Unlimited C Class Sailboat Racing Rule (UCCSRR?)

Go for it. It would be wonderful to see what could be done.

Mooring may be an option for you, but it is not an option here. We all get in the habit of assuming our local rules apply to everyone.

I think BMW-Oracle was a spectacular example of how the excess bubble cash generated during the last economic boom cycle could be spent by one corporate tycoon to defeat another in a contest of massive egos. BMW-O raised the bar magnificently, as did Alinghi. Do I think that engine-powered, computer controlled, sensor-laden sailboats designed for a narrow set of wind and sea conditions are the future? Not for me, but everyone makes their own choices. As Tom Speer intimated, I'm not sure how much of the edgy technology of the recent America's Cup will actually trickle down and become relevant to club sailors like me.

I agree with you on the non-rule idea. Set one dimension like length, and let the games begin. On-the-water competition will quickly refine the designs, and may result in some very different approaches to the same problem. Innovation from open contests generates more excitement than legal battles built on how one interprets even most development class rules.

--
Bill

 

would the NZ8.5 rule allow a bi-plane rig?

 

Good question Cheesy, in fact the low rig height 8.5 rule would be ideal for a bi plane rig. Definitely with two square topped mains and the ability to carry downwind reacher/screecher or whatever, would make such a large sail area carrying platform very competitive. The only disadvantage might be that windward performance might be down a fraction, but probably not by much because two mains set off two rotating wing masts would be superior to conventional main and sagging headsail configuration. Two main reaching, the boat would be a veritable rocket - because of the large, efficient sail area set low down.

 

Or you could go a step further, it looks like the minimum weight is pretty high so it could almost be worth building a pair of slotted wings, the aspect ratio wouldnt be great but it would probably still perform much better than a soft sail. Then if you built it as a tri it would be relativly easy to meet the minimum accomadation in the centre hull

 

Fheesy, that is radical stuff - but makes complete sense. I've been thinking a three element wing with the third element able to be lowered - but that is the tricky part and I haven't figured it out properly - but you, you are talking two wings to look after. Maybe unstayed versions able to rotate 360 degrees and leave them up permanently so as to weather cock - but you are talking pf entering areas where angels fear to tread here in the savage Auckland climatic environs. Not saying it can't be done .... but tricky stuff cobra.

 

Sorry about your incorrect name spelling Cheesy, I'm drinking potent Belgian beer - and haven't eaten since breakfast. The jpeg is of one of my crazed experiments - but you will not be able to go to the wide beam with the 8.5 rule's 6.5 metre beam restriction - still could work though, you could set the masts out on the floats .... if you go to unstayed rigs.

 

I was actually thinking more along the lines of the Demon Tricyle thing you posted a while ago.... which in saying that does look similar to the pic above in some ways

 

Gary, do you know anything about Spitfire:

 

Yes, they arrived with some publicity 7-8 years ago but haven't heard much about the (excellent) design since. Interesting how they stop the leeches from lifting when the sails are loaded - maybe there's an above boom vang like the 49er hidden between the double sided sails. This boat has no alternative (or excuse) but to sail fast. Maybe it appeared too early for its time - perhaps now with multihull and foil talk bashing around, interest will be invigorated. With those deep and quite large wetted surface area foils, Spitfire would be somewhat draggy in light conditions - but then they talk of folding them upwards like Dave Keiper's Williwaw - however that seems a clumsy thing to implement at sea, could be wrong though.

 

------------------------------
One thing I remember about them- which was very interesting to me- was that they had 1000lb of ballast. They were the first of the fast hydrofoils, that I know about, to use ballast. The most recent is the fastest sailboat in the world.

 

Yeah, well you keep digging me on that Doug - but I still maintain that dumb bloody weight is dumb bloody weight. A5 had water ballast too ... nd they dumped it in desperation. Did BMW-O carry ballast? We don't know, well, I don't. At the very top end of high wind, full rig, hard sailing conditions I'll concede that water ballast is important and very useful, but everywhere else, meaning most sail and sea conditions, it is dopey, useless weight. I'll concede another point; in sloppy and ugly left over seas with little wind, ballast would also be a help.

 

oh yeah....

 

I asked Mark Pivac, designer of Spitfire, why water ballast instead of using negative lift on the windward foil. His answer was, "Because you only have to lift it once."

Which was dead on, of course. Whether you use ballast or negative lift to windward, the leeward foil has to support the download. There's no induced drag penalty for ballast, but there is for down-force - you're lifting it twice. And the induced drag penalty is even greater because while the induced drag penalty on the windward foil is only proportional to the down-force times itself, the induced drag penalty on the leeward foil is the down-force times the total lift on the leeward foil.

 

No. At one point, it had a ballast system installed, but it was removed before the regatta to save weight. There wasn't a great deal of testing done with ballast, as it was added late in the program and removed not long afterward.

 

The C-Class will have a meeting during the I4C in Newport this year. Part of the meeting will be devoted to deciding what needs to be changed or tightened up to ensure that the class remains viable and grows. I think the the appendages the Rocker's rudder blades are on will no longer be allowed. There is talk also of restricting the daggerboards so that when raised they cannot exceed b-max. I do not know what else they will be discussing, but I think it would not be to considr an unlimited C-Class. I also think that to do what you propose, you should look at designing a 25 footer without looking specifically at the C-class.