60' Moth-A Preliminary Detailed Design Exploration

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by Doug Lord, Sep 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Figgy
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 315
    Likes: 12, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 88
    Location: TN

    Figgy Senior Member

    The point of all this is in the title, Preliminary Design Exploration. So God himself is the only one that can sail this craft, great. Maby it can one day be designed so common man can sail her, but we need to start somewhere.
    Dont you think your taking this kinda hard? Is it that big of a deal? Is Doug and his posts the ONLY reason you come here?
  2. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Wass that you say?

    And Figgy, the responses can be considered preliminary as well, since there's nothing of substance to positively identify.

    Knowing The Dougster as we do, I think it's safe to say he's gonna twist stuff around pretty good before he settles on his final Frankenstein model, so what's your beef? Keep in mind here that The Dougster hasn't come-up with one single idea of his own independent thinking in this "preliminary design". In fact, it's a cobbled-together mess of a collection of ideas that have been lifted directly from the pages of some folks who really do have their thinking caps on.

    The "boat" is wide open for questioning a well as compliments, though I feel it deserves precious few of the latter.
  3. Figgy
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 315
    Likes: 12, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 88
    Location: TN

    Figgy Senior Member

    Yes they can.

    What makes you think I have a beef? It just seems that some here are bummed that Doug had an idea that could work. I dont know what the big deal is.
  4. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Ostlund trash/ answer post 32

    Just for the record :
    1) As far as I know I came up with the combination of canting keel and on-deck movable ballast in a bi-foiler BEFORE Bethwaite or Langman ever mentioned separate elements of
    the concept. The specific concept of a self-righting bi-foiler keelboat was mine alone (as far as I know) way before the publication of the Maxi Skiff ideas or the OUT 95 program. I first published this concept October 21st, 2002 on Windpower under "New Classes".
    And ,as far as I know, I am the first to publish any hard data showing such a concept is viable.
    And as far as I know, Mr. Hough is the first to look at such data and predict that a 60' self righting monofoiler would be potentially* faster than a 60' ORMA Trimaran.
    2) new, as far as I know: the possible application of a hydraulically variable span main foil on a sailing bi-foiler.
    3) new,as far as I know: partially retractable foils
    4) new, as far as I know: sliding on-deck water ballast tank
    And there is more regarding many different elements of the 60' monofoiler including the altitude control system,rig, sails that are quite unique and original as far as I know.
    But what is really important in the scheme of things is that now many, many people are looking at this concept -some a lot smarter than I am- with really good funding. The chance of a boat like this coming together is excellent.
    * word "potentially" added to correct sentence
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2006
  5. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    "The 60'MF is potentially faster than a displacement multi-hull."

    That was no prediction that it would be faster, only that *based on the information at hand* it might be possible that a 60'MF could be faster.

    In the same post I also stated: "I still don't think that a 60'CKSDBMF can be built that will foil reliably if at all. However, if it could be built it has the potential to compete with ORMA 60's."

    Clearly indicating that I do not think it can.

    Be careful citing me as support. I'm a rigger, around the shop I'm the village idiot. Hardly a day goes by that someone from a place like Saskatoon doesn't call looking for a replacement (since their idiot has died or finally made it through grade 4 at the age of 40).

    Just how much weight you can give the postings of a guy that owns and sails a Catalina 30 (D/L = 300, SA/D 17:1) and thinks it's just a dandy boat?

    It was not my intention to play Sancho Panza to your Don Quixote, please don't use me to support this concept. There is a very remote possibility that someone might take me seriously and I can't handle that sort of responsibility!

    Any idiot that has sailed a dinghy on plane for more than 2 seconds can see that the likelihood of a 60'CKSDBMF getting up on foils and sailing heeled to weather 15 deg is about the same as my daughter's 14 year old cheerleading squad winning a rugby match against the all blacks. It just is not going to happen.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2006
  6. usa2
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 538
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 11
    Location: Maine

    usa2 Senior Member

    anything that is flying is potentially faster than an ORMA 60.
  7. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Double Trouble

    Gettin back to the Figgy:

    That's the beef. The Dougster is not the only reason as is easily researched in all my other postings. The Dougster's routine faux pax postings more than make up for the other interests, as through his own hyperbole driven postings, he's an especially big target and he's fun to take down.

    The fact that the numerical values have potential has no relationship whatsoever to actually getting a product to actually work in the field. It only shows that there is potential for it to work. Lot's of so-called, wonderful ideas, have shown merit on the drawing table, only to fail miserably in the real world after all the variability issues get sorted out. Companies have gone down the tubes due to empirical trust in "numbers" when the model shop said it wouldn't work.

