small performance sailing dingy plans

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by d_sinsley, Jun 28, 2007.

  1. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Let us know when a Moth foiler is used to sail down the coast of Baja with the skipper and crew sleeping aboard, the boat was beached through surf and all camping gear, food and water were carried.

    A foiler is a one trick pony with marginal potential for anything but 'round the cans events. And an expensive one trick pony it is.

    Oh, Doug, I forgot to ask about how many of these sturdy boats suffered dnf's at Lake Garda due to parts falling off and outright breaking. Do you have a number for that particular statistic?

    Weren't you the guy who was telling everyone that they did not have issues?

    What happened to the reigning World Champ's boat? I did not see his name on the podium list.
     
  2. alan white
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 3,730
    Likes: 123, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1404
    Location: maine

    alan white Senior Member

    Chris,

    You wrote: Essentially, Alan, you have formed a technical argument around what is principally an aesthetic preference. I would never argue with your aesthetic desires. I place them in the same spot as arguing against the feelings of another... they are yours to hold, based on your individual take on how it all works for you.

    Hahaha! I don't understand. You entered a thread about a monohull boat, and began an argument, and I only responded (subjectively, to be sure---- I didn't know I was supposed to be taking part in a debate. There are other ways of talking, and the former discussion was really a lot of fun).
    I would rather noodle with the boat we began with than suffer through a debate about mono vs multi.
    Multis are great. I don't desire one, but I can see the appeal. I gave my own reasons for not caring for them too much. I don't want to get into a debate because I don't really care to prove a point. I LIKE the idea of inventing a totally new ballast system for a monohull because it is a challenge. If I wanted easy I would follow your advice and accept the state of the art in multis, which are by and large the fastest sailboats in the world----for the time being.
    Now, I hope you will agree that just because faster-than-multi monos are in their technical infancy, strides have been made. Further, you might agree that it would have been absurd to have once claimed that it was possible for jet travel to be competitive with car travel for cost, but look!
    Lastly, I'm sure you'll agree that it is more fun to make something new than to simply accept what is ouit there.
    That is what is appealing about this discussion. At one time, multis were unseaworthy and fragile. Tacking was slow and iffy. Nobody in their right mind would have sailed one across the Atlantic a hundred years ago. The technology that makes modern multis so much better---- epoxy, kevlar, foam, carbon fiber, dacron, spectra, stainless with 250k psi tensile strength, and then all the engineering breakthroughs in hydrodynamics.
    Have we arrived? Not likely! More new technologies will arrive day by day. And who will come up with those new technologies?
    The answer is people who like trying new things out, who are regular people who experiment constantly against the status quo.
    There is nothing so complicated about an active ballast sytem. A radar is complicated. A couple of tanks and a big hydraulic ram are old simple technology. A computor program to keep a hull upright would be simpler than the controls on mist hot tubs.
    One has to consider that solving the problem of counteracting lateral pressure on sails is the holy grail of mono designers. Boats would be faster and safer. They would be lighter too, meaning cheaper to build and unsinkable 9while being self-righting).
    Multos are fine, but more can be done to improve monos than multis. This is indicated by monos now being built that are closing the gap between multis and monos. It used to be that the only way to go if speed was desired was to buy or build a multihull. Now, spacious and safe monos are faster than the multis used to be. The reason, I think, is because class restrictions were imposed on monos competing and multihulls had a field day with full design freedom. As a result, multis got faster and faster and monohulls were (erroneously) accepted to be inherently slow.


    Alan
     
  3. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Hi Alan,

    You're on a discussion forum. We're discussing.

    Keep in mind that it was you who raised the multihull position in your own post. I didn't do that. I merely responded to your posting and now you are of the opinion that it isn’t a multi vs. mono conversation. If this were a courtroom, the judge would be saying, "Uh, Mr. White, I believe it was you who opened the door on this subject." and you know how it follows after that.

    You also have said, "I would prefer to incorporate those attributes into a single hull and add ... lower maintenance, ... and lower cost." Since you didn't answer the response I gave to that quote, what is your position on installing the types of systems you suggest without also adding cost and maintenance to the unfettered form without those systems?

    Again, you brought these things into the discussion and I'm simply asking you to explain the reasoning. This last bit has nothing to do with the mono/multi debate to which you alluded.

    As for one genre being in its infancy... the same can be said for fast multihull development. I'm going to guess here, but perhaps you are referring, for example to the potential of a foiling mono as being competitive with a non-foiling multihull? Well, what’s to prevent the multihull from also donning foils and once again exceeding the potential of any foiling mono, if its a foiling battle that is needed to prove the point? There's way more righting moment available for a foiling multi than there is for a foiling mono.

    Put more weight shifting systems on the mono to enhance its RM and you are increasing the burden of the boat that it has to lift, as well as its susceptibility to mechanical malfunction. All this was haggled some time back on these pages and even Doug reluctantly agreed to the above principal.

