Moth on Foils: 35.9 knots(41.29 mph)

Moth on Foils! Mothcast

"technologica's(Bruce) mothcast #14:
http://www.mothcast.net/

 

Disgrace: Hydrofoil Pioneers Ignored!!

I just went to the International Moth class site under "Records" and found some serious omissions-so serious that they are just a flat out disgrace!!!!
While Frank Raisin sailed his Moth on foils in 1972 and Ridge(?) in 1988, we know for a fact that Ian Ward sailed on just two foils in 1999-and was apparently the first in the world to do so. And in 2000 perhaps the most significant development in Moth class history occured with John Ilett's adaptation of Dr. Sam Bradfields wand based altitude control system to the bi-foiler configuration. Ilett didn't just adapt the system he invented and developed the forward wand position now seen on every foiler Moth.
I think it is a disgrace to not mention Johns singular achievement in a site that claims to be about Moth records!!!!

http://www.moth-sailing.org/imca/faces/Records.jsp;jsessionid=A78869B6CC5CE01D331C0F14FD859AD7

 

Oh gosh... someone's been lounging too often in one of the surplus hyperbaric chambers from the Michael Jackson Estate sale on eBay.

I know the answer to your dilemma. Write the guys who run the site (and I would bet that the whole thing is a labor of love and they who keep it are doing so on a purely volunteer basis) and offer to assume all duties connected to the Doug Lord approved histerical, official history of the Moth Class.

Nobody is a disgrace here, oh Wizened One. Dropping your tirade on those persons who are ultimately doing a service to the overall community is pretty darn idiotic. Frankly, I'm surprised that you didn't include your own less than documented aero-thingy as suitable material for the site, yet somehow disgracefully left off the list. Perhaps these guys really do know the difference between legit and self-pimped.

 

Disgrace: an insult to history!

Ignoring the achievements of the man that MADE the bi-foiler viable is more than an oversight and disgrace-it is an insult to the history the class. This has gone on for several years even after it was previously pointed out.

 

So, have at it, Big Boy.... start your own, Official Moth History site and offer-up your own dewey-eyed version of how it all went down.

I bet there'd be all sorts of folks who were actually involved in the process back then, who would find your particular take on "history" as more than a little amusing. You, of course, were living in Australia back then and all the principal players are close friends of yours?

There's the gauntlet Bubba Doug. Either put up, or shut up.

 

Disgrace: an insult to history!

No historical revisionist would even dare to suggest that Ilett wasn't the first to apply the wand altitude control system to the Moth. And that he built the boat that used a wand to win the first World Championship of any foiler Moth.
The man should be given credit for this achievement-especially by those that have copied his work......
----
PS- this thread is the most widely read historical record on any forum anywhere of the (foiler) Moth Class-bar none.

 

Get a clue, Doug. The term you just used (historical revisionist) implies within its form that a revising of history is to be expected. Perhaps you meant something else and just don't have the depth to express it?

Widely read is irrelevant, Doug. The National Enquirer, with all the "Aliens ate my Baby" stories, is the most widely read printed publication in the world. Does that make it more relevant than the New York Times?

You've got this inflated opinion of your importance in the world of Moth sailing and seems that you think you can justify your value simply due to some discussion forum thread. A forum thread, mind you, where you have made the vast majority of the single person entries. This amounts to "I am, therefore, I am" and nothing more.

Now, if you were to step up in a manly fashion and start your own, History of the Moth, blog and chock-fill it with absolute historical accuracy, we'd all be able to point to your indelibly supreme position within the sport. Blogs are easy to start, Doug. They are free and only require that you post info that is worth reading, and/or looking at to become successful. Just think, your own personal podium from which to spew your ideological mush?

It looks like you have some real axes to grind in the foiling Moth territory and that sort of venture would allow you to say anything you like, any way that you like without any of the rules of this, or any other, forum. I doubt that you have what it would take to open yourself up to that much scrutiny, but I encourage you to do so.

 

Is your use of the term "may" intended to show that you doubt Frank Raisin's claim? Putting the emphasis you did can easily be seen to imply that you believe it did not happen.

If so, on what do you base this doubt? Do you have reasonable grounds to base any implication that Raisin did not foil?

By the way, there are other errors on that page (such as the "first to win a world in a skiff" claim) but why get so upset?

 

===============
I'm upset because John Ilett's monumental contribution to the Moth Class-and to bi-foilers in general is being ignored by the class that proved just how good a two foil monohull foiler can be. He started the revolution with a design innovation that directly led to the turning of all the preconceived notions about small monohulls upside down.
His work should be recognized and celebrated-particularly in this class and it is a damn disgrace that it is not......
Ian Ward was the first person I know of to sail any sailing foiler with just two foils-a tremendous achievement but it is the wand altitude control system that made the bi-foiler a viable racing configuration.