    Perhaps your own real world experience would tell you the same thing...?

    Sometimes you have to believe in the guys who actually build the things to know the engineering stuff is full of crap. Unfortunately, there is a broad thinking stratagem that says that engineering is everything. Since Doug has little to no understanding of how a product actually gets built, (and that is proven by his reluctance to get his butt into the shop and actually do the work on such projects as his self proclaimed fluff on the AeroSkifferoo) he can safely pontificate his position from afar without having to be responsible for the possible outcome of said effort.

    Sort through your mind and see if that sounds like any politicians with which you may have a passing acquaintance. I say it is disconnected and irrelevant until the day arrives that he can produce video proof of his "out there" concepts and deserves ridicule until he can provide the proofs.

    To The Dougster:

    You state you have the prior art claims to said enterprise... and I say, prove it.

    Haul-out the papers on the subject of one Julian Bethwaite, and get him to publicly admit that you were the first to propose such a system... and that it is workable. Not a facsimile, not something, sorta, kinda, like this, kind of thing, but the real enchilada with legally substantiated claims to that end. In fact, get Julian Bethwaite, himself, to come on the boatdesign.net forums within this thread and proclaim your position as premier to his own prior art. Until then, you are simply "breezing" in the wind.

    You want to play hardball, then show us your best stuff.

    Show your work for the above. (This includes engineering drawings, published "concepts" which are not defensible in court as prior art, by the way, unless you can prove that the concept was delivered to Mr. Bethwaite with signed receipt of presentation, e.g. a registered letter with his signature on it)

    Publish a set of drawings to the fact as presented and prove, empirically, that it can be done. This would include the engine for the mechanical apparatus, weights and relevant statistics for same, inclusion as a system in the overall concept in a workable manner, etc., etc.

    Additionally, provide a whole list of miscellaneous intellectual property claims about this particular boat with proper dating conformity to which I would bet you have not conformed to in anyway, shape or fashion.

    You can't simply spout-off about things of this nature, as if you are some guru in the sport when in fact, you have never produced anything of merit as of yet.

    I will give you this Dougster... You are a clever guy, you have a penchant for hype in the "near interesting" strata and you have the potential to do good things for the sailing community.

    The real question is: When are you going to quit spinning your wheels on abstract foolishness and actually get something done in that regard?

    You haven't even taken the time to produce a set of pretty pictures to illustrate your wonderful, canting, foiling flying cheeseburger. Just how much strength do you really think that will garner you when trotting your stuff out in front of those who have gone to that much trouble to show their ideas? Julian has done just that and there you are, just holding the thing in your hand, going… “but… but, what about me?”

    Right now, it looks pretty pitiful.
  8. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    60' Monofoiler *potentially* faster...

    My apologies, Mr. Hough. I added the word 'potentially' to the previous post. Believe me, I know where you're coming from and exactly what you think about the boat.
    Nevertheless, I appreciate the time you spent on the analysis you did. It's all doodling now but very interesting. Thanks.
  9. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    The Whole, Tilting Thing

    This is absolutely priceless, Randy.
  10. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Funny, it didn't sound like doodling when you went to great lengths to huff your sense of prior art over Bethwaite. et. al.

    It's funny how you can get yourself all punked-down when someone calls you out in a factual sense.

    I don't really mind the posturing, Dougster. It's fairly innocuous and nothing happens anyway. It's the arrogance of the posture that smacks of a dude without merit. There was an old saying in my blue collar neighborhood as a kid, Dougster. It goes something like this, "If you can do it, it ain't bragging"

    So far, I haven't seen anything like the "doing it" part out of you. There doesn't seem to be an end to the bragging part, though.
  11. Doug Lord

    Doug Lord Guest

    Bethwaite/ prior art/say what?

    Julian Bethwaite along with Martin Billoch produced a conceptual design called "Pterodactyl" and published information about it in 2005. Part of the concept included the use of on-deck movable ballast making him one of the first modern designers to suggest such a thing since Herreshoff first used it.
    But he NEVER EVER proposed a self-righting bi-foil monofoiler using a combination of on-deck and canting keel movable ballast.( I did, on the record, in 2002) His concept was not even close to the 60' monofoiler which is the subject of this thread!! He never even suggested the use of foils-or a canting keel-his Pterodactyl has a fixed keel!
  12. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    You are getting nervous, Mr. Lord. I can see it in your writing style. That flighty, hit and miss sort of prose that you see when a person doesn’t have their thoughts in a coherent stage

    Here’s a quote from your last post…

    On what record, specifically, Mr.Lord? A major publication having to do with the technical issues of boating? A scientific journal of high repute? Or was it the Panama City Gazette?

