Moth on Foils: 35.9 knots(41.29 mph)

[Andy P]

top no-foiler was Sami from Finland in 10 yr old Axeman in 27th place.

 

[Stephen Ditmore]

Brigantine NJ regatta photos available at http://phoenix.phanfare.com/album/335465. There was foiling at the outset, but the wind died as the day went on. 3 foilers and a lowrider participating. The lowrider won on light air performance as the wind faltered. No spinnakers were used.

The other boats in the photos are classic moths, which started separately.

Have a great summer!
Stephen

 

[Doug Lord]

Moth on Foils- Bladerider vs Formula Board

Thanks Stephen!
--------------------------------
----FROM THE BLADERIDER SITE SLIGHTLY EDITED:
The Bladerider Experiment


KA Ambassador Martin Love has spent many hours with KA chief designer Andrew McDougall perfecting the new designs for the 08 KA Formula.
What better way to test the allround performance of the Formula than against the X8 in a variety of conditions.
So the test pilots took to the water over a series of tests and here is what they found: 5-7 knots *--- The foiler "flys" when the average sailor can't get a Formula board to plane ( of course there will be exceptions , really light , fit guy's) *The foiler is blistering fast in these conditions .
7-8 - 12 knots --- *Upwind the foiler has much better VMG , Formula board can't point as high although marginally faster. *Formula board is faster downwind but on the lighter end of the wind scale can,t sail as low and can fall off the plane .
12-18 knots --- Upwind very even , Formula board faster but lower . VMG very similar. Formula board noticeably faster downwind .
18 knots + *--- The formula board starts to edge away now upwind and is considerably faster downwind. .
Conclusion ----- The foiler is amazingly efficient in light to moderate airs and will foil earlier than a Formula board will plane.
See the Bladerider in action www.bladerider.com.au

*
*
© 1991-2006 KA Sail Australia Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
=============================
Check out the pix:
KA Sail Australia - Bladerider v's Formula
Address:http://www.kasail.com/windsurfing/news/12june07.html Changed:1:22 AM on Wednesday, June 13, 2007
----------
IMG_2413.jpg

 

[CT 249]

AMAC scored a 2nd, four 3rds and a 4th in the Moth worlds. Despite two sad DNFs, he was 5th overall (great effort, esp. in addition to creating the BRs).

Martin, by his own admission, is a long way behind the world's best FW sailors. In the most recent results I can find, the 2005 Oceanics, Love was 35th out of 45.

Obviously one cannot draw many conclusions between a sailor whose best place is 23rd out of 45 (still a good effort in a very hot fleet), with a sailor whose best place is 2nd out of about 65. That would not be logical, unless you were trying to get some PR which BR obviously are.

So let's compare Martin to the 3rd-placed sailor (as that is where AMAC normally finished in the Moth worlds) in the Formula Oceanics....In the only two races where times are available, Martin finished about his normal spot yet he was 24.5% SLOWER than the 3rd placed sailor.

While Martin's straight-line speed is probably closer than the finish margin indicates, without further information it seems rather misleading to draw conclusions between a sailor who normally finishes #3 in the world in his class, and a sailor who is 24.5% SLOWER than #3 in the Oceanics in his class.

This is not downgrading the Moth in any way. And BR have the right to put a gloss on things to sell gear. But we also have the right to point out that it's not exactly scientific to compare two craft when one is sailed by someone who is about 25% slower (by comparison to his peers around a course) than the other sailor.

Just to illustrate the point. We were comparing a top-line foiler sailor (AMAC) to a FW sailor who finishes 75% back from the front (Martin). Let's compare a top-line sailor in a non-foil Moth (ie the guy who got 2nd non-foiler in the worlds) to a sailor 75% back in the foiler fleet. And what do we see? Accounting for DNFs, the 2nd non-foiler was FASTER than the foiler sailors 75% back. On total points, he was miles ahead.

We all know foilers are miles quicker than the nonfoilers. This test merely points out that you cannot compare a sailor at the back of a fleet in one class to the sailor at the front of a fleet in another class, and draw conclusions from their performance. This is of course extremely important in boats like FW boards and Moths, where there is much more difference between fast and slow than in very nice but lower-performance boats.