 

If you don't have issues with Raisin's claim, maybe you could consider changing the way you wrote that post. When you emphasise "may" in that way, and then effectively contrast it with the known foiling of Wardii, it seems to imply that you do not believe that Raisin foiled.

 

Wardi-first on two foils.....

I should have put a question mark by Ian Ridge-since I have never seen any details of his boat that may have had only one foil-I'd like to know more about him if anyone has any info. Raisin surely foiled with four foils(?) but I made another glaring omission as has the International Moth site: Dr. Ian ward was the first person in history to foil a sailboat on just two foils. Almost simultaneously, David Lugg became the first person(along with his crew) to foil a two person foiler on just two foils.
I haven't been able to find out what kind of altitude control system Ward used
but Lugg is the first(as far as I know) to use a tiller controlled manual altitude control system(controlled rudder foil flap). I was the first (as far as I know) to use a tiller controlled manual altitude control system that controlled the main foil flap.
The guys on the 26' Mirabaud are developing a manual altitude system for control of the main foil flap -particularly in rough conditions-they can by-pass the wand.

 

First, you need to provide conclusive proof that your boat actually foiled. If you can do that, then you can begin to think about making claims based on such an event.

Since you are such a stickler for "disgraceful" non-claims on the Moth page, one can only wonder as to why you haven't provided one single person who will swear that they saw your boat foil. Your personal claims don't count unless they can be proven with support material, such as a collection of photos and/or videos proving same. I'm sure that you know the reason why.

It's sad that you continue with the indignance and the claims in the face of absolutely no proof, whatsoever.

 

======================
Pure BS. The people that matter KNOW my boat foiled. I have said it foiled with me single handing it on three separate occaisons. Thats all I need to do.
---
The fact that John Illett and Ian Ward have not been given the respect that they are due IS a disgrace! There are dozens-maybe hundreds of videos, pictures ,ect. that prove in the SA manner- "pictures or it didn't happen"- what Ilett did, when he did it, how he did it and yet his accomplishment is still ignored by the site that claims to represent the Moth Class. And because of that there may be new sailors in the Moth class(not to mention the others worldwide who have no clue) that don't even know what he did-they probably think AMAC invented the wand controlled foiler Moth! And that is just plain pitifull....

 

Disgrace : an insult to history!

Speaking of pictures: the SA system is based on the absurd adage: "pictures or it never happened". I have been attacked by individuals who said my boat never foiled because I can't show any pictures of it foiling. Explanations are ignored-particularly by certain mothies and ostlindizers.
Well, it is so very interesting that on the Records page under Hydrofoil Pioneers where Ian Ward and John Ilett should be listed a guy by the name of Ian Ridge is listed as a hydrofoil pioneer-and he may well be one. But in an exhibition of hypocrisy rarely seen the only substantiation these people show for Mr. Ridge is one with his boat out of the water. Gee, no foiling pictures, no design details-nothing!!!!! And yet he is a Moth foiling Pioneer and John Illet and Ian Ward for which pictures, video and a whole lot of info exist ARE IGNORED!!! What kind of people are these?
Give me a break! These guys should all be honored properly.....

Records Page, International Moth site:

http://www.moth-sailing.org/imca/faces/Records.jsp;jsessionid=BF842C52DD72716AB58633CD72E8A7F5

 

Well, not really Doug. Most folks are of the mind that reproduceable proofs are necessary for a technical claim to be made. Well, if you want to be regarded by a scientific community of your peers, that is... and this is a scientific technical field in which you wish to be included.

If you have an advanced degree in the field, which you don't, then a certain degree of latitude might be extended as a courtesy of acknowledgement until you do produce said proofs. As far as I can tell, you've only produced the standard evangelists ploy of wheeling out the "because I said so" argument. That might be enough in your world Doug, but it doesn't work in the real world.

Your claims are further compounded by the simple fact that right after this great success took place, you banged the boat apart and gave away serious componentry. No further advancements, no tweeks to get it better, not a thing... save for tossing it to some windsurf school where it could be used like a sailing pickup truck for beginners.

Nope, your claims are without merit until you produce the basic required proofs. If my explanation isn't sufficient for you, then by all means, consult with the science professors at your local junior college and listen to what they have to say on the subject of technical scientific proofs. The burden of proof sits squarely on your shoulders, old boy.