    As far as Bethwaite's design, are you really sure he never ran the numbers on a canting keel version and settled on the fixed keel as his preliminary decision? Are you saying that a guy like Julian hasn't the capacity that so obviously shines from within you alone? What do you want to bet that he ran through dozens of iterations of that design before he bothered to render the boat as an illustration?

    And furthermore, what's to keep him from changing his concept and keeping it out of the press so that he could work through some issues without anyone else knowing of his work? After all, you seem to find it OK to change speculative design content on projects as you go along. Are you the only dude who can pull that off, or is it open to the rest of the world as well?

    As far as my use of innuendo… would that be anything like having pinned you down on the damage susceptibility of foilborne boats as you graciously mentioned in one of the posts vis-à-vis, L’Hydroptere? Since you never answered that little Freudian Slip of yours, once busted, I’ll have to assume that you were too embarrassed to admit that you had gone on record in a previous thread that "crap in the water" was not an issue for foiling boats. Yet, there you were, busting out the knock on a trimaran foiler as having had damage to a foil from “crap in the water”. Could it be that the problem has suddenly become useful for you now that you want to dog multihulls when compared to this BeheMOTH SKIFF of yours? That would make sense in the immediate sense,(especially for a politician) but it really tosses egg on your face for your previous argument.

    You see, Mr. Lord, there’s just so much about this whole enterprise of yours that is shifty and it’s no wonder that Randy Hough wants out of any association with you. I believe the exact words were.

    I don’t suppose that you think it’s true, (I wouldn’t either if he were saying that about me) but under any circumstances, that’s damned funny. If one were to be comically inclined, one could easily stretch the reference to Doug Quixote and be more than a little accurate.

    I tell you what... You can end the speculation about the validity of this BeheMOTH SKIFF (I would have suggested Mothra, but the name is pretty well locked-up) by answering a challenge with the following actions:

    Send this boat proposal to the three leading yards on the planet to see if they will bite on producing such a product. If one of them writes back that they are interested in your brilliant conceptual talent and will start work immediately, with you as the genius brainpower behind the project, I'll be happy to apologize in public. You, of course, have to provide a certified copy of the letter to anyone who asks for it. And, of course, I will make a personal phone call to whomever is listed on the letter for full confirmation, so don't gin one up for heaven's sake.

    Why don't you see what Bethwaite says after you present him with your non-existent drawings and fluffy proposal, (watch the left hook when he notices that you copped his concept in more ways than one) or if John Ilett has any interest in co-authoring the effort with you so that you can gain a serious measure of credibility with his association. In fact, I'll ask Ilett myself, as to his desire to get involved. I'll just bet that the Moth boys will love to hear about this escapade. Lastly, run it past the guys at Multiplast, Morrelli-Melvin, Ollier, or Irens.

    Gosh, it would seem that if anyone could just take-in the "vision" you so obviously hold in your head, it would be these guys. In fact, the light is so bright around you right now, they won't even need a phone call of your imminent arrival... they’ll be able to see you coming from down the street. Something like the Three Wise Men, kind of effect, if you can get my drift.

    So, Man-up and give it a go. You be sure to let us know if any of the big boys do anything even remotely supportive of this world-beater.
  13. Figgy
    Joined: Feb 2006
    Posts: 315
    Likes: 12, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 88
    Location: TN

    Figgy Senior Member

    It's personal..IT'S PERSONAL!
    You guys have taken it beyond acceptable with the personal attacks, and I dont like it. THATS MY BEEF! The "take Prozac" and stupid cartoons have no place in a fourm of this sort. This isnt the WB or SA fourm, I thought that we were better than that, we ARE better than that.

    "Fun to take down"...well I'm glad for you. I know thats what I come here for. I read some new posts, PM some people, knock a guy down a few pegs... because its fun. Help him learn, dont kick him in the nuts. If he doesnt want to learn/listen, than dont waste your time. Move on.

    Dont worry, there is nothing an Australian can say that will insult me. THATS NOT COOL TO SAY! Why would I say that? I wouldnt! A comment like that has no place in the discussion. What purpose did YOUR comment serve?
    This is the stuff I'm talking about. I dont even care for foilers, the technology is interesting, but I'll never own one.
    Flame me, knock my rep (be man enough to leave your name), do whatever. You all are nothing but words on my screen. I'm only here to exchange ideas and maby learn something, not to talk smack and belittle people.