 

[gggGuest]

But we also have the right to point out that it's not exactly scientific to compare two craft when one is sailed by someone who is about 25% slower (by comparison to his peers around a course) than the other sailor.

Isn't it also fair to say that this test shows that in conditions in which a Div2 board would be way faster than a formula board this test also shows a Moth would be faster than a formula board. Like big deal!

 

[Phil Stevo]

Chris,
Your comments are valid, it would have more cred if the two sailors were of equal standard.

But interestingly the observations are similar to what we have seen at St George, comparing Wayne and Nathan Bownes (Wayne 8th in Aust FW Nationals) with Luka Damic, Chris Dey and Steve Donovan (all in top 5 of Aust Moth Nationals.)

So maybe Martin is OK straight lining but not as good around a course?

Also of interest is that in less than 10 kts my canoe is faster than the moths.


AMAC has created a very good moth in the Bladerider. After such a huge investment in time and money it should be a good boat. With the best moth sailors on board it proved more than competitive at the worlds.

But it is not a huge breakthrough in moth design, it may have slightly improved foils or systems, but I am sure that the other builders or moth sailors will have learned a lot from the worlds regatta and be chasing Bladerider's apparent advantage.

Sooner or later another moth development will be faster and then the One Design aspect of Bladerider will be an obstacle to its moth class competitivness. The owners will then have to choose to sail one design Bladeriders races only, modified their bladeriders to get more speed for moth races or leave them alone and race amongst the slow moths.

A split would be harmful to the moth class, but as with all the others before hand I think the Moth Class will outlast the breakaways.

Phil S

 

[PI Design]

Well said Phil. One design spin offs of development classes only make sense if the design is already an out dated one, not a cutting edge one. Having a one-design wide Moth makes sense, because they are already not competitive in the Moth fleet, but are decent boats in their own right. It seems a shame to lose these good (and more practical) boats just because they can't keep up with a foiler. I would still prefer a 'vintage rules' development Moth class though, rather than a one-design.
But a one design foiler will be out classed in a couple of years, leaving, as you say, a dilema as to whether to stick or twist. And I can't see many people sticking. So the Bladerider is, in fact, just an incredibly hyped up Moth.

 

[Phil Stevo]

The US has a vintage development moth class. The boats look like 1950s vintage and at least some of the sailors do too. Not big numbers though.

The biggest one design moth is of course the Europe. Never saw them in Aust until the brief Olympic era, now all dissappeared. Not sure what numbers will survive elsewhere now it has been dropped.

I think the NZ one design has gone. The French and UK OD versions seem to still exist in numbers a bit like the US development version.

I really liked the pre foil narrow boats, although some believe they nearly killed out the class, because most outsiders thought they were too hard to sail.

They did demand skills which are more optional in more forgiving boats, but they were extraordinarily rewarding when sailed well. Upwind they were a dream, but when the wind was up, every downwind mark was rounded with a feeling of relief.

Its the same people using the same skills who are doing well with foils now, just 30% faster.

Moth enthusiasts simply move on to the next big (and faster) thing. There was minimal support for a foil ban and nothing discussed about a one design lowrider at the time.

So who will create the next big Moth revolution?

 

[Doug Lord]

Moth on Foils-Bladerider vs Formula board

Seems to me that this was more like two boat testing that than a world class race. These guys were working together to get a realistic idea of the strengths and weaknesses of both boats.

 

[Doug Lord]

Moth on Foils-- Prowler Wand

Wand position idea by John Ilett:

ProwlerWandOnAPole%5B4%5D.jpg

 

[frosh]

