yes, it is a Revolution

[Doug Lord]

Foilers continue to be very much more expensive than an equivalent non–foiler, harder to sail (as foilers), easier to break and more expensive to maintain and fix. Those issues don't daunt the people who sail them, but it's a serious barrier to wider adoption.

DL: Whats the "equivalent" non-foiler to a Moth, to a UFO, to a Quant 23, to a GC32, to an F50 cat, to Charal, to Gitana 17??!

The same boat without hydrofoils (obviously). About the only foiler that is arguably easier to sail than its non–foiling counterpart is a Moth, which was diabolical to sail and really couldn't get much more difficult. At least lifting foils increased the reward, even if the difficulty was only marginally reduced. Absolutely ludicrous!!!DL
.

=====================
So you're saying that the Moth(UFO, Q23, GC32, F50, Charal, Gitana 17) without foils is "equivalent" to the Moth(UFO, Q23 , GC32, F50, Charal, Gitana 17) with foils!!?? Don't you see how absurd that is?

equivalent: corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function and value

 

[Angélique]

Everyone can think what they want . . . .

Right, and no one has to speak for anybody else without their authorisation.

. . . . but I wonder if a sailing boat that does not sail but flies, some sails that are not sails but airplane wings, a crew that is largely not made up of sailors but by cyclists, a skipper who does not marks the direction towards where his experience says but towards where the computer says, ... can be qualified that of boat of sail boat ?

Just keep on wondering if you don't have the ability to understand that a boat that does many times the wind speed by wind power is a sailboat.

 

[Angélique]

. . . . I wonder if a sailing boat that does not sail but flies, some sails that are not sails but airplane wings, a crew that is largely not made up of sailors but by cyclists, a skipper who does not marks the direction towards where his experience says but towards where the computer says, ... can be qualified that of boat of sail boat ? . . . .

Some of poor knowledge and understanding might think the below is a sailboat because it's kinda rigged like one . . .

Anthony Fokker and and one of his spiders in 1911...​

↓ Dutch spoken, starting with Spin III (Spin = Spider)

 

[OzFred]

So you're saying that the Moth(UFO, Q23, GC32, F50, Charal, Gitana 17) without foils is "equivalent" to the Moth(UFO, Q23 , GC32, F50, Charal, Gitana 17) with foils!!??

Equivalent in every respect other than having hydrofoils, yes. That was the point of the statement. Most of those boats have many equivalents without hydrofoils, the Moth is an exception, probably because no one would build such as difficult to sail boat as a one design.

You seem incapable of rational discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[trip the light fandango]

I wonder if a sailing boat that does not sail but flies, some sails that are not sails but airplane wings, a crew that is largely not made up of sailors but by cyclists

I think it is very relevant to mention other sports and craft and their necessary talents .
There aren't many examples in nature of a creature that going about its normal operation can instantly shred, like a moth to flame, only weight of numbers remedies the problem usually, certain ideal conditions to prosper quickly, mate then die.
Of course foilers are not evolving over millions of years they evolve through human innovation, obsession, expertise , knowledge, money, time, passion. For mine it gets back to, how do you not wreck the craft when it inevitable stumbles or hits something?,..Cameras and equipment that sense and react quick enough to avert disaster may well be cheap soon, simple to use and prevalent, perhaps within the next ten years. Solenoids ,stepper motors , all waterproof, light batteries using hardly any power. Is there a place for airbags?
Speed,[ can create a larger window anticipating a weather pattern], is in itself fun and life is short. My objective is to travel safely, smoothly and simply, fairly short passages mainly again with a sense of security,[not mate ..speed.. and die.. need help.. ha .]. I don't want to require rescuing. so foils are at this stage for me are mere musings. My 20 year old standard car would have been a racing hotrod in the 70s, and is for me today, requiring common sense ,..I have to ask myself if people are so gullible to believe vested interest advertising ,how do they drive a car? regards

 

[TANSL]

My intention was not to criticize, belittle, the foils, at all. I only say that the foils themselves have evolved almost nothing in the last 70 years and, above all, what I am saying is that I am amazed by the sailing boats that are sustained only by hydrostatic forces and that in them, in them yes, there have been great transformations and improvements, in their shapes, in their materials, in their equipment, in the design parameters ....
On the other hand, compare foilers with "hydrostatic boats" (let me call them that.) It's not right, foils can be considered the formula 1 of the sea, if you want, but the F1 cars still have 4 wheels and slide over the asphalt, while the foilers do not navigate (well, they sail as little as possible), but they fly, which is not what the sailboats do.
There are many sports called "extremes" that we like to contemplate but that will never reach the public. I believe that a competition like, for example, the America's Cup, should be more focused towards obtaining improvements applicable to the general public.
They are opinions, not dogmas of faith, and I do not intend that you share them, on the contrary, they only intend to animate a discussion.

