Peoples Foiler II-the newest boats

[edvb]

Sounds like a conversion to a CATRI style Tri to me.

No, more like an ORMA:just the ama boards and one t-foil. Not the multiple foils of the Catri.

[Chris Ostlind]

Originally Posted by Capn Mud

Couldn't it have been designed out by:
- Making the amas the same length as the main hull - or at least extend forward to in line with the bow; and/or
- Giving the ama bow a long overhang or an upturned bow a bit like a Hobie? (Granted this would have a negative impact on its aesthetic appeal - but even so)...

Or is there something I have not considered properly such as additional weight , strength of a longer ama or something?

Hey Mud Man,

Your questions are properly asked. Why isn't the ama biased well forward to help resist some of the illustrated pitchpoling? Now, before anyone gets into my face that the clip showed the boats in the highest of wind speeds and one should expect them to experience pitching issues... I get it. Still, it would be really nice if the fullest part of the bouyant form were more up front so that beginners could get full advantage of the self-stabilizing effect.

The designers probably had a strong notion that this boat would be sailed actively, meaning that the driver and crew would be moving around a lot to counteract the forces being brought to bear on the boat. To that end, it looks to meet a nice compromise between an efficient, fun boat and one that is economical to produce and subsequently own for the recreational sailor.

If there's one point about the Weta that I'd like to see different, it would be to make the akas with rounded turns in them, rather than the hard angles they currently display. I'm just not keen on sharp angular surfaces on recreational sport boats that are going to see lots of spills. Other than that, I like the boat a lot.

As for installing lifting foils in the amas to allow it to go faster, carry more sail area in bigger winds, prevent pitchpole and all the other less desireable factors mentioned... Take a moment and read this link about a boat that did just that and learned about the realities the hard way.

http://www.cheekeemonkee.com/documen...ounty_2004.pdf

In this piece, you will see that the ama, itself, did not break apart. It was the ama to aka juncture which did, causing a huge amount of damage that resulted in a complete re-engineer of the aka beams and total replacement.

Without sitting down and running all the numbers and guessing at the Weta structure as it now sits, my take would be that the Weta will need all new aka beams/tubes, a totally different mounting structure at the ama/aka connection and possibly new amas which can handle different lateral forces as well as increased fore/aft loadings. The boat is going to weigh more, which will take it away from its existing status as a very light and sporty machine.

At this point, one would then start to consider a larger rig (as has been mentioned) to make up for the heavier boat, but that launches the design spiral of stronger and bigger everything else to compensate. All this will take the used-to-be-affordable price into the out-of-reach category for many recreational sailors

Groupama3, a very fast and all-out racing maxi-trimaran recently saw its leeward ama simply break in half at the juncture of the forward beam and just in front of the lifting foil location. This is a boat that was designed from the beginning to accept the loads of the ama mounted lifting foil and handle the huge seas of the Southern Ocean. Yet, it broke an ama in half just off New Zealand and had to be towed in, upside down and shipped to France in pieces.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the Weta is a wonderful new design for recreational sailing. It's a distinct departure from typical, skinny hulled trimaran. It is, essentially, a two-up skiff hull form with amas for enhanced stability. This enhanced stability is what makes the boat so attractive for beginners and those not embedded in the all-out race scene.

To start fiddling with the design, so that it can meet some mythical capability zone for which it was never designed is probably not in the best interest of the manufacturer, or the targeted buying public. Right now, there are very few things to fiddle with on the Weta and it gives a really fun and spirited ride for the owners. Install more bits that have to be monitored/operated, that have to be built differently and are directed at a different type of sailing audience is counter productive at this point.

A whole new boat, with a completely different end purpose, directed at a much smaller niche audience can be done. It won't sell as many products, will cost considerably more for the consumer and require a lot more sailing awareness to operate. To me, that sounds like a boat that is moving away from the design brief to which the Weta was intended in the first place.

