or act as a turtling force by acting as a sea anchor while the rest of the boat is blown downwind (if projecting below the water).

Finally, given that you can certainly nosedive a HSP (which lacks lifting foils but is an inherently lighter concept) why is this boat so unlikely to nosedive? If it goes nosedive and invert, what happens?

Please note that you have asked for feedback and discussion.

You may also like to take note of the fact that the rest of the group involved in this discussion have all created new designs or (at least) remodelled existing ones and that all (or almost all) have sailed many new craft, and therefore cannot be called stick-in-the-muds.

Finally, can it be said that for any person to merely repeat their own belief is not very convincing. For example, no matter how many times you say that you believe that the boat will self right in 25 knot winds, I won't be convinced until you provide figures and calculations that rely on widely-accepted sources and coincide with experience. For example, the fact that righting a 14 or 16 is normally the job of two or three men totalling 350-550 lb+ of on the centreboard means that many of find it hard to see how this boat will self-right with 80lb of keel. The fact that a Flying 15 can lie down long enough to fill, despite a 280lb keel, also indicates that a boat with 80lb of ballast may not right easily (or at all).

PS - like others here, I've found small tris (Supernova, HSP, Windrider, Dugout and TriFli are the ones I've sailed) to be wonderful craft to sail.

The Challenger is already an established tri for disabled sailors and is so safe that one has been sailed around the UK by a disabled sailor. There's at least one guy campaigning for the Challenger to be the Paralympic class (and let's hope it succeeds). Surely it would be an excellent existing craft.

 

-------------------
Thank you for your feedback. The righting capability of the boat with the keel is augmented by the sealed wing which has a great deal of buoyancy.
Total righting moment@ 90degrees is a minimum of approx. 2.5 times the heeling moment from the rig but that depends on the amount of ballast being carried which, as stated numerous times, is variable as is SA. However, I won't be able to prove anything without thorough testing which is the purpose of building the prototype.The Challenger seems like a great boat. But its over 140lb heavier than the Trapwing(w/o ballast). It is heavier than the Trapwing with ballast and the same SA of the Challenger!(80.7)
Challenger weight(w/o crew)= 320lb.
Trapwing weight ,ballasted for same SA as Challenger(w/o crew)= 275lb.




LOA: 4.57m/ 14.9'

Beam: 3.50m /11.48'

Weight: 145.62 kg/ 320.36lb

Construction: GRP

Draft, center board up 12cm, down 45 cmm

Portsmouth Yardstick rating: 1200

Mast height: 6.5m

Sail Measurements

Sail area: 7.5 sq. mtrs / 80.7 sq.ft.

Luff: 5..37 mtrs

Foot: 2.41 mtrs

¼ height: 2.003 mtrs

½ height: 1.58 mtrs

¾ height: 0.96 mtrs

Classs Approved sail confirguration UNA-RIG

 

Doug:

Again you are having trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy. This boat DOES NOT EXIST today, so therefore it can't automatically center the wing, or self right. These future features DO NOT EXIST, they haven't been proven on a full scale boat, none of the weight targets have been met, none of the mechanisms have been fabricated full size, from appearances no calculations or engineering science has been applied, published and reviewed.

You may PLAN for this to happen, but until it does it remains a fantasy, not reality. You represent your plans as fait accompli, and do not bother with qualification to your statements of conjecture.

Talking about versions as if they exist of a design that has not even made it to a linesplan or offsets could easily confuse readers into thinking your PLANS are further along the curve than they are.

I PLAN on making ocean passages when I retire - that DOES NOT make me a blue water yachtsman now.

--
Bill

 

Is this another stolen element? You make a habit of this, don't you?

 

---------------------
You should have read the previous post more carefully. And you should probably not ignore the 10 years of model testing that has proven that the concept works and is very reliable in a multitude of conditions. Model testing of this type is a very reliable indicator of performance and has been used by many of the top designers includeing Alain Thebault(apologies for sp). Greg Ketterman, Dr. Sam Bradfield, Bill Burns of CBTF and many others. The performance that we looked at was the performance of a sliding ballast system controlled by the skipper. It works and has been proven in model testing. Now it is time to build a full size prototype to refine the system and verify the test results achieved so far.

 

How much buoyancy? This figure has never been revealed. Is it a great deal more than a ping-pong ball, for instance? Or, is it a great deal more than a welded-shut VW Beetle? How do you know how much buoyancy this wing has unless you have run the volume calcs and then subtracted the weight of the wing itself, as well as the battery, the carriage, the sliding rods, the electrical wiring, etc.?

It would seem that you are merely guessing, yet you make comments about the critical functional element, as if it were a done deal. Having no previous boats out there with a similar form, from where do you draw your grounded comparison?

