Should we impose a sail area/length2 limit?

Well, I believe that definition is the generally accepted one in Europe, so...

 

It sounds like you're talking about something similar to the class that has always been the most popular of the true Australian skiff classes - the 16 foot skiff.

http://www.skiffs.org.au/

16' LOA, 22m2 upwind sail area, 45m2 spinnaker, three crew (two on traps), no wings. Now (last 8 years or so) a one-design hull because of the cost of obsolescence. It also has beam restrictions (min and max) and other restrictions. Two rigs; multiple rigs have always been a part of the skiff style.

Don't forget, these are expensive boats; the skiff clubs (funded by poker machines played by thousands of non-sailing members subsidize each boat and organise sponsors. We can't afford to make lots of expensive boats obsolete without that support....in fact nowadays there is little hull development anyway because no-one can afford to waste a carbon hull.

If you want to see real development, you may have to restrict construction because all around the world, carbon has actually reduced the number of new designs coming out.

 

Yeah, but with respect doesn't it all depend on your definition of "fast and efficient"?

If we look at the dinghy and small cat "box rule" or restricted/development classes, we'll see that two of them are almost unrestricted (12 and 18 foot skiffs), a few are restricted in sail area etc but fast for their length (14s, Moths, Cherubs, F16 HP) and many of them are not really all that fast for their length. NS14s, Merlin Rockets, MG14s, National 12s, 16 foot skiffs are all slower than many other boats of the same length, because they have more restrictions, small rigs and rarely have traps. H Jolles and Formula 18 and A Class cats maybe aren't all that quick for their length, either (H Jolle is barely faster than similar FD, F18 is about as fast as F16HP, etc).

The small sail-area restricted development classes are very. very efficient. An NS14 goes around a course at about 70% the speed of an Int 14 (ie 470/Fireball pace) with no trap, no spinnaker, and about 50% of the 14's upwind sail. Isn't tht more efficient than a 14 in some ways?

These more restricted classes are generally MORE popular than the less restricted classes, and they may well have created more breakthroughs and developments than the unrestricted classes. The unrestricted 18s produced very few great developments, considering the amount of time and money that went into them.

If restricted classes like the ORC classes worked another angle - less rig and more "efficiency", or less speed but more seaworthiness, or more weight but more strength and less cost like the F18s - they may well prosper if dinghy and cat classes are any guide.

But they probably won't, because so many sailors are stuck in a rut and they keep on saying "faster boats will make sailing more popular" when that idea is obviously wrong when we look at the classes that are, and have been, popular and have lead development.

 

Carb-on or off

"If you want to see real development, you may have to restrict construction because all around the world, carbon has actually reduced the number of new designs coming out."
Why is this so ? Restriction on heavier than lead materials makes sense (they are radioactive or carcinogenic or very rare and expensive), but light ones? Carbon and boron fibers into the resin are safe and environmental neutral. In addition, as the demand grows the price will come down - if you don’t use and demand a material it will continue to be expensive, right?
What I see as a real obstacle to the future growth of a sport is no rules at all - or rules so many and complex that nobody understands the reasons behind them, and nobody feels obliged to follow.

 

Sa/d

Thanks Soren; I didn't realize that. Too bad there isn't just one accepted ratio for this purpose.

 

You can't impose rules on matters of personal preference! That's quite anti-freedom of choice. Still, safety matters but this has nothing to do with it and it is people's own business what they use for sails...geez.

 

Actually, I maybe shouldn't have singled out carbon.
The "problem" (well, it's a plus in many ways) with carbon (and a few other materials) is actually its superiority to the old materials like polyester/glass/foam, or plywood.

I'm certainly no expert, the stuff below is just what I'm told and see.

I interviewed some leading boatbuilders (John Maconaghy etc) a while ago and asked them about the longevity of carbon boats. While no-one is sure, there's a belief that a good carbon boat will stay rigid and fast practically for ever. The 1987 Maconaghy Farr one tonner Sagacious is still an excellent boat, for example, after many Hobarts, two Fastnets, and other campaigns that took it around the world.

While such longevity is a wonderful thing in OD classes, it may present some problems in development classes.

Carbon per se isn't too expensive, but some people think there may be a "revenge effect" in that once you get a carbon hull you know that it will last, so there seems to be a temptation to spend still more money on the hull. Then you are less likely to get rid of that costly but still fast hull and build a new hull to a new shape for development's sake. Years ago, top-class crews regularly got rid of their old ply or glass hulls because they were getting floppy. Once they were forced to get a new hull, they often decided to do some re-designing for the new boat. So you got development in hull design. This has now gone.

