stevejclarke

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About stevejclarke

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    M3 is still on the drawing board Dave. Just doing testing before finalising and going to a mould. Idea is to morph the ideas from the US and UK boats into one for light wind and heavy wind performance. M3 is M2 with more slender bow and BMS taken right back. Steve C12 Performance Boats
  2. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    I have put about 300 photos of the Worlds on the UK Website Gallery at http://www.intcanoe.org.uk/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=54 taken by David Thompson who was on one of spectator boats. Full size images available on request via PM
  3. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    UK (GBR) IC Team boats packed and ready for shipping. The UK team comprising of 11 boats were packed on Saturday 12th July ready for shipping to Richmond YC. A 6 week sea voyage lies ahead of this valuable cargo representing a considerable proportion of the UK's newest IC designs. The team comprises of; two one design Nethercotts, Alistair Warrens original Monkey, two Dragonflies, two Morrison1's and four Morrison2 designs. With a whole range of supporting spare parts, repair facilities, deck chairs and the odd kitchen sink included, the team has been immaculately prepared by GBR Captain Alistair Warren to expect the unexpected with meticulous organisation. The boats are expected to arrive at the end of August and the team will be arriving anywhere between 3 weeks and 1 day before the start of the racing on 6th September. The UK IC Team is sponsored by Williams Shipping and C12 Performance Boats. The UK Team members; GBR 265 Mark Goodchild, GBR278 Simon Allen, GBR308 Chris Hampe, GBR311 Perham Harding, GBR317 Alistair Warren©, GBR319 Colin Brown, GBR320 Rob Stebbing, GBR327 Rob Bell, GBR328 Phil Robin, GBR329 Robin Wood, GBR330 Steve Clarke
  4. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    Seven new boats in the UK this year so far. Sixth Morrison2, 2nd out of new production mould GBR330 needs fitting out and testing - time running short.... Three Slurps from Tony Marston's new production moulds producing high quality fibre glass boats at around £10K GBR328 - Dragonfly - Phil Robin. Just Launched. GBR329 - Morrison2 - Robin Wood. Launched April and looking fast. GBR330 - Morrison2 - Steve Clarke. Above. Needs a few things screwing on! GBR324 - EllisNarrow - John Ellis. Boy is this boat narrow and something of a challenge in a f3 or above by all accounts. Sadly not coming to the Worlds.
  5. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    My experience is that the speed envelope generates more of an asymmetric type lobe along and below the 45 degree downwind angle when over 11/12 knots where you can generate much more apparent wind and VMG improves by sailing hotter angles and then bearing away similar to an AC. In the really windy stuff you can actually sail similar angles to an AC and keep up unless the wind drops below the 12 knot mark where the spinnaker boats pull away. Steve
  6. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    Well in summary, the test being what it is may well be flawed and may need better definition but is down to the National measurers to act as the conduit for any interpretation which may be necessary. The fundamental point is that the boat should be designed to be within the spirit of the rules and that is that the hull should be fair and should not have bumps within 1m of the BMS. Pretty simple really which is clearly what Steve and now the national classes have intended. If anyone designs a hull which attempts to push the boundaries of the rules they should first speak to their national measurer and seek advice as to whether or not their proposed design is likely to create a problem within the interpretation of the rules. If they then proceed against current thinking and advice and the resulting design shows a clear advantage on the water in results, they will then need to demonstrate to the class that the spirit of the rules have been met and it's in the interest of the class globally to allow such an interpretation. If not the class reserves the right to not allow it to race as an IC. I'm happy from our point of view that the current views expressed here do not create any issues with boats built so far but the national measurers should have a private discussion I feel through the national associations to agree on the precise method of measurement that will be used at the worlds this year and distribute this in advance as a housekeeping exercise. Further developments is a different issue, we just need to tie down what is acceptable so designers have a more precise set of instructions beyond current interpretations. The main message we want to put out to anyone looking at this forum who may be wishing to buy a boat is that this is not a problem just an administration exercise which needs to be sorted out now that numbers are growing very quickly. We are just putting controls in place to ensure that future IC designs and the development progresses in a balanced way to ensure we are the fastest and most exciting boat of its type but maintaining the values and core features which makes canoe sailing so damn good....
  7. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    Arne Quite - we are discussing this with UK Measurer to make sure there are no nasty surprises at the worlds. I did check the M2 and as it happens this doesn't cause a problem but we need to produce a definitive measurement procedure in light of this and look again at the wording of the rules. Steve
  8. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    It was a standard Nethercott AC but built deliberately underweight as an experiment and with a dispensation from the committee. GBR316 Jet now owned by James Coxon was 75Kg with full AC kit. Never really had much of a chance to do any proper testing with her to see what she was like in a controlled set of conditions but she certainly isn't slow. The weight saving was only 20% but at least gave an indication of the effect on displacement. The conclusion is that it would probably make a difference to the small guys in the light stuff but for the +80Kg helms the difference would be negligible. The difference between other Nethercotts wasn't noticeable in racing for the limited time I used her in anger. However when I then built the first M2, jumping between them demonstrated Jim's theory of the bulbous shape under the mid-ships area mast creating a lot of drag and it became very noticeable. You can hear the difference with the water being pushed aside which you just don't get with the slim designs. It is also apparent that this rounded shape of the Nethercott is also what gives the boat stability and is the trade off you get when going to the narrower more easily driven hull form. This is the main reason the new boats accelerate more quickly in my view. Steve
