Foiler Design

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by tspeer, Nov 12, 2003.

  1. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,651
    Likes: 322, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    ================
    Very interesting, CT. I guess its lucky for you I don't have access to the early Moth forum. You don't remember Rohan Veal being very, very upset with you about some of your nonsensical remarks about foils and foilers? I was there and I sure do.
    Oh, by the way the "sitting back" remark, apparently directed at me, surprises me-WHO ME? Sitting back in a foiler discussion? You MUST be kidding!
     
  2. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,701
    Likes: 78, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    I can't help it if people got upset because I mentioned that history does not bear out some of the reasons people were using to push foilers. Some pro-foilers are not averse to using blunt terms themselves - read what they say about some other classes.

    The only alternative was to sit back while people used arguments that were factually and historically incorrect, and basing decisions on incorrect information does not seem to be the best way to take a class forward.

    BTW, making claims about what I wrote, when you know that you cannot prove your slurs, is not very good etiquette.
     
  3. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 2,992
    Likes: 114, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    This asinine approach about mollycoddling and wrapping classes in impermeable fixed rules must DIE. Of course classes evolve, live for awhile, get superseded by more advanced developments ... and then they fade away or die. It's the bloody nature of things. Okay, I've nothing against vintage yachts, in fact I love them ... so we get an interesting number of classic designs sailing around. What's wrong with that. Anyway, back on point, that list of classes that CT249 posted that became obsolete, did not really die; they were stepping stones to more modern designs and going through the list: 18's are still around, Open B Class cats produced the superior Tornado, plus more recent cats like Nacra 20 and others, 18m2 got passed by the A Class, Ultimate 30's got sidelined by recent sportboat developments, especially those from NZ, ORMA to the new One design 70's not to mention the upcoming AC 45, Formula 40 to the Swiss lake D35 cat developments and so on and so on. Things live and then they die. Get over it.
     
  4. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,651
    Likes: 322, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    ==================
    I made no slurs-I simply recounted what went on in a very vitrolic debate on the old Moth forum. And I'm not thru trying to get that old info.
    But you're making my case about your true motivations almost every time you post-a little slip here, a little slip there.
     
  5. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,701
    Likes: 78, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    Gary, is there any chance of you discussing issues such as development without insulting those who dare to have different views to you?

    Classes don't always die. It's not "the bloody nature of things", as proven by the fact that the first OD dinghy, the first International dinghy, and the first International OD yacht class are still around. Sure, they may be classics, but they are not dead. Slagging people off doesn't change the fact.

    Unrestricted 18s, as in the "Mk 1" Grand Prix days, are not around any more. The current 18s have OD hulls apart from the 3 or so SFS boats. The unrestricted open-design open-rig 18s do not exist any more. The unrestricted boats were too expensive and therefore the current restricted boats were introduced. The class had developed itself out of existence.

    The Open B class was around for some time AFTER the Tornado and according to reports, the wing-rigged and una-rigged Open Bs were quicker than the Tornado. The una-rigged Tornado showed in the trials that it was quicker than the sloop that became the OD. Why would you expect a development B to be slower than the "superior" OD Tornado? And how is the fact that people moved into the OD an argument for allowing unrestricted development?

    In what way did the 18Sq get "passed by" the older A Class? What did a class based on the Swiss Lakes (D35s) have to do with the much earlier death of the Formula 40 classes, which were sailed in France, the UK, the USA and other areas?

    The Ultimate 30s were created for a pro series - what sportsboats are used for pro series? What sportsboats in the USA "sidelined" the Ultimate 30s? What did sportsboats have to do with the sponsorship that underwrote the U30s? Exactly what did the NZ sportboats have to do with the death of a US class in the early 1990s???

    Have you told Nigel Irens that he's wrong about what caused the terminal problems in the ORMA 60 class? He was quite specific and passionate about the issue in his talk at the MHYC in Sydney a few years back. He certainly didn't say that the collapse of the class was linked to the OD which (AFAIK) wasn't even a conception in anyone's mind at the time.

    Many of these classes died due to issues connected with development. The fact that classes (mostly OD classes) grew up, often in different areas and years later, doesn't do much to show that the development classes did everything right.

    Yes, some classes die. But the fact is that anyone that uses the claim "all classes die" or "development classes MUST allow all developments" is ignoring the truth.
     
  6. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,701
    Likes: 78, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    No - the point was that some of us do not believe that we should sit back while incorrect statements are made. Whether those statements are for or against a development is irrelevant. The point is that an argument on a class' future should not rely on incorrect statements about history.

    The "you may prefer" was irony, in the context that you do not believe in sitting back, yet you are criticising me for not sitting back during a discussion of a class in which I have been closely involved. As a former and current Moth sailor, I had at least as much right to be involved in the discussion as you did, so I fail to see how you can criticise me for pointing out historical and factual truths.
     