 

[trip the light fandango]

opinions, not dogmas of faith, and I do not intend that you share them, on the contrary, they only intend to animate a discussion.

I just watched a doco on the 3rd industrial revolution, ie.. use of free energy [wind], and sharing information free, the gps, navigation internet. Foilers or a derivative are it seems to me inevitably to become pretty common because there is less friction, greater efficiency. Your voluntary offerings of valuable technical expertise is being shared and adding to the process of development of water craft in general, not so sure about mine , ha,.. thank you.

 

[CT249]

Doug since you haven't described what you mean by "equivalent" then you're showing your usual bad manners by claiming that OzFred's response is "ludicrous". You asked a stupidly ill-defined question and given that, the reply was perfectly reasonable.

A Mach2 with the wand mechanism partly unfastened (which would make it unable to foil) is "a non foiling equvalent to a Moth". It's exactly the same boat with just one piece of equipment connected in a different way. Of course a boat is "equivalent" to itself when every single atom is the very same atom and the only difference is whether one pin passes through one eye or not.

The 'non foiling equivalent' to a foiling Moth could be a British Moth, if you are looking for a class with an equivalent length of history. A "non foiling equivalent" to a Quant 23 could be the 1960s YW Scow, if you're looking for a boat that is equivalent in general size, hull shape and crew righting moment. A UFO is 'equivalent' to a Sunfish in light wind speed.

The fact that someone is dumb enough to phrase a question in a stupid way does not give them the right to insult a reasonable attempt at an answer.

 

[CT249]

The same boat without hydrofoils (obviously). About the only foiler that is arguably easier to sail than its non–foiling counterpart is a Moth, which was diabolical to sail and really couldn't get much more difficult. At least lifting foils increased the reward, even if the difficulty was only marginally reduced.


Surely you can't be serious… batteries in boats is a "fantastic development"? The necessity for computer control, even with the best sailors in the world as crew, is a "fantastic development"? It's led to a boat that can't sail, and likely can't even stay upright, in any sort of breeze if it's stored energy source runs out or is crewed by less than world champion sailors. That's anything but a "fantastic development" unless your criteria include extreme exclusivity.

On the contrary, they were steady refinements of existing ideas, particularly "uptip" foils that were a progression from C foils that led to L , J and Z foils. Development continues with various shapes. People in various parts of the world had tinkered with T foils on Moths, it's just that some guys in Perth got it to work well enough first.

Ladder foils were a dead end, "uptip" foils on cruising cats are a dead end. I think Z foils are a dead end, surviving only because of rules in certain classes. I suspect the AC75 canting arms with foils are a dead end too, those last two assertions will take a few years to prove of course.


It has changed a few racing boats, but its adoption is extremely limited in the overall scheme of things. Many classes have specifically banned foils, classes like i14 allow rudder foils but ban anything that might allow full foiling. The number of cruising boats capable of full foiling in the world can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. Those with foil assist are more numerous, but still there are very few. And before you start, the Quant 23 is not a cruising boat.

Get out to an actual sailing regatta and you'll see very few foilers. Talk to actual sailors and while they're interested in the novelty of foiling, they have zero interest in sailing one other than as something on their bucket list if the opportunity arises.

Well said. Foilers are great but very few people sail them. The last Aussie Moth nationals had only 4 more boats than some of the last nationals before the "revolution". The Waszp is doing well but still only a sidebar when seen against the fleets of conventional boats. The A Class has not grown in membership since they adopted foils. Windfoilers and kitefoilers seem to be doing well in some ways but the numbers are not enormous.

It says something about the appeal of foilers, skiffs,etc that this year more people sailed in the Australian title for the Sharpies, a 1950s facelift of a 1930s design, than in the nationals of any modern craft. And yet a while back, people were hyping up skiffs as if they were "the future of sailing". The Sharpies show how silly and wrong those claims were, and foiling is turning out the same way.

I was chatting today to one of the world's top A Class sailors after our race. He reckons the foils are harming class numbers because of the cost, difficulty and danger. Amazing boats? Yep, Fantastic performers? Yep. But the issues and limitations have to be recognised.