There is quite the dichotomy here in these sentences. First you say that you can't prove anything until it is built full-size, which is prudent. Then you go on to say that the Trapwing WILL BE lighter. Seeing as how this is a prototype, how can you be sure that the craft will not need additional structure beyond your "rough" estimates to make it work dependably?

How are you arriving at your weight estimates with only simple pencil sketches to define the forms, their actual sizes and placements? How are you calculating the necessary amounts of GRP reinforcements and bulkheads to support such a high speed structure while moving across a minimal, exposed deck surface? Where are the engineered calcs from precision, dimensioned drawings to support the claims?

There are a few people on this planet that can draw an atom bomb on a napkin, Doug... and make it work because they have it all in their head. You'll have to forgive my skepticism on this, but you do not come across as one of those folks. That would put you in the realm of dreamers who are pretty much winging it, which is decent company, mind you, but not really what I would call a qualified materials engineer.

Don't disabled sailors deserve to be thought of as humans who should be considered with carefully calculated structural forms before you shove them off from shore?

 

I read it most carefully, and there was absolutely nothing indicating a full sized boat had been built proving anything. Producing a radio control toy car does not make anyone an automotive designer - and producing model boats does not prove a boat design for real people. I completely understand that models can be used to test concepts, but model results are not acceptable as proof these concepts will scale to full size operation.

Name dropping of people not associated with your venture buys no credibility. If these people are associated, have them chime in and state their support and relationship to the venture. It takes all of 60 seconds to join this forum and show their support of your concept.

<waiting>
......
<waiting>
......
<cricket's chirping>
......

Perhaps you should contact these people and indicate you are using their names and reputations as support for your unbuilt, untested, unproven boat as a success.

Who is this we, Kemosabe? Are you willing to elucidate on the team of researchers and designers involved? Or are you, like the Queen speaking in third person plural out of habit? Have you published your thesis, the data collected and the conclusions drawn? Or is "looked at" a euphemism for "Googled other people's research"?

Once you have built, tested and published credible results and documentation regarding a full sized prototype you will have earned the right to claim this concept works, until then you are just flapping your gums.

--
Bill

 

--------------------
-The boat with a main+jib rig will use the Swift Solo method of sheeting(slightly modified): single sheet for main and jib.
-Upwind tacking-much the same as any other dinghy: skipper steers and moves the ballast . The difference on the Trapwing is that the Skipper can do this w/o moving-much simpler ,if you ask me.
-General handling-simple fingertip control for disabled version,same as any other boat with side rail seating(maybe not class legal). Only difference with Trapwing is that the skipper has the power to create far more RM faster than it could be done with a human crew.
-Again, this is where model testing comes in: sailing an RC boat with a Trapeze Power Ballast System is in some respects more challenging that sailing a full size version based on 10 years of sailing the RC version and over 50 years of sailing many different "normal" boats.The responses of the RC boat are much quicker and the co-ordination required greater because of that and perspective changes. RC testing has been critical in showing the potential of this concept and its lessons are directly applicable to the full size boat.
The physical movements required from a disabled sailor would be about the same as RC on the Trapwing-only easier. The movements required of an able-bodied sailor are much less than an equivalent boat w/o the WING-and are infinitely variable according to the choices of configuration made by the sailor. However, this is a well-informed guess based on lots of real world experience but a full size prototype is required as is extensive testing of that boat.

 

The lessons are not directly applicable to a full-sized, disabled sailor boat.

The simple reason... nobody can drown on a scale model from pilot error, or a broken component.

Let that sink-in for a bit, Douglas. All the whiz-bang stuff...? if the winging thingy breaks, or refuses to move, then over she goes. At the guaranteed speeds that you say this thing will go, that represents a quick ticket to a strapped in guy who is now underwater due to a nasty crash and he's likely going to be quite stunned. Do you have a super techy plan for that reality?

Lastly, Doug... just how much retail cash will a wheelchair sailor have to produce to get himself into this "experience" you propose? A ballpark figure will do.

 

Oh, Oh ... Pick Me! I know the answer to this one!

Doug knows somebody who is going to modify the control software and hardware from an Unmanned Autonomous Vehicle (Taliban Seeking Rocket platform) for a really low price that says creating a fail safe system is easy and should not cost much at all.

If a UAV controller is safe enough to use as a missile platform to annihilate Pakistani Taliban (or similar appearing folk), it will prove good enough for Doug.​

Never mind that releasing hardware designs, CAD source files, firmware source etc. is probably in violation of many contractual and national security laws.

I'm sure a developer of UAV equipment will risk their reliable/trusted vendor status to get in on a custom re-engineering of a proprietary board and firmware (from someone without a development budget).