There are some very well made comments by several forum members in the last few posts. I couldn't agree more with Chris when he makes a very valid point that in FW and foiler Moths the speed differences around a course are potentially massive between a guy in the top 3 in his class, and a mid fleet finisher or lower. Quite an unscientific type of comparison to say the least. Doug makes the point that in marginal foiling conditions a FW is generally only planing part of the time. Has anyone been out on the water alongside a FW in winds that below the planing threshold of a FW and observed how painfully slow they are? A lowrider Moth or a an old Lechner Div 2 board would probably do more than double the speed in these conditions. Again comparisons made out of the "correct wind range" will be absolutely meaningless. There was a race held in Sydney Harbour, in Australia a few years ago between a top of the fleet FW and a really well sailed 18 footer skiff. My recollection was that in a decent breeze of around 15 knots, the FW was quicker through the water upwind than the 18, but travelled lower. VMG of both craft was very similar. Downwind the FW pulled away gradually even though the 18 was carrying perhaps 1300 sq. ft of sail or more, and the FW around 120 sq. ft. Power to weight was almost certainly better for the 18.
The Bladerider if it remains a One design effort has already signed it's own death warrant, and as Stevo correctly points out, there will be a further significant developments in the International Moth, and then who will shell out all those bucks for a Moth or Moth Clone, that will in the future be off the pace? As far as the "Vintage Design" Moths go, how vintage do you want to be? Personally I would love to see the Peter Cole designed "Mouldie" become the basis of a vintage Moth class, but that is my aesthetic choice, and my personal preference for a beautifully crafted wooden boat that gets up on the plane very early in the wind range; however this has got as much chance as "pigs going flying". I guess we will just have to go with the flow, whatever that might bring in the future.

 

[Doug Lord]

...... Doug makes the point that in marginal foiling conditions a FW is generally only planing part of the time. ...

----------
Nope. Never said that. I did ,however ,say that this was not a regatta and these two EXPERT sailors were not racing AGAINST each other but WORKING CLOSELY TOGETHER doing two boat testing to determine- as realistically as possible- the strengths and weaknesses of the two boats.
In such an endeavor their respective regatta finishes are completely meaningless.....

 

[Chris Ostlind]

----------
In such an endeavor their respective regatta finishes are completely meaningless.....

Well, not quite, Doug.

If it's something like meaningful data you seek for comparative purposes... then reducing the number of variables in the equation is the most meaningful methodology, not adding further complexity which obfuscates the data interpretation.

If you have two guys with widely separated skill levels, then you have introduced significant variability for data interpretation that is outside the comparison in question. Hence the comments above, attributed correctly, or not.

Was sailor A having a good day, equal to that of sailor B? Was Sailor A's inherently better skill set over-tweaking the data, or was it, in fact, the other way around?

If you want to look at the whole comparative test cycle with but two drivers and two boats, then all that you can derive from the entire thing is but mildly entertaining. Something like one tiny dot on a great big sheet of graph paper. Hardly definitive in any direction. Certainly not a result from which you'd launch into any change of opinion.

Adding more complexity.... Hmmm, does this sound familiar?

 

[Doug Lord]

Moth on Foils two boat testing

Well, not quite,

.... with widely separated skill levels,....

-------------
Thats absurd particularly* in this case-read the whole thing. Have you ever done intensive two boat testing? Its not a contest......
*The two worked many hours together perfecting KA board sails -in addition to this two boat testing..

 

[Chris Ostlind]

Have read the whole thing, Doug, and it's not "absurd" as you so comfortably indicate. From all the experience that anyone reading this list will readily acknowledge; you are making this comparison in order to elevate the value of the Moth foiler. I'm saying that the comparison is faulty for any of a number of reasons and holds little value from a data perspective.

All you can say in return is "absurd"

Are you saying that a superior sailor would not be able to get a boat on plane more quickly than a less capable sailor? Are you suggesting that a boat's relative efficiency under sail is not due to a series of subtle changes in small degrees that yield better performance? Just what is it to you that mark the differences between winning sailors and those with lesser results? Please tell me you don't exclusively attribute the performance difference to better equipment? How do you make the distinction when it comes to a One Design class?

All you will ever get from tests like this are overly generalized indicators, and nothing more. There are no conclusions that can be empirically drawn. It's especially true that a scientist would look at this material and go, "Oh, well. Now... where's the hard data?"

Perhaps dialing it back on the use of the word absurd will help this conversation achieve a measure of efficiency all on its own? Again, this is the point in which you fail to gracefully acknowledge the hole in your presented process and now you start slinging words designed to incite. You have a well-established agenda with this comparison test and all your efforts to that end are noted. It's interesting that as soon as someone points out the weakness in the comparison, you start tossing words again.

Your choice, my friend... sling some more words that elevate the dialogue in a negative fashion or keep it on topic while discussing the merits. We'll mark this point in time when you crossed the line in the process and it can be easily tracked through to everything you say from here on out.

There might be something here to learn. Take a moment and think about it.