Enjoy your boat and have a blast with it. Don't monkey it up with a bunch of supposedly, go-fast junk that costs a bunch more. If that's what you really want, then buy a different boat.

[edvb]

Well done Chris.

In this day and age getting the boat on the water in the least amount of time and effort and having it perform well in a variety of conditions is becoming a key selling point in todays market. Being able to do it solo is a great plus. Keeping the price down is the other factor. The Weta is an excellent example of this formula. So is the Hobie Adventure Island. Two large companies with the Hobie Trifoiler and the Windrider Rave could not make a go of it as it is such a niche group. The Bladerider is having limited success but is getting close to the high end of the spectrum that a average person can afford.

I have been working on my Raptor for the last couple of years to speed up the setup time to the point that the only thing needed to do is remove the sail bag, and insert the mast with the rolled up sail into the mast base on the boat and it is ready to go as all the lines and the boom is attached.The boat fits perfectly in one stall of the the garage this way. It also is unique with the Foil Stabilization on the Ama but is not what what an average person wants even if it sails and paddles great. The average kayaker when I was at a show thought it was great but even at 6K when I bought it was outside the price range they were looking at. That is why the Hobie Adventure Island is doing so well.

We have these debates on the forum on a type of machine that most likely will never be produced in quantity for the average person as when it is all said and done it will never fit the formula above.

[bistros]

Originally Posted by Capn Mud

OK - This simple sailor is getting confused. Some say yay and others nay....

I am about to take delivery of my Weta (I hope - assuming Indonesian Customs dont hold it up waiting for a brown paper bag)..... if and when Weta Marine go the route above am I likely to be able to buy a "Foiler Weta conversion kit" or would it be a whole new boat? Current boat weight is quoted is about 100 kg (which means with me aboard about 210 kgs).

Congrats on buying a great boat, that has excellent performance over a wide variety of conditions.

Originally Posted by Capn Mud

OK - This simple sailor is getting confused. Some say yay Bistros, can you explain further. Why one condition? How hard would it be to learn to sail it? Having sailed dinghies a fair bit (mostly lasers) I look at the foiling moths and wonder how you learn to do that - but it looks such fun I would love to try.

Foiling, like most things is simple in concept and somewhat more complex in execution. Just like an airplane, there is motion in multiple dimensions to deal with. Up/down which is grossly controlled by a mechanically driven wand that changes the main foil's lift via a trailing edge flap. Left/right thankfully uses standard rudder(s).

Gross control of angle of attack is done via a variable lift horizontal foil on the rudder - and the helm has a twist grip on the tiller extensions to control this. This is like typical T-foil rudders on I-14s.

Fine control of angle of attack is done in small foilers by altering fore/aft trim - the helm moves forward to decrease foils angle of attack, and aft to increase it.

Foilers are dramatically faster under the right conditions than normal boats - and as speeds increase, so does the stress on the hull during crashes. Lifting the boat completely out of the water on the very small area of the foil requires the hull be seriously engineered for the activity. A normal boat is not designed for this stress. Adapting a standard boat by bolting on foils is a recipe for future structural problems over the long term, unless the daggerboard truck is designed to bear the whole weight of boat and crew from the get-go. This is an area for concern regarding the adaptation of the RS600 by Full Force (RS600FF).

Foilers like the Moth work well in foiling conditions only - too little wind and the added drag of T-foils front and back make them slower than other comparable boats. Too much wind and they can be a real handful to sail as well. In North America, many venues like mine are primarily light wind sites - and a foiler would only be an advantage a few times a season. The rest of the time they are not fun.

A Moth foiler is about ten inches (25cm) wide and 11 feet long - they are only truly balanced when foiling in the right winds, by an expert helm. In light winds they are pure misery to sail - narrow, tippy and slow.

The Weta is a great boat as is. An all carbon, upsized version with "foil assist" would be VERY expensive and would not achieve the same high speed potential of a monofoiler like the Moth. In my personal opinion, a semi-foiling Weta is a bad compromise that reduces the functionality of the design, and doesn't achieve the full potential of foiling.

