International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: Emmett Lazich (emmett@hutch.com.au)
Date: Fri 07 Jan 2000 - 15:11:29 GMT
To Colin, Charles, Andy and other interested I14 sailors,
I am glad you see the I14 rule set moving in the simplified (and
proven stable) direction of say the Aussie 18s and 16s. That is
with a few fundamental class rules only, but still enabling very
cost effective performance across a very wide wind range. These
simple rule formulas work very well. The I14s currently have a
few tremendous advantages to combine with similar simplified
rules such as economic savings from smaller size and being a
strong ISAF open international class. Well a few people said do
it, so here I shall attempt to explain some of my rule change
ideas aimed to exploit the class potential for further growth and
enjoyment. You might want to fetch a beer, coffee or tea now,
because I shall try to anticipate a lot of thoughts when giving
my reasons. Please be open minded and read around any errors I
make. It is tough to convey tone in an email, but I assure you I
do not proclaim to be an expert in any area. I will try to arouse
some thought. I have a lot to learn about the I14 and I'll
welcome any criticism. I wont bother saying "I think this or
that" because this is mostly one big opinion for you guys to do
what ever you want with. In a separate posting I shall attempt to
offer some insight into the 49er class which may interest I14
sailors.
Outright very high performance at low cost and looking simple is
the key to capitalising on a current dinghy sailing global market
opportunity. ISAF international class status and "accessibility"
will do the rest to corner a niche market and attract the extra
numbers always desired. When the I14 performance really reaches
the "wow level" in all reasonable conditions, only then is it
safe to slow down on substantial (yet low cost) rule
developments. As Charles Stanley said "the I14s made a
compromise change in 96 that could be sold, and it was therefore
not best". 2000 is a great time to re-continue capturing
attention for the I14s. The potential is very high but will not
magically remain so. The Sydney League 18s recently knocked back
the chance to be part of an ISAF international class. That was a
great blow for the 18s globally, but possibly a gift for the
I14s.
To be market competitive in the current performance orientated
amateur dinghy sailing world, the most limiting physical
parameter of the I14 class rules is the (lack of enough) hull
length. But 14 ft is only just too short if the weight is kept
minimal. To some extent this limiting parameter can be
circumvented by the usual reduction of drag, but more
significantly and quickly by an increase in power to weight.
Naturally by being short, the I14 has unique and attractive cost
and logistical benefits over the larger skiffs. Weight may come
down, which is always fantastic, but when will power go up? That
is sail power and/or righting moment.
Now I shall offer some views on four rule points: 1) Wing/rack
width & length. 2) Water line width. 3) Sail area rules. 4) Boat
obsolescence. Note points 1 and 3 are closely related.
It is absolutely great if you believe that the primary constraint
on I14 development is simply cost. We must all remember to think
twice before entering debates on performance benefit speculations
when cost is negligible. Consider opening the rules and just let
people try it. Don't try to save someone else their time when
they want to do something. This obviously applies to most of the
obscure technical I14 rules, but also to some very fundamental
restrictions. On this point, many people fear making their class
"too hard to sail", and this is very rarely justified in the
modern dinghy sailing market. For example the 49er sailboat was
initially predicted to be a little unforgiving. But nowadays the
majority of the hundreds of people sailing 49ers will tell you
that the 49er is a very pleasant boat to sail in any reasonable
wind strength. The small wing/rack width on the 49er is
perceived to be far below the limit (for both rig dynamics and on
water boat handling) to cause any problems, and if anything, the
majority of experienced 49er sailors claim the racks make them
easier to sail in most circumstances and certainly help keep the
sailors nice and dry. 18s and in particular 49ers prove that
until you get near some natural limit which ruins rig dynamics
and smooth efficient boat handling, extra rack width has no
detrimental effect on the difficulty to sail. Everyone knows
that the 49er at 9.5ft width and 18s at 14 ft width go
substantially faster with small increases in width. If sceptical
then ask any top 49er sailor about crew weighing for equalisation
on measurement days! The I14 at 6 ft is far far below this
trade-off point, and it would reap *huge* performance gains with
