International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: Alan Smith (alans@arcom.com.au)
Date: Tue 26 Feb 2002 - 23:40:16 GMT
Paul
What about giving us your thoughts on David Lugg's development. You have
made an excellent case for your preferred outcome, however it would be
reasonable to postulate the case for, wider beam and foils on centre board
and rudder.
If class strength and costs were not an issue (by the way cost of a centre
board foil is very minor in respect other elements of the modern 14), my
preference would be increase the beam to that needed to balance the power of
the existing rig (a full foiler will probably need significantly more than
7'2"), allow foils, allow boats to sail with or without foils at the crews
discretion on the day and allows boats to have a choice of foil sizes. Two
centre board foils and one rudder foil would almost certainly be adequate.
<p>I believe this would result in hull designs which would be faster and easier
to sail in light airs and we already can see the sort of improvement in
speed that can be achieved in stronger winds.
High performance foiling to windward is within grasp.
What do you think Paul
Alan Smith
---- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Bieker" <pbieker@serv.net>
To: "14list (E-mail)" <maillist@i14.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:39 AM
Subject: [I14] Foils, Beam
<p>> 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
>
>
> ----------------------
> International 14 Mailing list
> To Subscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=subscribe>
> To Unsubscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
<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.