    Chris Akerson
    Scarborough, Maine
    1 person likes this.
  14. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    I respect your opinion, Figs, but for the mutuality clause of life to have any value whatsoever, then that interplay has to be observed by everyone.

    Watching our favorite poster with all this relentless spew about foils is kinda like watching a dude who repeatedly speeds through your neighborhood, as if he alone is in charge of the place, as a personal style exercise. He disrupts the flow of friendly interchange with his one track obsession and eventually, it becomes clear that it has to slow down, if not stop altogether.

    If you don't stop him, who will?

    I choose to stop the relentless blather machine on this forum with my own take on that process.

    You, of course, can choose to observe whatever limited effect you may, or may not, have on the foil blather by observing your own methodology. No harm no foul there.

    I've seen other, self-proclaimed wonder boys, ruin perfectly good enterprises for all the other participants on several occasions and I don't like that it can happen while otherwise nice folks stand around pretending to not be bothered. In the end, the sour flavor in the environment chases away good participants to the point where the enterprise nearly ceases to exist.

    I feel it only fair that if a guy wants to present his stuff here, he should have his act together and exercise a measure of grace when the going gets tough about his "vision" and how well, or how poorly, it was received.

    If you want to toss your hat in the ring of respect, have the grace to not start pissing and moaning when others crush your hat because you are not ready for the game.

    I'm sure you have read the zillions of other postings by the wonder boy scattered about the forum in heavy layers. Since this is a group dynamic environment, the only real enforcement here for a measure of class, is from the group itself. The Forum owner can banish the wonder boy, though that's not what I'm aiming for. I'd much rather that wonder boy observe some measure of responsibility about the incessant rantings and respect that other readers do not want to have that much of one topic thrust in their faces.

    In essence, he should very respectfully tone it down or face the wrath of those who, themselves, are offended.

    This very thread is a prime example of that relentless lack of respect in that regard. I realize that our hero has started this thread under a specific topic and that is what is gong to be discussed here. Fine. So, what about the dozens of other innocuous threads in which hero boy has suddenly made an appearance and then dumped his entire foil catalog on the readers without there being any due cause. The list has potential endless qualities to it. Foiling power boats for fishermen. Foiling prams, foiling barges for fuel at the marina... you know, just in case. Foiling canoes, foiling beach chairs, foiling everything. In time, even the casual observer gets the picture of the disease, and I for one do not want to be further infected by the process.

    So, I come to hero boy's thread to lay waste to his stream of conciousness, because it only fair to disrupt the flow in return. You'd think he would get that reality... but Noooo. Unfortunately, it looks to be way beyond his socially observed skill set.

    The only member who found any tiny bit of quality for the so-called proposal for the, ... well, you pick the proper name for it, has now removed himself from the play because wonder boy immediately tried to incorporate his name and endorsement on the list of non-enthusiasts. That is a form of a personal attack that Hough never asked for in any of his observations. Maybe you'd like to be included on the list of wonder boy supporters, as well, simply because you didn't harden your position in opposition? Maybe you'd even feel as if our hero has gone too far? If that is how it would hit you, then you know from where I am coming on this.

    Frankly, I've just grown tired of being pummeled with this nonsense day after day, when I enjoy the environment so completely in all other respects. So, before I exit the group for more productive uses of my time, I'm letting this one disrupter have it on the nose on behalf of the guys who don't take the time to protest the relentless postings on tirelessly similar topics.

    And like you said yourself, Figgy, if you don't like it, then simply ignore it. It would seem that if you follow your own rules, then there shouldn't be anything for you to be bothered about?

    If on the other hand, if my process of risking it will shut-up the wonder boy for even one week each month, I will feel the effort worth the criticism.

    So, hey, wonder boy... if you are reading this, and we both know you are, observe a level of respect for those who are not foil fans, dial-back your postings within a decent framework and I'll back away from knocking the stuffing out of you on every occasion.

    And in that offer, there should be a respectful measure of peace to be observed if all the players take a few steps away from the ring.

  15. Dan S
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 93
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 23
    Location: IL.

    Dan S Junior Member

    PLease state the interview/paper/article from 2002 where "on the record" you proposed "a self-righting bi-foil monofoiler using a combination of on-deck and canting keel movable ballast". If you can't give a source then it didn't happen and you're just spewing more made-up garbage.
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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.