    So, the original position question remains... If you have to work so hard to achieve that which is readily available in another genre of sailboat, what is the functional point to adding so much systems technology that you've fundamentally complicated the original form well beyond the original purpose?

    What's next, rocket motors for flying the boats just above the surface while fake steering foils remain hanging in the water as vestiges of the original boat? Why not wings on a monohull that provides lift? Silly? Hey, you suggested experimentation as a valid form of expression. Or, is it bothersome if someone takes the notion of "what if" experimentation even further than do you with your mechanical systems for RM shape shifting?

    And what is going to power your techno systems... an engine, perhaps? A running engine on a sailboat? And you are concerned about the simplicity and perceived lack of complexity of the monohull? Doesn't that kinda blow the whole notion of using the wind for the power on these boats?

    Rather than crap added on to help do something it was not designed to do; come up with a more efficient hull shape, better materials for the hull, better ropes, better sails and masts... the whole enchilada of a sailing boat as we know it.

    Once you plunge into the whole business of adding yet more stuff to compensate for principal weaknesses in design, you might as well accept that there's no limit to the clutter you are willing to endure.

    It's my opinion that adding all this hardware to an otherwise slow boat is just like our penchant for stuffing a couple of fake boobs under a gal's flat chest, injecting her lips with collagen and calling her sexy. Dude... that's just flat wrong and I suspect that in your heart of hearts for the beauty of sailing, you know it too.

    I'm not going to bug you about these points any more, Alan. You and Doug can have your little conclave of ideas as long as you wish. I've given my opinions and you don't have to agree with them any more than I agree with what it is you are proposing. Since neither of you guys are about to build a boat of this type in the near future, it'll be up to someone else to be able to work these ideas into something possibly doable.

    Until then, it's been fun talking to you via this medium.

    Chris
     
  4. alan white
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 3,730
    Likes: 123, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1404
    Location: maine

    alan white Senior Member

    Chris, you wrote:

    "So, the original position question remains... If you have to work so hard to achieve that which is readily available in another genre of sailboat, what is the functional point to adding so much systems technology that you've fundamentally complicated the original form well beyond the original purpose?"

    Chris, this may shock you, but I get a big kick out of solving problems like making overly-complex systems simple. The multi-hull is not interesting to me, which has nothing to do with anything you will understand, since it's really qite subjective. I don't KNOW why I like the idea of playing with monohulls or shifting ballast any more than I know why babies make you smile or pretty women are nice to look at.
    Is that okay with you?
    Lighten up, friend.

    Alan
     
  5. d_sinsley
    Joined: Jun 2007
    Posts: 13
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: idaho

    d_sinsley Junior Member

    wow,

    I ask a question and get a debate, which is ok because the free flow of ideas and natural competitive nature of people is why we have the wonderful boats we have today. It's actually inspiring. Dare to dream big or don't dare to dream at all. Thats how this idea got started, a dream one that went far beyond my expectations. I have learned from it and some day a boat will arise from it, my boat.

    A question was raised though about the canting keel. When the keel is canted you loose the foils ability to provide lift and the boat slips, to my understanding this is why a third foil is added in front of the keel, to provide the lift needed to overcome leeway, is this correct? As interesting as this discussion has become it is leaving the relm of a "simple" boat. Too many quizmos for one guy when planing in 16 knots. Would fins on the keel aid in providing lift say foil on a foil one that is pointed down when the keel is canted preventing leeway, and when running and the keel is down maybe provide some vertical lift like a moth foiler.

    Here we go again... Doug am I understanding right that you designed the Bongo?

    Devon
     
  6. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

  7. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    =====================
    1) Yes, thats exactly right-though how well it works depends on very carefull design.
    2) A system like that would be likely to work but would probably require additional righting moment when the keel was locked off the wind.The combination of on-deck sliding ballast and fixed or canting ballast underwater is likely to be a very fast one. That kind of moving ballast system combined with bi-foiler technology, either in full flying or foil assist versions, is what can bring large monohull speeds past multihull speeds. But like with #1 above extremely carefull design is an important requirement because there are so many interrelationships.
    ------------------
    The Bongo is a neat boat but I can't claim it; the boat was designed by Paul Cronin.
     
  8. Raggi_Thor
    Joined: Jan 2004
    Posts: 2,457
    Likes: 64, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 711
    Location: Trondheim, NORWAY

    Raggi_Thor Nav.arch/Designer/Builder

    I think that is correct, but I see no use in canting keels or other movable ballast in dingies or very small boats. The Backman 21 is maybe the smallest boat whee a canting keel is useful. I think the bulb is 200kg and total weight (light boat) is 500kg. When it gets smaller than that it's more efficient to move the crew than any kind of dead ballast :)
     
  9. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Raggi, have you read about Dennis Clark's boat? I tend to think a canting keel would add to any boat of almost any length that a fixed keel has been used on.
    ----------
    18' Canting Keel Single/Doublehander - Boat Design Forums
    Address:http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17349
     
  10. Raggi_Thor
    Joined: Jan 2004
    Posts: 2,457
    Likes: 64, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 711
    Location: Trondheim, NORWAY

    Raggi_Thor Nav.arch/Designer/Builder

    Ye, it's good looking and if you sail alone and don't want or are able to hike, the bulb will help, but you have to compare the complexity to tha gains, the 98kg of lead could easily be replaced by a friend, if you have one. Even alone I think a light dingy will probably be faster.
     