a relatively small rack/gunwale width increase. If anyone is
sceptical, then someone with a fast I14 who cares should do some
experiments to find out the gains for given widths and to find
out how much the mast prebend needs to be reduced and/or luff
round added and/or mast stiffened for a given rack width
increase. The results might show that the cost of powering up
the rig is low to zero (just reduce prebend with your current
mainsail), the cockpit might need refinement to permit more feet
standing and less sitting, but the extra speed in powered up
straight lines and out of turns would be just fantastic. If all
goes well plus some cheap ways can be devised to modify the
existing then boats, then the width should be increased as soon
as possible. I'd say just go to 7 ft or a little more if
removable racks can be cheaply engineered across the current
fleet. The latest Biekers look like they could be changed
overnight as can be done with an 18! When the product is
gradually refined I am sure the old boats of today will be looked
back on as difficult to sail. Sure I14 sailors have said that
much room for refinement exists on most I14 rigs, but the sooner
the I14s take a stance and catch maximum attention via
inexpensive but major performance gains the better. So push the
I14 racks out (and aft) just enough and go for a cost effective
*exceptional* performance formula, then enjoy the excitement it
will inevitably provide and attract.
We know that if we go real narrow on the water line, then
dinghys/skiffs do become harder (or at least different) to sail.
Plus they get slower if they are supposed to plane yet sink below
their "lines" too often. But the I14s are very safely wide enough
for this to not be a deterrent for the type of sailor the I14
should (and does) appeal to. Having greatly enjoyed some time in
the Moth class, and admired slender keelboats and cat hulls since
I can remember, I am a big fan of narrow hulls and how sweet and
rewarding they can be to sail. However to me the I14 width in
the water looks okay. Especially provided you do not outlaw the
more modern straight topsides (first seen '89 UK Moth designs :-)
Designer experts could explain the interesting details. There
are far more cost effective ways to dramatically raise
performance and enjoyment before changing that rule. Leave the
water width as narrow as the narrowest boats are now and save
both current and new class members some money.
These days there is little (or no) need to worry about unforeseen
consequences resulting from small tidy ups of a development skiff
class' rules. This is provided that the rules are kept simple
and the primary fundamental restrictions exist. Many minds have
spent many years (often at it full time) thinking of ways to make
break throughs in classes like 16s and 18s with many options
open. But always refinement was (and is) seen as the answer to
higher performance. Rig tuning refinement works wonders for
current 49er sailors. The 49er itself was not a revolution at
all, but in the words of the designer (JB) it is in many ways a
cumulative and scaled down result of refinement from 10+ years of
his own successful GP 18 footer racing. From my brief
observations in Melb 99, I considered Grant's impressive I14
speed to be a result of methodical refinement of proven concepts
(in an impressive time frame) rather than costly rule
exploitation. Fast sailboards too can look radical at a glance,
but they are the result of extreme refinement and development
which is cost effectively permitted via the small size of these
craft. The best engineered things are always as simple as
possible, but no simpler. My opinion here is to completely
abolish the measurement of working sails on I14s and enjoy how it
initially and steadily widens the class appeal for all people.
People with preferences such as what they like to think about
(eg, tuning and racing versus measurement headaches), what style
of rig maximises what they enjoy on the water, or simply what
their bodies can weigh to be competitive. As is normal and
proven, keep a mast height rule, count the number of sails
registered for regattas and/or during a 12 month period and
restrict all sail area to being below the top of the mast. Forget
about black bands. Add a boom length rule too if you are worried
about that (but years of work in the 18s shows that it would be a
harmless waste of time to restrict either boom length or the
forestay position on the hull). Why limit mast height you ask...
Primarily because on a three sail boat with high tech masts it is
prohibitively expensive to play around with your maximum mast
height. For example, all sails will rapidly become completely
incompatible between masts and boats. What a nightmare for the
I14 sailor on a tight budget who wants to purchase and recycle
some used gear! Mast transportation might also become an issue.
