International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: M & J Elsworth (mark_jane_elsworth@bigpond.com)
Date: Wed 27 Feb 2002 - 10:44:45 GMT
Alan,
I believe the last foils purchased from Paul cost at least US$1,000.
Convert at exchange rate, add 20% import duty and extra for freight, and the
resulting A$2500 is not "very minor".
Add the cost of wings onto the things (coming very cheaply after Paul
amortises the cost of his CNC tooling into the product), and I reckon I
could buy 2 complete Sharpies for the cost of one set of 14 foils.
The added cost of the extra 5 young bimbos to sail my new fleet I would have
to
bear myself, I guess.
So Alan, what is your average 19 year old uni student going to do?
Hmmmm, 2 Sharpies loaded with bimbos, or one set of 14 foils which he can
take to bed and have a really good pull over??
That is the reality of the situation in our fight for existence.
Helmy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Smith <alans@arcom.com.au>
To: Paul Bieker <pbieker@serv.net>; 14list (E-mail) <maillist@i14.org>
Date: Wednesday, 27 February 2002 11:45
Subject: Re: [I14] Foils, Beam
<p>>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.
>
>
>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
>
>
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>----------------------
>International 14 Mailing list
>To Subscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=subscribe>
>To Unsubscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
<p><p><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.