  7. Cheesy
    Joined: Aug 2008
    Posts: 315
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 189
    Location: NZ

    Cheesy Senior Member

    Even though this will go on for pages I dont see how anyone can actually argue against the logical argument that you have provided here.
     
  8. P Flados
    Joined: Oct 2010
    Posts: 601
    Likes: 33, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 390
    Location: N Carolina

    P Flados Senior Member

    I see that some took my position to be that less rules are better for thing like this. Using one of my favorite responses when my wife twists things around I will now say "I meant it the other way".

    I understand very well that rules are needed & should be used to keep things under control. I just like good, well thought out rules as opposed to knee jerk responses, emotional junk or self serving stuff. I actually feel that there is a good chance that those making the rules want the same thing and are just trying to figure out how to get it all straight with the least fuss & the best long term result.

    My point was that the wing "function" was close enough to the function provided by the uni-rig such that it should not be banned before the race. Just letting it compete will be a big publicity boost that should help the class. It will also let us see how it compares. The fact that Bora's front element has a small flap is has been questioned, but again in terms of function it is not any more complex than than features on advanced soft uni-rigs.

    I then went on to suggest that the results be used to consider the need for informed decision making on rules. In the interest of keeping things reasonable for the bulk of the existing fleet, I even suggested three possible rules specifically to try to soften the burden of letting wings into the fleet.

    If you read up on the SA thread that has turned into "Wings for weta/h14"
    http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=115386&st=50
    you will note that complexity and the desire for very low weights are the features that drive up cost and effort. These items also make it more difficult to use and probably less rugged/reliable. Setting some initial "interim wing rules" to keep it as simple & cheap as possible were suggested. The fact that this might keep any "wing advantage" small would be a plus in that it would allow more people to keep what they have for longer without loosing much.

    If wings can be allowed in without excessive pain (again try to make it more of a transition and/or just an option rather that a wholesale dump and start over type of thing) it will help keep image of the Moth where they want it - the hottest little dinghy out there. And when you are trying to keep a class strong, image does matter.

    Phil S has suggested a rule clean up for the soft rig side. Since the platform evolution has ended up with so much of the pilot focus on keeping the boat where it needs to be, it would be tough to go for a rig that requires a lot of attention. With this fact, I agree that rig rules probably could be cleaned at this point. With cleaned up rig rules, it ensures that guys can consider high tech soft rigs (as long as they are easy enough to use). When I look at the land/ice crowd that has much higher percent wing use than the water crowd, I see quite a few that think a wingmast is not such a bad choice.

    I am somewhat biased toward wings at the emotional level. As an engineer, I like the control and adaptability I can design in to the system. On the intellectual level, I will then come back and say that a wing mast and other high tech soft rigs can probably hold their own pretty good for racing around a course. I just like seeing all reasonable options on the table.

    If any overly complex or costly option starts to shows a clear advantage, that is when you step in and push back with rules to keep everyone in the game.
     
  9. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 2,992
    Likes: 114, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    CT 249, you're a sensitive little sea anemone, aren't you? (okay, that is an insult, but not a vicious one) - but I didn't personally insult you in my post, I was speaking generally of this fixation in over protecting differing class boats.
    And what is all this warped BS about me telling Nigel Irens what went wrong with ORMA? You're suffering from over reading, mon am.
    About the over bred earlier 18's - that was a perfect example of dinosaur evolution to death; too big, expensive etc. However, if there are a few examples around, they definitely would make interesting and curious classic craft.
    About the Open B Class: in Auckland, I used to race on Bettina, a Stanton una rig design, neat, bright work hulls .. and the Tornado designs always beat us. There was also Open B wing mast rigged Boadicea around, another fast boat, but she was always beaten by the Tornadoes too. Here, the Tornadoes quickly killed the Open B. However an Open B sailing around today would be a good thing to see ... but I've never sighted one. If you're talking about una rigs, the Marstrom 20 is a modern version.
    Referring to 18m2; that was a very small group and it is a shame it disappeared, but no amount of protective wool clothing would have helped; live and die. Also the full wing A's (which are being experimented with now) would perhaps be a better example of a superior design surpassing the 18m2.
     
  10. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    First point first. I'm biased towards wings too for the same reasons. However it is only recently that I've started looking at wings as sail replacements. There are some interesting challenges that I have not seen addressed with wing design. The modern flexible soft rig absorbs and stores energy in a gust and returns it to the system in the lulls. Tips flexing under dynamic loads to limit spar loading at the root is not a simple challenge, neither is the idea of a flap system that reacts to gusts as a modern soft rig leech does. I have a gut feeling that this is more important on boats with limited stability than on more stable platforms. The area of the boundary layer the Moth sails in probably buts a premium on dynamic response also. The air does all kinds of funny things in the first few meters that it does not do so violently higher off the water.

    This brings me to the second point. I think that a successful wing rig for a Moth will be complex and costly. I think the wing will have to be tunable to suit the sailor's weight and tunable to suit different conditions if the boat is to be remotely easy to sail.