 

[revintage]

Having blocked Doug Lord as I got affected with temporary brain fatigue when I earlier read his posts, I might be somewhat off topic.

Even if my racing days are over, I´d rather race without foils. Pure speed wasn´t the goal, sailing is som much more then that, even if I was active in the Tornado class, speed was just a bonus. Every boat type has it´s charm, so no need to emphasize foilers as the superior alternative.

But building a foiler and trying it before I turn 70 in a few years, is still my goal. Have to satisfy my curiosity . Foiling is an old technique that has been practised for almost 100 years, so nothing revolutionary about it, more than new materials..

 

[Doug Lord]

Doug since you haven't described what you mean by "equivalent" then you're showing your usual bad manners by claiming that OzFred's response is "ludicrous". You asked a stupidly ill-defined question and given that, the reply was perfectly reasonable.

.

==========================
As usual you got the facts wrong-I actually provided a definition of "equivalent"in post 16 which, apparently, you chose to ignore.
OF's ludicrous comment about foilers being very much more expensive than "equivalent" non foilers in post 8 shows an approach to the subject devoid of much thought and tainted with his personal disdain for foilers. Of the boats listed in my question(post 16) there is NO equivalent non-foiler that offers the performance and value of the foiler.

 

[Doug Lord]

Having blocked Doug Lord as I got affected with temporary brain fatigue when I earlier read his posts, I might be somewhat off topic.

Even if my racing days are over, I´d rather race without foils. Pure speed wasn´t the goal, sailing is som much more then that, even if I was active in the Tornado class, speed was just a bonus. Every boat type has it´s charm, so no need to emphasize foilers as the superior alternative.

But building a foiler and trying it before I turn 70 in a few years, is still my goal. Have to satisfy my curiosity . Foiling is an old technique that has been practised for almost 100 years, so nothing revolutionary about it, more than new materials..

===========================
You miss so much if you believe that statement! While "foiling" has been around for a long time in various forms, it has never captured the public imagination as it has now.
Now there are foilers from around 8' to over 100', from windsurfers to kiteboards to dinghies to keelboats -monohulls to multihulls- foiling is now available in a greater array of boat designs and foil configurations than ever before in history.

 

[Angélique]

F1 cars still have 4 wheels and slide over the asphalt, while the foilers do not navigate (well, they sail as little as possible), but they fly, which is not what the sailboats do.

Oh well, you're still posting nonsense, and keep on crying that it flies, and so as a champion of drivel proved again you're not understanding anything you post about here.

For your info, flying foilers have their weight fully supported by the waters they sail in, and also get their leeway resistance from there, just like the tyres of the F1 car slide over the asphalt, since it isn't the whole car that drags through the asphalt, it's just about minimising contact area, which is also what a foiler does.

You've just made one of your many silly and unjust comparisons, and so again delivered proof that you don't understand anything about the matters at hand.

As for the rest that is crying with TANSL, and swallow his nonsense here as sweet cake, don't make yourself laughable . .

Everything changes, especially in the process to enhance performance in races, even an angler's priest looks different nowadays . . .

19th century priest

Nowadays priest

 

[CT249]

==========================
As usual you got the facts wrong-I actually provided a definition of "equivalent"in post 16 which, apparently, you chose to ignore.
OF's ludicrous comment about foilers being very much more expensive than "equivalent" non foilers in post 8 shows an approach to the subject devoid of much thought and tainted with his personal disdain for foilers. Of the boats listed in my question(post 16) there is NO equivalent non-foiler that offers the performance and value of the foiler.

That is perhaps the most idiotic comment I have ever seen on the internet.

You only gave the definition in post 16 - AFTER you asked the question in post 9, and AFTER the question was answered in post 12. It is insane to criticise someone as you did because their question did not fit a definition you provided AFTER they gave you an answer.

Even the definition you gave after the question was answered doesn't help your case. The 'value' of a sailboat is subjective. There are about as many Australians, for example, who found a non-foiling Moth valuable enough to race in 2000 as there are who currently find a foiling Moth valuable enough to race. For someone who wants a popular and widespread one design sportsboat, there is no "value" at all in the Quant 23 since it is not popular or widespread. For someone who wants a foiler the Q23 and Moth can be fantastic, but a question that is so loose is just silly.

Even looking at "performance" is of little use without defining the performance and how it is to be proven.

Oh, and I know that you are a liar but stop lying about your claim that I usually get the facts wrong. I do not, and your revolting and dishonest claims like that are in clear breach of forum rules.

 

[Angélique]

. . . defining the performance . . .

Win the race.