For what it's worth, you are getting a great boat that will be diminished by bastardizing it for "foil assist". The good Mr. Lord is quite fanatical about foiling in general, so please consider his pro-foiling in every circumstance comments carefully. If you care to visit Sailing Anarchy's Dinghy Anarchy forum, many well known foiling people at the world championship level will be willing to give an opinion on Mr. Lord's expertise. Search the dinghy anarchy forum for STFU, and you will find most of the comments directed at Mr. Lord.

[Capn Mud]

http://www.cheekeemonkee.com/documen...ounty_2004.pdf

In this piece, you will see that the ama, itself, did not break apart. It was the ama to aka juncture which did, causing a huge amount of damage that resulted in a complete re-engineer of the aka beams and total replacement.

I have an F27 (well a share in one anyway) and I thought it was almost indestructible... never digs its nose - seems to pull its head out more the more the wind.....

But I never thought of what I see here.... gotta read it in detail yet.

Thanks for all the good posts, very interesting and informative. Gotta work - maybe some follow ups later.

[Capn Mud]

DO NOT attempt such a mod yourself without,at least, the direct input from the WETA designer. These mods- w/o adding more SA- would be in the range I suggested IF WETA did the mods in-house. With the foil assist system the boat could carry more SA but then it would be likely that the structure would be compromised. A foil assist version would be easy to "depower" and regardless of the mods you added to it you could always remove the main foils and add the original rig(if the WETA system included a new rig) to tame it for teaching your kids.
I would suggest that you enjoy the boat as it is and only consider foils IF Weta offers an in-house package as a series of options.

Dont worry Doug I wouldn't even consider it - despite being an engineer by profession I barely know which is the correct end of a hammer - about the most unhandy guy I know.

Still, it would be really nice if the fullest part of the bouyant form were more up front so that beginners could get full advantage of the self-stabilizing effect.

The designers probably had a strong notion that this boat would be sailed actively, meaning that the driver and crew would be moving around a lot to counteract the forces being brought to bear on the boat. To that end, it looks to meet a nice compromise between an efficient, fun boat and one that is economical to produce and subsequently own for the recreational sailor.

That all makes eminent sense to me - thanks Chris. I just have to work harder and stop being a lazy b..... ;-)

As for installing lifting foils in the amas to allow it to go faster, carry more sail area in bigger winds, prevent pitchpole and all the other less desireable factors mentioned... Take a moment and read this link about a boat that did just that and learned about the realities the hard way.

http://www.cheekeemonkee.com/documen...ounty_2004.pdf

Foilers are dramatically faster under the right conditions than normal boats - and as speeds increase, so does the stress on the hull during crashes. Lifting the boat completely out of the water on the very small area of the foil requires the hull be seriously engineered for the activity. A normal boat is not designed for this stress. Adapting a standard boat by bolting on foils is a recipe for future structural problems over the long term, unless the daggerboard truck is designed to bear the whole weight of boat and crew from the get-go.

OK - I understand the issue now - makes sense. And my unmodified F27 is probably relatively safe from this sort of event -

In summary - leave the foiling to the pros and see if it suits IF the Weta boys ever decide to try it on their design.

Thanks everyone :-)

[tspeer]

Originally Posted by Chris Ostlind

...
As for installing lifting foils in the amas to allow it to go faster, carry more sail area in bigger winds, prevent pitchpole and all the other less desireable factors mentioned... Take a moment and read this link about a boat that did just that and learned about the realities the hard way.

http://www.cheekeemonkee.com/documen...ounty_2004.pdf
...

There's no doubt the foils applied loads that were outside Ian Farrier's original design calculations.

However, I know the builder that made the replacement beams for Cheekeemonkee. They took the good beams from the other side and had them tested to destruction. They broke at about 70% (IIRC) of their design loads.

The best load calculations in the world won't help if the structure isn't built to withstand the design loads.

