Peoples Foiler II-the newest boats

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?!

 

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.

 

Peoples Foiler

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. Realistically, is that ever going to happen?

Pericles

 

Routine Schtick for Geniuses

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

 

Bad Data?

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.

 

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.

 

=================================
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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?