Lightweight Canoe

Australians and Americans are thinking about revising the class rules for the two sail International Canoe, The AC stays as it is, but the IC minimum weight drops to 50kg ( all in) and the hull shape gets open to restricted development. Pointy sterns, 750mm min beam, 5200mm max LOA. SAil area and seat stay pretty much the same. Does this excite any new interest?
SHC

 

IC's

Steve, seems to me that the lighter weight coupled with the allowing of full flying hydrofoils would excite a lot of interest; any chance of that?

 

right on cue doug, right on cue.

 

On Cue

Thats funny because when you think of the incredible free publicity generated on behalf of the Moth class due to foilers and the 25% + increase in performance due to foils it seems to me like there is a whole lot in favor of ,at least, considering foils if you're going to make major rule changes in such a historic class. In my opinion lightening the boat up alone probably won't cause anyone to take a second look but combining that with foils could give a shot of performance +publicity that could affect the class positively in a big way.
You'd then have a boat that heavier people than Moth sailors might be competitive in along with visually stunning pictures that would capture interest wherever they were seen.You could mandate retractable foils to ensure light air performance and learn from the Moth experience in many ways so that the new boats would appeal to a wide range of people.
Can't see why a class like this- at a major crossroads- wouldn't look into it rather than banning it out right....

 

Severalthings:
1- foiling isn't a 100% success for the Moth Class. For some it is a bridge too far.
This happens in development classes all the time.
2- The IC is a very different beast than a Moth, and has different lumps and bumps on the speed curve, largely due to the fact that the boat is longer, has a lower D/L and more righting moment. The solution won't be the same because the problems are different.
3- It is an intellectual gutter ball to suggest thet the only advantage to be gained from foils is to lift the hull clear of the water. Much has to be tested and learned about what happens when you introduce better sea keeping through foils or enhance hull dymanics and responce by using foils. To date the Moths did this before becomming airborne and acheived bettr handling and speed increases. The I-14s are continuing to reinvent the dinghy with variable pitch rudder foils... all to good effect improving performance and simplifying handling.
3- The proposed IC rules allow for a single foil, but it must be capable of being withdrawn or raised so as to not project below the hull. This will enable us to explore some foiling aspects, but not be driven tothe full flight extreme.
Its a reasoned position, intended to offer plenty of range for experimentation within the skill set of the class.
4- You have to believe me that I am completely aware of the ICs place in history and the historic context of what we propose. For that reason, we have selected chosen to use some numbers that have historic precedent.
SHC

 

flying IC

Has anyone built a light IC and tried it with a full flying foil system?

===============================
Looks like the displ/length(for the little it's worth from a foiler analysis point of veiw) for the old IC is 31.75 and the new lighter IC 24.
The SA/D ratio of the old IC 34.5 ,new 41.47.
The "wing loadng"(D/SA) old=3.27 ; new=2.49.
Comparison with the flying Moth shows the Moth: D/L= 54.7 ;SA/D= 38.28 ;D/SA= 2.49. (Based on 150lb. crew on Moth and 170lb. crew on IC)
It seems to me that the important ratio's to consider are SA/D and D/SA for suitability for foiling and the "old" IC would have foiled but taken off in heavier air than the Moth whereas the new, lighter IC would exhibit the same take off characterisics* as the Moth and could have the same foil loading.SA/foil area should be comparable and I think, but I'm not positive, that the IC has propotionately higher RM for its sail area than the Moth does.(Higher top end speed on foils?)Pitch stability with a foiling IC would probably be excellent.
*The higher beam of the IC relative to length might be a negative factor for early take off as compared to the better beam to length ratio Moth. The forward rig on the IC offers an excellent platform for foiling if the rudder was on the transom(?).
Guess we won't see it but it seems like it could work well......

 

Doug,

I don't think anyone doubts the earnestness of your thoughts. However, you do have a slight tendency to give the impression of being rather boorish and petulant where certain ideas are concerned. I would strongly recommend that you knock back a few rum-and-whatevers and set out in search of your lost sense of humor.