Secondly, carbon or other composite boats are best built in female moulds. If your competitive boats are built in female moulds, how do you develop the design? You are either restricted to fiddling with the existing moulds - filling them in a bit here, dropping them there - or you are forced to build a new mould if you want a new design. You could still hand-build an experimental boat over a male mould I suppose, but then the experimental boat becomes a lot more expensive than a "standard" boat and that in itself is a brake against development.

To quote one of the top UK builders (OD Fireballs, development Merlins), since composites really came in “To keep costs sensible, most boats have to be moulded, so they are evolving more slowly. You can only do minor tweaks to the mould to gradually improve the boats, rather than building a whole new design”.

Once you have a mould, you tend to get people building new boats by just using the existing mould which is great in some ways, but it acts against hull shape development. A classic example is in New Zealand, where the 12' skiff guys imported a mould from the "Woof" design. Now almost all recent 12' skiffs are Woof hulls. Years ago, there were many tortured ply boats that were cheap and allowed easy playing with shapes. That's mainly gone, the only non-Woof modern hulls are owned by boatbuilders AIUI and they are very few (about 3 hulls).

Not only that, but the R Class (like a 12' skiff with smaller sails) has adopted the "Woof" hull despite the fact that it's 9" shorter than their class allows. They did it because it's easier to go out and throw up a standard Woof in the association's mould, than it is to design and build a new hull. That wasn;'t the case when Rs were timber boats and it was easy to make a new shape. So the long history of Rs being one of the most interesting development classes has reached the point where they don't even have their own hull design.

You may also end up with a bunch of long-lasting competitive boats and a builder or two with an expensive mould. These builders and owners are sometimes understandably reluctant to risk their investments so they will vote against many major developments.

Down here in Aus, there was more development when boats like Moths were built of 1.2mm (approx) ply, and the top guys built a new one each winter. They didn't use moulds, so they were free to fiddle with the design. If the new design was a failure, they didn't lose too much because the boats were cheap (ply) and were not going to last too long at the front of the fleet anyway.

I was being provocative when I said ban carbon, but seriously there is a perhaps a problem at the moment in development classes (in that they are not developing their hulls) and moulds seem to be one of the reasons. So if we want development, maybe we have to think our way around this factor.

The Int 14s are developing, but not in the way some classes used to and the development is AFAIK driven by rich US/UK sailors and pretty much just two designers, so it may not be a great model to follow. Somehow the UK National 12s are still developing.....or at least they have many different competitive shapes.It would be nice to find out why the N12s are still developing a bit (maybe they are so small they need to be designed around crew weight more, maybe they are fairly cheap).

Finally, it seems that these factors are pluses in many ways - 12' skiffies say that when they had lots of production hulls in the early '70s, they developed technique a lot like OD classes do. Since everyone got Woof hulls, the 12s have developed their rigs a lot, because the difference in rigs can easily be seen when all the hulls are the same. And there are plenty of strong old boats around. Maybe the hydrofoil Moth wouldn't have been developed years ago, when guys like Wardi etc were too busy building new boats each winter. So in many ways, it's all great - but it does seem to have an effect on the development of new hull shapes.So the question is, how do we get the best of both worlds?

 

Hold on, here! Carbon fiber hulls? Sounds good. Stiff, light and strong. Sounds even better with those adjectives .

 

Ummm, is it attacking Tiger Woods' freedom when the PGA tells him he has to use normal golf balls and clubs?

Is Schumacher's freedom of choice being attacked when F1 tells him he can't use a 20 litre engine?

Is a football team's freedom attacked when they are told they can't have 50 guys on the field at once?

Is an 18' skiff sailor's freedom of choice being attacked when he's told he has to have a rig under a certain height?

Answer....no, they are just playing the sport within the rules.

 

"Is an 18' skiff sailor's freedom of choice being attacked when he's told he has to have a rig under a certain height?"

NO but the unlimited sail area carried by racing Bermudan or Bahamas boats sure is far more fun for the spectators to watch.

The last leg is downwind , and all the crew bails off "cept the helmsman.

Great show & loads of fun.

Class Limited "racing" is like watching grass grow in winter,tres BOOOORING!!

FAST FRED

 

Are we talking about skiff RACING or pleasure cruising? Racing has rules, pleasure cruising has safety rules imposed by USCG or CCG or whatever the government body but no other rules than those.

 

Stiff and light yes, strong apparently much less.
This stuff tends to be brittle, so I'm told.
Kevlar might be a better choice, and HDPE for serial production of small boats.

Yoav

 

Carbon fiber has issues with stress, because it wont show fatigue at all. Instead, it will hold together until it explodes under pressure.

 

Ah, kevlar. Bullet proof if woven right, spider silk like. (Haiku beginnings, maybe so).

 

It wasn't much fun watching when the 18s were down to five active boats, due to the ridiculous expense before they brought restrictions in.

The Bermuda Fitted Dinghies have unrestricted rigs and there are only about 4 left racing.