  9. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    GPS and GPSAR software. I have a Sony smartphone which is waterproof so it is just turned on before the race and put in the halyard bag (on a lanyard!). I don't know how well GPS would work inside a carbon hull. Badly I suspect! Steve, I'd have said that the Nethercott has a bloody great planing speed "hump". As you say I reckon its all to do with all that noise under the mast area. Tin Teardrop on the other hand didn't have much of one, and nor did my one off singlehander, which although rather wider was much more akin to the newer boats in bow section. Bethwaite did some interesting more detailed analysis of the phenomenum, and what he reckons he found was that on modern style wedge hulls like the 49er, that there is still definitely a planing hump (and so the laws of physics haven't been rewritten), but that the speed that it occurs at varies very significantly with trim. What he reckoned was going on was that talented sailors (and Julian was normally steering the towed boat when they did his tests) were subconsciously altering the trim of the boat so it was always in the lowest drag trim for the speed being towed at. That does make sense to me. Jim, That's interesting as his books don't really suggest that - I suppose its too late now for him to make an official amendment, sadly! His tow tests are also shown with the bows being held in position and don't really represent the real world with all the forces focused in the centre of the hull and so were always a simplification. Steve
  10. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    Blimey, this all looks pretty heavy stuff but interesting. My observation having built a lightweight Nethercott and 4 M2 new designs is that the new boats are much more easily driven but they also tend to skim over the surface more readily than a Nethercott which has tends to create a lot of resistance (comparatively) under the mast where the waterline gets much wide until it rises over its own bow wave. This is really noticeable when sailing a new rules boat and then going back to a Nethercott. However both designs do something which may not be planning but they certainly rise above the water and skim on the surface if it's flat. The new designs seem to do it more easily which is why we can pull away easily from a Nethercott and accelerate more quickly but top speed doesn't appear to be that different. There is no noticeable change, like the Bethwaite hump less hulls, between displacement and skimming mode which presumably is down to its skinny shape but something is happening there which is akin to planning. Andrew - I read somewhere that Plymouth University have just bought a new wave tank for testing hulls. Could be worth giving them a call.
  11. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    The final point I was making is that this site is not really viewed by many in the class outside the US, well certainly not in the UK anyway and we do have by far the biggest IC fleet ...er hum... You are therefore missing out on a very large pool of resource from people who have a lot of experience over a very long time in the fleet. The IC Forum was set up as a central knowledge base for airing this sort of question and outside the UK appears not to be used much - why?
  12. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    Well, that is not the complete interpretation used by the UK measurers Andy. The rules actually state that the measurement is taken AT the BMS which is elected to be ONE position between the positions stated from the transom. The rules state that the string is then run perpendicular to the centreline AT the BMS. Nowhere does it actually state that this string is then run up and down the boat within the 1m box. Suggest you speak to Colin Brown about this if not clear but that is how we have agreed to measure the boats.This does have a relevance with the M2 which has concavity in the side panels above the chine which starts above 500mm line at the BMS but may not do further forward. I think my head just exploded. "...But MAY not do farther forward."? I will not find fault with Andy for replying to my questions- he has experience building canoes, working with professional designers, working with the class, and has actually taken (a lot of ) time to elucidate- When I hear things like "...that is how we have agreed to measure the boats " I get nervous. I don't want to arrive in California to be told to go home. I don't want to cheat. I wasn't in on the measuring agreement, or it's politics. Perhaps an 'ask the measures' thread would be ok? The first question I have is: do the 2 BMS tapes move? Amati, OK, I shall be more precise.....for the avoidance of any doubt, the instructions given to UK measurers is that the transverse tape test is only required to be taken at the BMS. It is fair to say that the rules may require an overview at Richmond as with the benefit of 5 years of experience there is likely to be some clarifications and improvements which should be made for the next revision. If you are still concerned about this, I would have thought it best that you discuss this directly with the Class Measurer in the US and also direct these questions over the official IC class forum. Steve
  13. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    Well, that is not the complete interpretation used by the UK measurers Andy. The rules actually state that the measurement is taken AT the BMS which is elected to be ONE position between the positions stated from the transom. The rules state that the string is then run perpendicular to the centreline AT the BMS. Nowhere does it actually state that this string is then run up and down the boat within the 1m box. Suggest you speak to Colin Brown about this if not clear but that is how we have agreed to measure the boats. This does have a relevance with the M2 which has concavity in the side panels above the chine which starts above 500mm line at the BMS but may not do further forward.
  14. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    I've just added a load of pictures on the C12 website if your interested at http://www.c12performanceboats.co.uk/index.php/photogallery Will hopefully launch on Sunday if weather is OK. I would like to make it clear by the way, Hells Bells is an IC ..... with a spinnaker option. It is NOT an AC - I think that is a very important difference and keeps us all within the same marketing brief but adds options to attract others to the class. How we attract people to the new boats will differ in various parts of the world and will be a combination of price, local racing preferences and availability of equipment. On Dave's point about costs, this is clearly a very valuable approach. The issue is of course not just about the cost of the hull but all the various components that go to make up the complete assembly, the actual hull is well under half the total. Home building in the UK appeals to only a very small number of people so we need low cost production boats off a mould. One of our goals within the C12 project is to have off the shelf components which can be made in reasonable numbers to produce a lower unit cost for the kit of parts, properly marketed. Our idea is that we need almost a step change in development - get to a point where you have a good product which is reasonably standard, can be raced competitively and get people who don't want to fiddle into the class. This is what the 14's effectively do and I think we need to do the same. Development is good for the keen builders and designers but step changes are needed for the majority based on actual feedback rather than constantly changing things. This is pretty much what happened with the AC driven by Rob and is a good model to follow.
  15. stevejclarke

    DC Designs

    ....but if over half the people still have the old wife, didn't get divorced, like her a lot but just want to give her a facelift perhaps we should also invite them to the party as well and all have a good time. Listening to your existing customers is an effective strategy as well bear in mind.....