Yoke.

 

ya think?

Well, the IC is one of two classes under 20' that are naturals for hydrofoils and if it is "boorish" and "petulant" to even discuss the subject then I guess you're right. Too bad though....

 

Why not you?

Go ahead and build one.
We have a great tradition af letting people experiment with our boats.
Even when the IC had a one design hull, we allowed boats built to the previous development rule to be built and raced at our National Championships.
So do it.
I'll send you the rules.
SHC

 

IC foiler?

Thanks for the invite. Though I've loved this class since I was a kid I'm involved in two foiler projects now BUT what I will do is send YOU an Ilett foil/flap combo that would make an excellent rudder foil(or a main foil with some extension for this boat)-if you'll try it on a new boat. The thing that seems apparent to me is that:1) the Blue Meanie rig modified like a Moth sail with camber inducers may be the ideal rig and 2) the foils will be easy to make retractable for beach launching-and maybe flush with the bottom on an "advanced" version.It also seems to me that the boat would be a piece of cake to sail either as a foiler or "normally" since the IC doesn't require the forward movement of the foils as does the Moth. So to test it you just insert and pin/restrain the foils(maybe some reinf. of the trunk?).
Best I can do now is contribute a foil if you'd do the rest; you've got to build a new boat anyway-why not test the foils?

 

IF I was to design a new IC with less weight, less restrictions etc, then my first guess would be :

10.5m² moth type camber induced mainsail, no jib.
For downwind speed, main area is better than jib area
( if you asked any mothist - which would you prefer, a 2.5m² jib, or an extra 2.5m² on the mainsail, I am sure everyone would want more main area instead of a jib).
More freeboard at the bow.
Pointy stern OK.
Rudder over the transom like some UK AC boats
As narrow as possible fwd, and fairly straight to the minimum chine beam ( which should be at about 2/3 length ).
T foil rudder adjustable so that the trim angle is controlled by the T foil, meaning the seat can be fixed. ( because the T foil has more effect than moving crew weight )

The boat would be a bit like a long Int Moth with a seat.... is that what you want??

Less weight in the hull may mean that the lighter crews will benefit, so perhaps the ideal crew weight would be only 75 kg.

Changing the rules/concept of the class can be bad for most existing members, although improving the boat, but not attract any more new sailors.

The new IC would also not then be a 'feeder' class for the AC
( or is that also part of the plan?)

 

Tall uni rig certainly has advantages, and no other restricted sail area class that doesn't do something to "demand" a jib is a single sail boat. That was my thinking behind Blue Meanie, but the mast had to be a meter taller to make it work. Ended up as a pretty big sail to play around with like a Moth or Windsurfer. Mast ends yo pretty heavy because it has a ton of compression due to the narrow staying base.
So I settled for overrotating it. Took a long time to get to even performance with the sloops. It got pretty good, but I wasn't beating up on people, in fact almost all of the Brits would tell you it was a no hoper. I wasn't as fast as I was with my old boat and old rig.
Where the sloop mightbe most potent is on fat reaches when getting the additional flow over the back of the mainsail will keep you hooked up longer.
Yes the hull will be skinnier, but if you have active control of pitching with a t foil, why have additional sheer height forward? My guess is that you would do just the opposite and play wave piercing games with a slightly fuller waterplane tumblehome forward of the mast.
Seat may still need to move because you will want to be further forward in light air, but if it could be fixed, it would make building a whole lot easier!
I don't think anyone would care if the IC looked more Moth like.
I'm going to have to build something to find out how good it can be.

SHC

 

one step at a time?

Steve,I think the idea of taking one step at a time is excellent as long as future steps aren't banned in the process.
Please consider allowing full flying foils as long as they can be retracted so they don't stick below the hull for trailering and allow a two year period where foilers can race with other boats on a handicap basis or something like it. That way development can be tried and enough time will be allowed to see if the things add to the class or not.