small performance sailing dingy plans

Yes, batteries would work. At first glance, shifting ballast appears complicated. It may be possible to make a system that is very simple, however. Far more simple than a lot of other systems on a typical fast boat.
Maybe the simplest is a pendulum with a weight on the end that swings from side to side inside of a thick bulkhead. This allows a bottom position for stability when not going to weather.

 

Is something like the drawing below doable? The drawing isn't to scale. And leaves out important parts, but I think conveys the idea.

 

No, Alan... it's perfectly appropriate to question the premise as put forth by both of you guys who are wedded to the whiz-bang solutions and to offer an option that is not only faster, but simpler to own and operate. Truth is... I'm not wedded to one solution. It's just that you guys are trying so hard to over-engineer this simple boat for our thread starter, as you mention, that you yourselves have become wedded to one solution. Another truth: until you started suggesting a stream of overly technical solutions to his query, I had nothing to say on the topic. Unfortunately, that happened almost immediately.

Perhaps you can clearly see that you have left our poster with an overwhelming array of suggestions of the techno nature? My question to you guys is: why try so hard when its already been done?... and its been done by a far simpler device. If you have any design aesthetics in you at all, you'd be taking the road that leads to the simplest and most elegant solution, even if it was not something you championed. Design is a subtle thing, Alan. It is not a techno fist in the face when you run out of fluid ideas, just so you can feel like you worked a magic act.

The quote I posted from Lotus’ Colin Chapman leads to that design aesthetic when he says, “Simplicate and add lightness” This from one of the undisputed masters of performance automobile design. He does not suggest add crap-ola until the boat is festooned with junk. He suggests, obliquely, that you remove all that is not necessary for the experience desired and at the level for which it can be paid. Have you met that standard with your suggestions?

Go back and read Devon's original post to start this thread. There is no suggestion of a canting keel, lifting foils, slurry tubes, sliding ballast or any of the other stuff suggested by you two wizards. His post is marked by this quote below and if you can’t heed the thread, then what are you doing here taking up all this time?

Quote from Devon: "this would not be an AC Team budget, but rather a few buddies and a six pack of beer budget."

You do not get sliding things, rams, cantings or foils from this basic design brief suggestion. The multihull position is only being offered-up to refute the foolishness of your, “wander the techno landscape” design ethos.

Frankly, this is fairly calming to me and not excitable, as you suggest. There is clarity of purpose along with an argument that has been proffered without substantive dispute from either of you two.

I've suggested several holes in your argument throughout the discussion and you have chosen to ignore the responsibility of addressing them. Since you choose to ignore the issues, I can only assume that you have nothing to offer in defense. OK, that's a strategy. Not a very good one… but it is a strategy.

Take a look at the energy expended on your part to alter an otherwise fine potential craft for Devon with excessive numbers of extraneous gadgets, so you can what... maybe get it up to multihull speed? I call that futile and essentially non-productive. As wannabe designers, you guys have chased your tails right into a dead end street.

There are many technical hills for you to climb, my friend and they can yield potentially fabulous rewards. I suggested a short list to you a few posts back. Yet, you choose to pursue clutter in the name of advancement. There is something fundamentally wrong with trying to cover a form with technology when the form itself could be made better, most likely to the point of obviating the need for all the clutter you proposed.

Lastly, we are talking about ideas here since nothing exists along the lines as suggested. Since they are only ideas and you seem to find that offensive, how do you square that with the suggestion on your part that new ideas, such as those put forth by yourself and Doug, need to be explored for the medium to advance? It would seem that you are running from your own philosophy when you refuse to engage the other side of the argument.

Come to terms with that dilemma, Alan, and you'll have moved one giant step closer to understanding the potential of what you speak. Without the Yang of this discussion, your fantastic Yin will amount to nothing, as it will be developed in a vacuum and quickly falter under the pressure of the larger crucible of the real world.

Think on it.

 

You should see my five speed sheet winch, with three basic moving parts, my wind powered water pump with three moving parts. A near frictionless right-angle drive or v-drive. I'm with you, Chris. I don't like complication.
Should I give up because it seems difficult or impossible to simplify? It's fun, damn it! Let it go!

 

No, absolutely not with regards to giving up with the dreams for interesting solutions. Just allow all the angles to be a part of the discussion as you do it. The resultant forms will become that much better.

Now, about that frictionless right angle drive... perhaps we really should get off this thread?

Feel free to write me anytime. ChrisatWedgesaildotcom

Chris

 

The i550 is a low cost but fast plywood boat I happen to like.
And of course the Backman 18 that will be ready for trial THIS summer (not last summer

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/i550/

 

Thanks Chris. I did post the drawing of the right angle drive on one of Billydoc's threads already. I find that going through the patent process is not my thing, and prefer to share ideas (if you look up the "wingspar rig" here on the forum, I show a drawing of a modern rig that uses a back-angled mast and a vertical backstay to get unobstructed leading-edge all the way up. The mast is gaff/gunter height, and the "gaff" is a banana-shaped spar with foil section that finally reefs down to the throat sitting on the boom. It is simple and efficient, but I've not received very much criticism from here on it, and welcome your critique should you be so inclined.

Alan

 

I had some trouble making out the written notes, GTO. Is there any chance you could change the font? I'd be interested in what you came up with.

Alan

 

Sorry, using MS paint of all things. The attachment is cleaned up some.

This picture shows two contra-rotating axles.

Pull the lever toward you, windward, and the ballast bar is rotated to windward via a toothed gear at the end of the lever.

The lever also rotates a small toothed pulley, via a small axle fixed to the lever, which in turn rotates the axle to which the centerboard is attached, but to leeward and also at a much reduced rate.

The drawing does not show supporting bearings or locking mechanisms.

Hope this is a better description.

 

Why not just build a Cherub?

 

Thanks. I like it. I realize the picture is diagramatic, but the idea is sound. This setup is assuming a certain amount of heel, otherwise the board is swung to leeward. If the board were adjustable so that in a non-heeling situation it would remain plumb, that would be ideal.

Alan

 

Cherub is maybe a good start!
Or the two I mentined above, if you want it light and simple, but with a bulb for extra safety and comfort.

Back to the topic:

 

GTO and Alan, sorry but I don't get it. Is the ballast under the hull, dragged trough the water?

 

I started reading about the Cherub class, seems quite interesting.
Then I found this:

Boat design is a serious business which is not to be undertaken lightly. After all, even professionals get it badly wrong a lot of the time.​

(from http://www.sailingsource.com/cherub/test/doku.php/tech/designing)

 

I think the diagram is functional but the actual ballast would be on a streamlined stem ahead or aft of the foil. The actual stems could be a meter apart, I'm sure. GTO could clarify that.