More on this soon-its 4.9m LOA ,weighs 121lb all up ready to sail plus a 190lb. crew-316lb sailing weight W/SA=2.35
And most spectacularly Clive has developed an electronic control system-it still uses a wand but there is an electronic interface to the RUDDER foil.
Thats right- altitude control by rudder foil only. I believe he is expeimenting with extending the electronic system to both foils but I'm not sure.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

More on this soon-its 4.9m LOA ,weighs 121lb all up ready to sail plus a 190lb. crew-316lb sailing weight W/SA=2.35
And most spectacularly Clive has developed an electronic control system-it still uses a wand but there is an electronic interface to the RUDDER foil.
Thats right- altitude control by rudder foil only. I believe he is expeimenting with extending the electronic system to both foils but I'm not sure.

Anybody else think this a bad idea? Altitude is foiling height right?

To maintain altitude at varying speeds the lift force must remain the same, but the CL must change. Changing the CL means changing the AoA of a fixed section or changing the camber of a flapped section.

To change the AoA of the main lifting foil requires a change in pitch angle of the entire boat. That means enough control authority to control pitch moment. Changes in pitch upset the airflow on the sail. The drive force that is a pitch down moment will change with each altitude correction. I can see all sorts of unstable couples being created.

It seems to me that the direct altitude control of a camber changing main foil that does not rely on or cause a pitch excursion is a much simpler solution.

Then there is the whole automated stability system using stored power vs the rules of sailing question.

Just because something *can* be done does not make it desirable. One of the neat things about Moth foilers is the simple, no power required wand system.

Is enough performance gained to offset the extra weight of the power assist system? Is the boat sailable after a automated control system failure?

I think in almost any foiler system from manual to electronic from midship wand to bow wand simultaneous control(with 100% adjustable mixing) may be the best system.
Just as a historical note: the first two person bi-foiler(David Luggs I-14) was controlled manually with a twist grip on the extension tillers within months of John Iletts first sail with a wand. Luggs manual system controlled the rudder foil only.

[SimonN]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

I think in almost any foiler system from manual to electronic from midship wand to bow wand simultaneous control(with 100% adjustable mixing) may be the best system.
Just as a historical note: the first two person bi-foiler(David Luggs I-14) was controlled manually with a twist grip on the extension tillers within months of John Iletts first sail with a wand. Luggs manual system controlled the rudder foil only.

And why do you think that Ilett went away from manual control and why everybody who has tried it on a bi-foiler has also given up? I presume it is because they are idiots, who know no better

For those wandering about Clive Everest-designer of the foiler above with an electronic control system here is some history written by Andy Rice in 2004:
-------------------------------
Clive Everest has also been inspired to draw the lines for his own foiling machine. Best known as the designer of successful singlehanded classes, the RS600 trapeze boat and the RS300 hiking dinghy, Everest is an unreformed speed junkie. He has raced International 14s, 18-foot Skiffs and most recently an A-Class catamaran. He also has a history in Moths, including designing the world championship-winning Moth of the early 90s and finishing second in his own right as a sailor. He was also part of a pioneering group who experimented with foiling over a decade ago. “I was involved with Moths when we were experimenting with a tri-foil arrangement, but then the class banned it,” he says. “These days at 13 stone I’m too heavy to campaign a Moth competitively; you’ve got to be about 10 stone and I think the weights might come down even further with the foils. But I was totally inspired by what Rohan Veal was doing so I decided to design my own boat, with no rules or restrictions to worry about.”



His own RS300 design, itself a derivative of the Moth, has proven fast and easily driven in light winds so Everest took this as the basis of his new foiler. “The only time the hull’s going to be in the water is in light winds, so the RS300 seemed like a good place to start.” Because Everest only expects to be sitting on the water in conditions of 7 knots or less, he has had the top 150mm of freeboard chopped off the RS300 hull to save weight, and has commissioned Richard Woof of RMW Marine boatbuilders to construct the hull of carbon.