Cost of production mast sections might go up too. If some people
find themselves getting overpowered earlier, then what could
possibly be wrong with that? That's the general appealing idea
these days anyway, plus with wider racks this would certainly be
desirable. If it occurs, then being more powered up would
further accelerate the search and development of more responsive
and lower drag rigs. Since stumping down is an extremely cheap
option it should never be outlawed. It is thus important to
remember that the I14 is not a single rigged boat. Also if mast
raking adjustment is just as effective for power control then it
too is a valid reason why working sail area measurement rules
should be abolished. If elliptical sail plans are optimum then
sail area will not really go up past what you already have. So
why not find out what works for zero ongoing owner cost and do
away with the measurement headaches?? The fun to cost ratio is
everything! Think about this non-question: How sweet is I14
spinnaker measurement these days? If you think your fleet will
spread out any more than it is then you are dreaming. If say you
could carry the present mast height and mainsail to 30 kts with
waves yet methods exist to further depower, then why not allow an
increase light air performance and capture a healthy market? If
the "stumped up" I14 rig does not almost stop upwind in 25+ kts
with whatever rake setting plus both sails fully flattened (as in
a 12 or 18 footer or modern sailboard in 20 kts), then the sails
are simply too small be any fun at the other end of the wind
range. No complicated sail area rules = option for more low cost
power when needed + cheap performance development + more thought
spent on tuning instead of measurement.
A degree of boat obsolescence is not at all a bad thing. In fact
a lack of it can be a fatal for any international amateur class.
Naturally it is vital to consider what makes a healthy second
hand boat market for new comers to buy into. The 49er class is a
simple and familiar example: It has strict one design class
rules, but the second hand market stays primed with hulls and
parts because the elite sailors strongly believe (or have the
funds to believe :-) that the hulls, topmasts and working sails
do not stay competitive for long enough (eg: hulls: 10-15
regattas, topmasts and working sails 3-8 regattas). The Olympic
status ensures that the top end exists and the new equipment is
continually purchased. However this structure has some inherit
problems; it lacks stability with its four year cycle plus it
lacks much growth potential and it can be expensive for the
amateur to purchase enough speed. So the class is feeling some
pressure with most of its top performing members now asking the
question "what do we sail next?". For various reasons 18s (costs,
sponsors, logistics and international chaos) are NOT a favourable
answer for these people. Now the I14s are different, your boats
can/are and should be made to last "forever". But this would
create problems if you want the class to grow in numbers in
various places when no one anywhere has any reason to replace
their I14. The Australian Moth class for example suffered from a
lack of used boats on the market in the 90s, because the hulls
were being built "too well", and all the development was going
into rigs. For any class, one-design or development, to
rejuvenate and/or grow incurs a inescapable cost. In an amateur
classes it a question of how that cost is distributed. If there
are compelling reasons for a sailor to buy/build a new boat, then
chances are he/she is a member of a healthy and enjoyable class.
This is an interesting point and taking it into consideration
could effect many I14 rule options.
Phew! I hope all that helps get some "meat computers" going.
Mine is ready for bed! Again, all criticism is welcome. Be
abusive if you wish. My aim is to try and determine how far you
will take the I14 and how soon. I know many people who could
really enjoy an updated I14 version. Again I respect the notion
that some stability is presently required for the I14s. However
more than enough time has passed to start discussions and
preparations. Remember from 96 that changes should be swift or
else some temporary bad publicity can result. If anything in
life is a happening thing, then enough people usually just run
with it, which in this case would quickly turn a rule change
period into (proud) history. Now in the modern "networked world"
the development classes are in great shape to act swift and
effectively. Your class is presently successful by anyone's
standards. The remaining potential is very high and all you have
to do take it while you can. Lay down the ground rules to push
the envelope! Life is too short.
Have a great year 2000.
Emmett Lazich
Sydney Australia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4.