Moth on Foils: 35.9 knots(41.29 mph)

Sounds ike you have a personal problem with the owners and maintainers of the Moth site? Rather than rant here, why not take it up with them and show them your outrage?

OR... you can do what I suggested you do many posts ago and open up your own foamy blog about foiling and its pioneers. There's nothing in your way, you can limit your contributions here to the remarkably substantive and blast away at will at all the dumb clucks who are at the root of the problem... as you see it.

Go ahead, Doug, let's see what kind of publisher/editor/writer you turn out to be. Let us bask in your radiant supremacy. The soapbox, the microphone and the key light are ready, Mr. Lord, time to take the stage.

 

Pardon me, Doug, but Ian Ridge is a well known and respected dinghy builder who is in contact with one or (I think) more of the leading dinghy historians in the UK and appears to be respected by top Mothies. His account of his Moth's brief foiling career has been quoted and therefore adopted by the experts in dinghy history and the Moth class, so on what grounds are you implying that the claims are questionable?

Of course, it is reasonable to note that there is no documentary proof of the Ridge boat foiling that has been published to date, but the same applies to your monofoiler and yet you insist that your claims should not be doubted.

There appears to be a double standard here. You note that some "MAY" have foiled (implying that they didn't), or that other people should have question marks inserted (implying that there is a question about their claims) - yet you become extremely indignant when others query your claims that your monofoiler foiled.

Surely if you expect people to believe that your monofoiler worked simply because you said so, you should also accept the claims that others make about foiling. Either that, or accept that those who query that your monofoiler worked are reasonable to have such doubts. The fact that you are so indignant about the claims on the Moth site shows that you expect very high standards of others - surely you should live up to high standards if you expect others to.

You can't have it both ways. If you expect everyone to believe you despite a lack of proof, surely you must also believe others when they make similar claims - especially when those others are in contact with experts in British dinghy history and are well known in the UK Moth class.

 

========================
No kidding? Considering all the documentary proof that is available in Ilett's case and in the case of Ian Ward I find it pathetic that the International Moth site recognizes the contribution of Ian Ridge yet completely ignores Ilett and Ward,don't you?

As I said before, Mr. Ridge may well be a "hydrofoil pioneer"-(see below)-his boat looks interesting-but thats not the point.
The point is that the foremost site in the Moth class recognizes Ridge while ignoring two of the major pioneers in the class and in monohull foiling in general for which the "documentary proof" is overwhelming.

 

Can you name who these people are? How do they KNOW this? Were they present at the time? I have never seen any person claim they know this, aside from you.

You posted on this board that the boat did not foil. You did not post on this board, or on any other board you were posting on during that time, anything like, "Hooray, today I foiled in my boat." It was only months after the fact that you started to make claims about it foiling.

If there are postings on BBs somewhere where you talk about foiling the day it happened, or the day after, or even within the week, please direct us to those posts.

You have been very consistent in refusing to provide any information about the "foiling". That seems very strange.

 

The point is that you use forms of emphasis and punctuation that, in the normal modern English usage, imply that Ridge and Raisin did not foil - yet you become extremely indignant when anyone does the same to you.

Raisin has documentary evidence that his boat foiled, he has provided the name and time and name of witnesses, so for you to say that he "MAY" have foiled is bizarre.

Ridge is reputable and his account has been accepted by leading people in the fields of Mothing and dinghy history, so for you to put a question mark next to his name implies that he is a liar and they are gullible.

And yet you demand that we accept your claims that you foiled, despite the fact that you made no contemporary claims to have done so and provided no witnesses nor (unlike Ridge) been named any expert who believes your claims.

The point, to make it clear, is that you slur the integrity of others, while demanding that your own claims are believed with much less evidence. And then you throw insults at class volunteers who did nothing objectionable.

Yes, the IMCA class site fails to list Illett and Ward. However, it's an amateur site and calling it "pathetic" and slagging the "hypocrisy" is very harsh on the volunteers who spend many thankless hours running the class and the site. It's not a comprehensive list and it does not claim to be. It doesn't say that those mentioned were the only pioneers, or the greatest, and the great contributions of Wardii and Illett are so well known that they don't necessarily need to be highlighted in the way as those listed.

It's funny that you get so upset when a couple of foiling pioneers are not mentioned, yet you seem quite happy about the fact that there's no mention of the invention of racks, a Moth innovation that is vastly more popular than foils. And the same page utterly ignores the contributions of Claridge, Eyre, Paterson and others who developed the skiff Moths that were also vastly influential over a much wider area of the sport than foilers. Of course, that's not really important, because the page doesn't claim to be the definitive history of Moth design. It's just the creation of volunteers working in their own good time for others, and to slag them off as you do is pretty ....well, let's leave it at that.