To this hull Everest is attaching carbon trapezing racks for added leverage. The rudder and rudder box are standard 49er equipment, with the addition of a T-foil wing to the base of the rudder. The rig consists of a carbon mast and fully-battened Mylar sail. So far, the basic configuration differs very little from the Rohan Veal Moth, but where it differs is in Everest’s approach to the foil arrangement. “I have adopted a tri-foil arrangement similar to what you see on a commercial passenger-carrying hydrofoil ferry,” explains Everest. “We experimented with this set-up on the Moths 10 or 15 years ago but because the class banned it, Rohan has had to go for his more complex T-foil arrangement.”



Unlike the T-foil system, Everest’s tri-foil configuration has no moving parts and there is less tweaking and calibration involved as a result. The hull is supported on two carbon foils, one from each trapeze rack, angled at approximately 45 degrees underneath the centre of the hull, with the T-foil rudder providing a small element of lift at the transom. It will run closer to the surface and will provide a more stable ride than the high-flying Moth of Rohan Veal. It may look a little less spectacular but should prove equally fast, if not faster, with anticipated speeds of up to 25 knots. “I wanted something simple and maintenance free. I’ve got a young family and limited time to go sailing, so the tri-foil will just let me get on with the fun part,” explains Everest, who plans to club race his foiler during the summer in Chichester Harbour. “The aim is to give the fast twin-trapeze boats like the International 14s a good run for their money.”



Everest’s Achilles heel is going to be in the sub-foiling conditions when all that hydrofoil becomes added drag, but he has given himself a big rig and big foils to promote early foiling, at the expense of reduced top speed. And unlike the Moth, he has the added turbo of a small gennaker which he will hoist downwind in light to moderate conditions. “Because of the amount of apparent wind, the sail is very flat - more like a Code Zero than a gennaker. But once the wind is above a Force 3 to 4 I expect to be generating enough power around the course with just the mainsail.”

[Chris Ostlind]

Originally Posted by SimonN

And why do you think that Ilett went away from manual control and why everybody who has tried it on a bi-foiler has also given up? I presume it is because they are idiots, who know no better

Doug,

An hour after Simon asked the above question of you, you went ahead and posted an historical reference to Everest, completely ignoring the principal question he posed. Please have the courtesy to answer what has become the signal point in the entire discussion about this drive to incorporate a manual wand system that you feel is so important.

From what I can tell from all your writings, the only boat with this particular feature that you have ever owned, was your ill-fated and now discarded aerofoiler. There isn't any proof that your boat even foiled, much less was accurately responsive to the manual control system, so why would any of these very experienced guys find your position so compelling now? They have tried this approach and found it wanting. Subsequent use of the less fiddly and much simpler system currently employed has shown that the wand-to-foil design concept is more than functional.

What, exactly, is it that you'd like to say, that has not already been explored by others with a great deal more design, build and foiling time with these systems than you?

So, there you have it, Doug; a respectfully posed set of questions with no histrionics, personal attacks, back-handed slaps, whatever... Please answer the questions, come to some level of understanding about the issues involved and if you please; let the subject go, both here and also over at Sailing Anarchy. I'm guessing that you have much better things with which you can spend your time than this...?

Chris
Lunada Design
www.lunadadesign.com

Manual control is not easy-to use it effectively in racing would require hours and hours of practice. But once you nail it I'm fairly certain it would be a bit faster than a wand. The wand is a very effective system but for racing I think a manual system would be faster IF you were willing to put the time in to learn it well. And there is no simpler system.
I think a combination wand/manual system would be ideal for jumping-an avenue of foiler flying that has mainly been explored accidently and that could develop into an extremely popular offshoot of "normal" foiling. Manual control is NOT a system that I advocate for a Peoples Foiler wanabe-at least right now.
Clives current system and future variations of his system are working in the direction of making foiling easier which is what a Peoples Foiler is all about.