International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: Paul Bieker (pbieker@serv.net)
Date: Tue 26 Feb 2002 - 17:09:33 GMT
I have read most of the conversation going back and forth on the list and I
hesitate to add to it, however I feel that I should add my thoughts to the
mix prior to the fleet voting on the upcoming rule proposals.
A lot of good points have been raised for and against the technical
development of our boats. The pacing of development has and always will be
a central aspect of the 14 class - the thing which both insures its vitality
and limits its growth. There is no question that there is reason for concern
regarding the radical effect that the development of fully flying 14's would
have on the configuration of our hulls and rigs and the experience of
sailing our boats. However, I think that the angst felt by many members of
the fleet regarding this development has led to a generally reactionary
climate with respect to other recent developments.
Up to a point, discussion and argument is healthy for the class. However, I
think that we are well past that point and now the positive aspects of
argument have been outweighed by the negative effect of perceived
uncertainty with respect to development. In my experience in the class
there have been no worse times than periods of uncertainty - asymmetrical or
no asymmetrical, amalgamation or no amalgamation, foils or no foils. Prior
to settling those issues, nobody on either side of the issues felt that
great about the state of affairs and basically boat construction comes to a
near halt.
As a case example, for over two years I have been sitting on a design for a
production single element hydrofoil but holding off on investing in tooling.
This has meant that all of the foils built to date have been custom jobs and
necessarily expensive. With proper tooling, a rudder with hydrofoil and
actuation system will be about the cost of a new main. However, it will
give a lot more speed and last a lot longer than a new main. Because of the
way it is built, one can sail with or without the hydrofoil on the rudder
(the foils disconnect from the rudder). The argument has been made that
there will be a development treadmill as the foils slowly evolve over time,
however they can be swapped out without changing the rudder or actuation
system at about the cost of a jib. If we had settled whether we were going
to allow them or not, when the Aussie's initially started pushing for a ban,
we would either be not worrying about foils or we would have good affordable
production foils available.
After sailing with the foils, I feel that they are well worth the expense.
(After listening to all of the emails about why the foils are so negative
for the class by people who have never sailed with them, I'd be interested
in hearing some thoughts from people who have had the benefit of actually
using them).
Beam is another issue. Surprisingly, I think the Australians have a much
more static view of development than most of the fleet has. In the past
decade, they have not experienced the major changes that the International
14 has: from symmetrical to asymmetrical, from 200lb to 180lb boat weight,
from 22.5' to 25' mast height, and from 5.5' to 6' beam. From the point of
view of an International 14er, I would say that the only things that are
certain is that our boats will remain 14 feet long, and that change will
come and with it will come faster and more fun boats to sail.
Prior to amalgamation, I did a couple of quick calculations that indicated
that the Aussie sailplan seemed a bit overpowered for the righting arm
available compared to what our fleet was used to, i.e. we would tend to be
overpowered in less wind than we were accustomed to. In response, I pushed
for a reduced amalgamated mast height and Dave Ovington pushed for an
increased beam. We ended up doing neither but in retrospect I think we
should have followed Dave's advice. I calculated that a 2250mm beam (7'-2")
would strike a good balance between rig and righting arm, and in the US we
started testing that beam a bit over two years ago. After two years of
sailing, I'd say that there seems to be no down side to this change. With
it, the boat's significantly easier to sail quickly upwind and downwind in a
breeze, the existing rig still works fine, and it's a pretty cheap change to
make.
Much argument has pointed to changes in optimum hull shape that might come
with increased beam or single element hydrofoils. This argument is based on
experience in the past with changes that have lead to widespread hull
obsolescence. As someone who is very familiar with the tradeoffs of 14 hull
design (light air vs. heavy air speed, downwind speed vs. downwind safety,
etc.) I am convinced that the single element hydrofoil and the increased
beam will not dramatically shift the optimum hull shape. It is true that
the hydrofoil and beam increase can allow hulls with somewhat less rocker
and section volume in a breeze, however neither beam nor hydrofoils come in
to play in light to light/moderate conditions: i.e. a boat that suffers in
those conditions will suffer just as much when it has increased beam and
hydrofoils. Since to win most regattas a boat can not afford to have weak
spots, I believe that all around competitive boat now will be an all around
competitive boat with hydrofoils and increased beam.
Pretty soon the fleet will vote on whether to ban all hydrofoils, allow
single element (non-flying) hydrofoils, or to continue allowing all
hydrofoils. It will also take a vote on the US proposal to increase beam.
My opinion is that we should vote to allow single element hydrofoils and
vote for the wider beam. Both changes will improve the boat at a moderate
cost. Let's just make an informed decision, put the uncertainty to rest,
and go sailing.
-Paul
<p>----------------------
International 14 Mailing list
To Subscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=subscribe>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=unsubscribe>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4.