  11. alan white
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 3,730
    Likes: 123, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1404
    Location: maine

    alan white Senior Member

    The drift to deck level ballast had a lot to do with the problem of diminishing lift as the keel swings to windward. A simple internal ballast shifting system is, I think, not as complicated as a canting keel. It would also take less effort due to not having to push a foil sideways quite a distance through water resistance, and further, it would not necessarily have to interfere with the cockpit or cabin. The foil would remain where it likes to be---- on center, and not nearly so deep as the canting keel. In cases where a sudden wind shift requires "dumping" righting arm, the internal ballast could move quicker and stabilize the situation more readily.
    No pivot would interfere with the boat's underside, and in fact, the foil could be devoid of any ballast, and be a dagger-board. Enough internal ballast would be provided by the internal ballast being placed down low on center to self-right (or a bit of fixed inside ballast could be installed--- maybe water.
    The challenge is to decide what medium of movable weight would work best, and to move that weight easily by hand.
    It would be nice to put 200 lbs to the windward extreme of a small boat. This amounts to at least one big person sitting on the rail. The ideal path for an open weight (rather than a closed water-ballast system, for example) would be a semi-circular track passing under the sole. The means to apply motive force to the weight could be an endless toothed belt under the track that loops back across above the cockpit sole, where it is wrapped around a cog by use of a single tensionable idler.
    The shaft passing through the drive cog could run clear to the rear of the cockpit on centerline just above the sole in a veed channel molded in. A continous spline or key along the shaft would allow a lever to travel fore and aft the legth of the shaft, a lever that does not grab the shaft unless squeezed. A reversing ratchet is all that remains to be figured out. One way is to let the boom reverse the ratchet. A simple device close to the gooseneck would have good leverage and could push or pull a reversing rod that goes to the forward end of the cog/shaft.


    Alan
     
  12. Raggi_Thor
    Joined: Jan 2004
    Posts: 2,457
    Likes: 64, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 711
    Location: Trondheim, NORWAY

    Raggi_Thor Nav.arch/Designer/Builder

    Alan, traditional batteries are possible to use as ballast,a nd move from side to side inside a box, with a rope if yo want it simple.
     
  13. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Another reasoned voice for simplicity in small boats.

    Here's my bet for any of the techno-advocates out there who feel that a host of "stuff" will bring credibility to that which is inherently slower than others...

    I'll bet that a simple, non-cluttered, non-fussy boat, devoid of all these wonder gizmos will be used for more sailing hours per year than any complex whiz-bang mentioned in this discussion. If it's only because of maintenance issues alone, the cleaner approach will be favored. When you throw-in the fact that a simpler boat is just more fun to sail when you don't have to constantly monitor the devices (and can spend your time enjoying the process of sailing) the less complex boat will see more water time.

    Quote from Doug Lord: "...That kind of moving ballast system combined with bi-foiler technology, either in full flying or foil assist versions, is what can bring large monohull speeds past multihull speeds."

    And it will reside there for about ten seconds which is the time it will take for the multihull-foiler to deploy its own foils and blow past the monohull. Raised and called. So, in the end, you've proven what?... that multis are still faster than any mono?

    One word... l'Hydroptere. Please show me the design... either on the water, or in some dude's head, that will exceed what this multi has already done.
    http://www.hydroptere.com/

    Go ahead, lay it out there... I'm patient.

    Chris
     
  14. alan white
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 3,730
    Likes: 123, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1404
    Location: maine

    alan white Senior Member

    Chris, you need to calm down. You would think this thread was called, "The superiority of monohulls with complicated ballast systems".
    Not every idea is an attempt to define sailing's future. One guy wants to build one boat. He wants a small monohull, wants to discuss ways to make his favorite kind of boat fast. So we talk about that boat. What on Earth is the value in your dramatic "Oh Yeah???!!!" attitude?
    My Toyota truck is far faster than any multihull, and can get to Florida faster on paved roads with rest stops and motels. I could say, "They already invented a way to get to Florida! My truck! ---- game, set and MATCH!"
    But that wouldn't make any sense, just like your one-sided debate makes no sense.
    Create a thread called "Mono vs Multi Debate", and by all means, go for the jugular.

    Alan
     

  15. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. MelLandry
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    679
  2. Andrei Marius
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    721
  3. GersonPerezbr
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    851
  4. Pete Smith
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,039
  5. loudandfast
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,195
  6. Ardi
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    995
  7. Squidly-Diddly
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,076
  8. Abu Huraira Javaid
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,024
  9. rioandcopa
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    2,570
  10. ram68ocean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    970
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.