 

Disgrace : an insult to history!

No, the point is that the premier Moth site in the world has a record(its not just recent) of ignoring the accomplishments of Ilett and Ward-who have done more to create a viable Moth foiler than any one else in history. There are no excuses to justify this since it has gone on for so long. The accomplishments of these two have had a profound influence outside the Moth class as well which makes their treatment by the Moth class even more
disturbing.

---
I corrected my mistake on Raisin two days ago.

 

============================
1)That is absolutely false: I have repeatedly said that Ridge "may well be a Hydrofoil Pioneer" but I point out that while there is almost no evidence published on the International Moth site on the Records page to describe his "pioneering accomplishment" the development work of Ilett and Ward, for which there is tremendous documentation, is totally ignored.
----------
2) False again-twisted to your agenda and an absolute outright falsehood: I slurred the integrity of no one. I demanded NOTHING in regard to my own so-called "claims"-that is false. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of saying Ridge is a "hydrofoil pioneer" based on the evidence shown on the Moth site while at the same time-with far more evidence(see my gallery) -the fact that my boat foiled is cast into doubt by these same people! The people that place Ridge in the category of a Hydrofoil Pioneer(that he may well be) and then IGNORE the documented ,well known accomplishments of John Ilett and Ian Ward in the "Hydrofoil Pioneer" category on the Records page DID do something objectionable!! I did not "hurl insults" at these people-just pointed out the huge ,on-going mistake they have made by this kind of oversight-which, by the way, has gone one for a long,long time.
see 1 & 2 below


---
I corrected my mistake with Raisin two days ago....

==========================================
1) my "evidence" click on bottom of page for technical specs that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the boat had the capability of flying(W/SA=2.81-same as a Moth with Bora Gulari on it!-for two crew!--and W/SA=2.42 with me singlehanding!-same or better than a Moth with Veal onboard! ) :
http://www.monofoiler.com/seatrialphotos.htm
--
2) Ridge's "evidence" as published on the Records page of the International Moth site: http://www.moth-sailing.org/img/news/2007/FirstFoiler.jpg (I don't doubt Mr. Ridge-this simply points out the hypocrisy at the heart of a situation where the proven "Hydrofoil Pioneers" with tons more "evidence"
than Ridge or me-are just flat ignored). And the hypocrisy of some Mothies that elevate Mr. Ridge to the level of "Hydrofoil Pioneer" while at the same time dissing my boat and what I've accomplished.

 

I'm just wondering, Doug.... while visiting the IMCA site that got your rant-on flaming, did you bother to read the History page?

http://www.moth-sailing.org/imca/faces/History.jsp

There are lots of interesting historical photos and a nicely documented written piece as well. Down at the bottom of the page in the same size and style of type that is used throughout, you will find the following sentence...

"And of course, the moth has become the standard of a successful hydrofoiling class, with most foils and control systems based on developments by John Ilett in Australia."

You might want to redirect your anger inward for muffing your due diligence regarding the IMCA site. All this flaming away and there it was, right where it should be, completing the section on HISTORICAL Moth knowledge.

 

I've read the history page and that is not what I'm referring to: I specifically mentioned the "Records" page under the heading of "Hydrofoil Pioneers" where both Ilett and Ward are ignored. I'm sure you would have noticed that the man who was FIRST to sail a hydrofoil sailboat on just two foils is ignored on both pages, right?

 

One would casually assume that Records are different from History and walk on by, fufilled by the information as a whole. Instead we got a royal flameout regarding zip.

It's there, on the site in full glory. If you have a beef, take it to the place where it does the most good. I talked to Culnane and he's totally non-plussed. That wasn't his exact expression in response, but it's good enough for these pages.

Let it go, Douglas

 

Disgrace: Hydrofoil Pioneers Ignored!!

I've brought this up before and still the "Hydrofoil Pioneers" section ignores two major Moth Class pioneers. Unbelievable-and a disgrace!

http://www.moth-sailing.org/imca/faces/Records.jsp

 

Moth on Foils!------- Target:Tornado

=========================
When I originally wrote this the odds against this .........were high. Not so much now!

 

What are the odds of you addressing the points in Post 1069 of this thread?

 

Moth on Foils! Fastcraft (not Fastacraft!)

Check this article out. Its about a hard working couple building Moths. They've named their NZ company Fastcraft. Isn't that special?!
The oldest producer of bi-foiler Moths in the whole world is
Fastacraft owned by John Ilett whose company has built quite a name for itself in Australia and all over the world.
Now, this hard working couple wouldn't be trying to take a bit of a shortcut by choosing a name so close to the oldest in the business would they??? Well, would they?

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/b...inghy-snapped-up-by-overseas-sailors/3915987/

 

At least they actually build something Doug.