    If the Moth Class allows wings and they evolve to be competitive, I don't know how you would close the door with rules to keep everyone in the game without banning wings and rendering the development time worthless.

    R
     
  11. CutOnce

    CutOnce Previous Member

    The land/ice takeup of wings is higher mainly due to the relative drop in the importance to weight. Heavier and much cheaper winger structures can be built with little functional penalty.

    This is a major problem I have with all these theoretical "design" schemes to create mass appeal, cheap high performance platforms. The real cost in both material, skills and facilities to produce strong, light weight component parts is ignored completely and dismissed as if irrelevant.

    Prepreg carbon, vacuum bagging and autoclaves are NOT cheap. Having the skills to produce consistently high quality parts using these tools/materials isn't trivial. Don't know how many of you have sailed an older design skiff with an aluminum mast, but high weight above your head makes things much more difficult. A heavy wing would make sailing an ultralight Moth far more difficult compared to a current design soft sail rig at half the weight. Imagine try to balance something tall and thin upright when the highest weight part is also at the highest point.

    Cost is a factor, and our visceral love of new technology has to be balanced with the real world practicality of functional solutions to problems at a price point appropriate for the application. That's real world engineering.

    --
    CutOnce
     
  12. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 2,992
    Likes: 114, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    Cutonce, if there is a way ... there is a F*****G way. Meaning that there are always alternatives ... and sidesteps ... and different ways of looking around corners at problems.
     
  13. Cheesy
    Joined: Aug 2008
    Posts: 315
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 189
    Location: NZ

    Cheesy Senior Member

    A home built wing shouldnt be all that difficult, definitly easier than making your own mast and sail
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. CutOnce

    CutOnce Previous Member

    Gary:

    I've spent the last 35 years designing, building and delivering products. Every time you begin to develop a product you try every viable avenue to reach your goal, but often the road you travel smartly avoids the mistakes and missteps of previous experiences. Experience is a better guide than wild imagination if you are actually delivering products to a schedule.

    Sometimes there aren't newer and cheaper ways of doing things, despite trite philosophies to the contrary. Material cost is driven by the marketplace, and no amount of personality or innovative scheming is going to change that. Carbon uni, twill and Kevlar pricing is what it is. The skyrocketing demands in the aerospace industry, a couple wars on the go and the immense consumer markets emerging in countries that have taken over North American manufacturing can't be denied.

    The next avenue to reducing costs is automation, or removing the expensive manual labor content. The non-recurring engineering costs to do so exceeds the volume requirements of the product, so this is a no go.

    Perhaps you are betting on someone somewhere developing dirt cheap magic new materials. I personally don't see it happening. Material science is an incrementally progressive field, and it moves slow.

    I wish we lived in a Disneyesque Magic Kingdom where bright eyed dreamers succeed proving the crusty curmudgeons wrong, but we don't. Reality means money, investors, delivering a return on investment and meeting expectations and schedules. Don't know how many venture capitalists you've taken money from, but the ones I have been involved with are absolute vipers about getting things done on time.

    I was a bright-eyed Disney dreamer once upon a time, but the first time the lawyers showed up and took away everything I owned because a product did not meet delivery and sales projections made me face reality. Banks have no sense of risk and adventure, nor do investors including family.

    My frustration with all the "dream" designs here or anywhere else is that there isn't a plan that includes money, project management, sales projections, delivery dates, unexpected problems, investors and customers. To a person who regularly goes through the product process from start to finish, watching endless circular discussions that never reach conclusions along with designs that never get built and people who refuse to make decisions and compromises because there are no guns to their heads is professional torture. I'm all for discussions that reach real conclusions, projects that show real progress and final products that are functional, but bear the scars of dealing with reality and compromise. I stupendously enjoyed wind_apparent's SR-71 foiler project - more so because it failed the real world test honestly and he shifted tacks to produce a Moth instead. That is my world. I've been there and it matches my experiences exactly.

    As a professional product guy, I can tell you what projects will succeed and what projects will fail within a few encounters. It isn't magic, but with enough scar tissue you learn. I'm all for breaking new ground and doing crazy new things, but the proposed project and people behind it has to meet the "sniff" test - and if it doesn't I know the people behind it are wasting everyone's time. Projects and people who never make real world progress smell bad pretty fast.

    I'm tired of your attitude and simplistic philosophy. You'll see the wisdom of my words eventually - if not this year, next when you realize the horse you are betting on is a nag. Waste my time once, shame on you. Waste my time twice, shame on me.

    --
    CutOnce
     

  15. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,651
    Likes: 322, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    =====================
    "Bistros", it is flat incredible that you and "cards" pollute this forum with your "secret" new anonymous names-names you must use because you're ashamed of your real name, your real work or whatever. To come in here under your nom de plume never showing your own work yet viciously criticizing many others is a shame and a disgrace. Everybody is on to you two...
     
Loading...
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.