International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: M & J Elsworth (mark_jane_elsworth@bigpond.com)
Date: Tue 18 Jan 2000 - 12:09:56 GMT
Dear Professor,
Have enjoyed reading your in depth analysis of the Fourteens. Thought I
might stick my two bob's worth in just to lighten up the discussion...
Just over ten years ago I decided that my Moth days were over...The kids
were getting younger and fitter, I was still too small at 68 kg's, it was a
long way to go to Sydney just to get my arse kicked by Shimeld (the man of
steel), and there was some Bastard (who shall remain nameless) who was
intent on making the boats harder to sail...
So I thought I better look around for a suitable bunch of idiots with whom I
could go sailing with and grow old and fat at my leisure. Of course this had
to be a select bunch of idiots, to match up to Stray, Shimeld, Keeley,
Morrison, Big Nose etc etc.
Didn't have to look hard, as I was sailing at a 14 club... Thankfully Nozza
saved me from my dilemma, and much as I didn't like to do it, I sold Wardy's
Balsa Moth.
So here I am over ten years later, with a racing weight of 78 kg's, and
looking forward to a few more 14 Worlds before I give all away and go
cruising. By the look of some of the Pom's (and Padman), I will be around
for a while yet. Don't think I will make it to Baird Bardarson's age,
though.
The thought of racks on the boat certainly does appeal, I must admit. So I
look forward to having a beer with you again WHEN you get a boat.
But be warned...If you do anything to make these boats harder to sail you
bastard, this time I'll be sending you my Physio bills!!!
Mark Elsworth (Helmy).
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmett Lazich <emmett@hutch.com.au>
To: I14 List <14list@i14.org>
Date: Saturday, 8 January 2000 3:17
Subject: Maximising market potential in 2000
<p>>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.