International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: Ted Rogers (twrogers@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu 18 Jan 2001 - 05:50:00 GMT
I believe Paul's reasoning went something like this: optimum crew weight
for a pre-1996 I-14 was about 325 lb (150kg), which seemed to allow a wide
variety of crews to be competitive. The 1996 rules increased heeling force
about 15% (increased sail area + rig height), but increased righting moment
only about 4%. (The crew is only about 3" further outboard from
centerline.) Doing the math would have led you to suspect that optimum
crew weights would jump about 10%. And 350 lbs (165kg) or more seems to be
where many of the most successful crews have ended up. So Paul's suggestion
is to make the max beam 7'2", which brings the optimum crew weight back to
325 lb.
The responses to this idea seem to fall into two groups. Our Australian
members seem to have a strong affinity for their beer, and thus are quite
happy to sail with average crew weights around 350 lb. They also advance
the idea that the "box" dimensions for our box rule shouldn't change for
fear of losing old boats and/or sailors. Our British fleet seems to be
battling a bloom of two-wire skiff designs in Europe, and many of the
members are interested in seeing 9' wide I-14's to keep ahead of the game.
They also seem willing to build new boats on an almost yearly basis.
I think common sense lies somewhere in between. For the Northern
Hemisphere, the 1996 rules represented a significant change to the "box".
These changes clearly made a better boat and a stronger class, but pushed
the range of competitive crew weights up. I think changing the max beam to
something like 7'2" represents an adjustment to the 1996 box to make it
more tolerant of a realistic range of crew weights worldwide, while leaving
existing hulls and rigs relatively competitive. To go significantly beyond
this dimension means throwing away all existing 14 rigs, and likely hulls,
in both hemispheres.
Basically, a healthy development class needs planned, well thought out
evolution. Our class seems to be about developing a very fast, fun boat for
a cost reasonable to the amateur sailor, and to have that boat allow most
skilled, athletic adult sailors to be competitive in most conditions.
Evolutionary rule changes should be crafted to address this balancing act
of performance vs. cost over a range of people sizes and sailing
conditions, and should be implemented in a deliberate and thoughtful manner
to keep the class healthy and growing.
Ted Rogers
US 1104
At 06:43 PM 1/17/01 -0800, Chris Hanke wrote:
>Chris,
>
>Someone will probably be able to dig up Paul Bieker's original
>proposal for the wider wings, but indeed his primary objective
>was to bring the "optimal" crew weight a bit lower. Since
>I believe Paul was the one who formally proposed this change,
>he did in fact do just what you suggest below.
>
>He is also making available telescoping rack kits for Bieker 2/3
>boats, at a reasonable cost, so people can give it a try.
>
>Regards,
>Chris Hanke
>
>At 12:09 PM 1/18/01 +1100, Chris Dixon wrote:
> >"FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND" When this trial was introduced it was with
> >the intent of increasing the wing size to make the I14's faster. After
> >watching the correspondence over the past few months it seems as though
> >it is really to allow the I14's to be competitive with the likes of the
> >49ers. Obviously in some countries the I14's being the way they are do
> >not attract as many people as the 49ers and other classes. In Australia
> >this does not pose a problem from what I have seen. By introducing this
> >change the standard lines apply of, "it will allow more people to enter
> >the class", "it will make us faster up wind", etc. From a totally
> >objective point of view, the pros and concs have to be listed.
> >
> >I think that in the future when there is a suggestion to conduct a trial
> >that there is a description of why the trail is to take place,
> >describing the real source of the problem/change. This may lead to
> >several options being put forward and it will also highlight to the
> >other countries what the real issues are behind the change. By
> >providing this additional information there may be less hostility to the
> >changes that are occuring.
> >
> >I hope that this can be used in a constructive manner to improve our
> >process of change.
> >
> >Chris Dixon
> >AUS 604
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Edmunds [SMTP:sedmunds@edmunds-assoc.com.au]
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:42 AM
> >> To: International 14 Email List (E-mail)
> >> Subject: RE: Class Direction
> >>
> >> Tim - Agreed!
> >>
> >> In the last century of the A14 the basis rules of hull length, hull
> >> width,
> >> hull height, hull weight, sail area and mast height an the class
> >> developed
> >> from a timber and canvass fishing boat to a lightweight flying
> >> machine. the
> >> only thing that really changed in that time was design and available
> >> materials.
> >>
> >> Many supporters of width GREATLY underestimate the impact of "just
> >> changing
> >> the overall width". With a different power / weight ratio we will need
> >> different rigs and hulls.... get ready to open your wallet while the
> >> design
> >> phase takes off at a great pace ... creating a expensive dogs along
> >> the
> >> way.. and forcing more rapid turnover of boats to maintain
> >> competitiveness.
> >>
> >> In the end we may all go a little faster... but at what cost?... just
> >> a few
> >> more of your buddies I guess.
> >>
> >> Steve Edmunds
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tim Willetts [mailto:twcc&cc@xtra.co.nz]
> >> Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2001 7:23 AM
> >> To: Pyper, Rollo (PHSI)
> >> Cc: jose Padman; Int 14 List (E-mail)
> >> Subject: Class Direction
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Pyper, Rollo (PHSI)" wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The last major rule change was Jan.1996, the earliest
> >> possible
> >> width
> >> > change (providing all agree)would be Jan.2003. This would make 7 yrs
> >> between
> >> > major changes. You suggest 5yrs, I rest my case m'lud !! I do
> >> > agree,however, that periods of stability are vital for the future of
> >> the
> >> > class.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I believe much of the fleet looks at this issue in a very similar way
> >> to
> >> Rollo.
> >> So its been 5 years lets look to make 14's go faster.
> >>
> >> I strongly disagree with this prevalent philosophy.
> >> As I see it a development class is one in which the fleet strives to
> >> achieve
> >> the
> >> best possible boat within a fixed set of parameters.
> >>
> >> It is not the basic parameters that should be changed. So for example
> >> we
> >> never
> >> touch the length overall, even though the boats would go faster if we
> >> did !
> >>
> >> In this case, sure the boats will be faster if wider , but so would
> >> they be
> >> if
> >> we made the boats longer.
> >> Do we gain anything if a bunch of 14ers can comprehensively beat a
> >> 49er
> >> upwind
> >> in 25 knots (after the new round of changes) other than a sticky mess
> >> once
> >> they
> >> are done spanking their monkey's?
> >> Especially if in the short term we have so many disillusioned down
> >> under.
> >>
> >> I see much of the I 14 development in the past 80 years as merely
> >> "catching-up"
> >> to what the Australian 14' fleet had already been doing.
> >>
> >> In fact if you look at it, the Australian 14' had a very stable
> >> platform of
> >> basic rules for around 120 years, where few things substantially
> >> changed, it
> >> was
> >> more that the boats developed a huge amount within the original set of
> >> rules.
> >>
> >> Of course its easiest to change the parameters , but it is quite
> >> possible
> >> that
> >> if the rules are left as is, that in 20 more years the existing
> >> parameters
> >> could
> >> still lead to faster, and better boats.
> >>
> >> I agree with the concerns of the Australian meeting and trust that
> >> those
> >> pushing
> >> the wheel barrow the most vocally will take time to consider the real
> >> benefits
> >> they might see.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards to all
> >>
> >> Tim (SFB)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>----------------------------
>Chris Hanke
>Senior Staff CAE - FlexRoute
>650-584-4507
>chris@synopsys.com
>-----------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4.