JimC

Members
  • Content Count

    7,859
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

621 F'n Saint

About JimC

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist
  • Birthday January 1

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.devboats.co.uk
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    South East England
  • Interests
    Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Recent Profile Visitors

16,477 profile views
  1. JimC

    Upwind Tasar/NS14

    There are some subtle difficulties with an adult two hander with modern hull shapes. To my mind 14ft is really too small on a modern boat, because by the time you've drawn a decent fine entry what you have left is the same sort of volume as an old school twelve foot dinghy, which is two younger teens rather than two adults. So I think this forces you to go longer as Frank did with the 59er and to a slightly lesser extent the Icon. But length is speed, and so what you end up with is a much faster boat. Which is all very well, but a much faster boat brings in new handling challenges and other difficulties, and a bias towards steadier winds and larger water. And that reduces the market. Especially as in the UK at least the demand for higher performance boats seems way down on what it was.
  2. JimC

    Upwind Tasar/NS14

    Pedantically that's not quite what's going on. The board is almost always capable of creating more lift than required. The more lift that is required then the greater the angle of attack needed on the board, which we call leeway. Sailing the boat in a straight line involves choosing the optimum angle of attack on both centreboard and rudder, which fortunately happens quite automatically. As far as board area is concerned the worst case is coming out of a tack. You need enough lift and low enough drag at low tack exit speed to be able to get back up to sailing speed ASAP. Once you are up to speed it would be unlikely to have too little board area on a boat with decent foils. But with foil area there's another complex sets of tradeoffs going on. More angle of attack = more drag, but more wetted surface also = more drag, and lifted board = lower aspect ratio = more drag. A truly optimum foil would get exactly the right balance between all the drag factors, which will be different at every speed. For most of us file under too difficult!
  3. The biggest thing the CA does for non racing sailors is to keep the class healthy and the second hand values up. SH values in classes where the CA fails are normally minimal. This is a hard concept for some here to understand though. And as someone who has been involved in CA management I have never wanted International Associations to stick their noses in NA business. I always wanted IAs to concentrate on the stuff only they can do.
  4. JimC

    Fireball centreboard case support replacement

    For goodness sake don't do that if you don't have to. It greatly reduces the strength.
  5. JimC

    armchair Protest Com.

    There are I think a number of issues with such a rule. If the RC does stuff up and put the boat on the wrong side what happens. Is the race abandoned? I'm not sure I can immediately think of an alternative. There are folk here who seem awfully keen to abandon races at the drop of a hat, but in reality it's a desperate last resort. There is also a Web pundit tendency to think only in terms of w/l courses in open water and not consider what might happen out in the real world at some of the more complex venues. I've already mentioned fixed lines. Do we want extra complication in writing SIs? What about multiple races and deep water anchor gear where shifting the CB is a significant exercise. Or fouled anchor and shortage of time? 'there's no such thing as a hook finish' or 'you cross a finish line, you don't round a finish mark' are not really hard concepts to get across. Is it really worth building in extra complication in the rules for sailors who haven't read the rule book? Especially as they won't read the extra complicated rules either?
  6. JimC

    armchair Protest Com.

    Fixed lines for one. The rule is straightforward and logical.
  7. I was idly musing on LP llcs apparent predatory pricing. We know the differential is very little to do with license feed, sail buttons etc, but I wonder if it reflects a typical discounted price? It seems likely corporate sales in Europe were heavily discounted, and ISTR discounts were readily available to club members who banded together.
  8. It would be interesting to know how many different mast and sail designs were represented among those Finns. At Olympic level especially I reckon I've seen a tendency for everyone to pick the perceived optimum kit, not mix and match to body type.
  9. LP LLC is a US registered company, LP (E) UK registered. LPE is stated as dormant and has next to no assets. As I recall the contracts I read LPE owned the tooling but was contractually obliged to sell the tooling to another authorised Laser builder, or failing that ILCA if they ceased building. There were arrangements as regards negotiation on price failing.
  10. But Laser Performance Europe stopped builder Lasers some time ago and that company is no longer trading in any realistic sense. The European Lasers are being built by an entirely different company, Laser Performance LLC, albeit presumably under much the same ownership. Laser Performance LLC are not a party to any of the court cases. What the implications are of that relative to the court proceedings I don't know. AIUI Laser Performance (Europe) were contractually prohibited from selling the moulds to Laser Performance LLC, but I'm not sure there was anything prohibiting Laser Performance LLC from buying them. I imagine sorting all that out would be another ten years of lawyers.
  11. Oh what a fun game of logic chopping we are having. Mr Kirby abandoned his original vision within months as the class succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Looking at that would be beyond ridiculous. Similarly the model that served the class (if not the occasional builder bankruptcy) well for the next few decades has gone for ever under the twin pressures of EU competition law and poor decisions by various rights owners. So nostalgia for that era is equally pointless. So like it or not circumstances have forced the class to search for a new way of doing things in the future, and no amount of pointless trolling will change that.
  12. It would be rather draggy as a rowing hull. The wide stern would be a lot of wetted area. A purpose designed rowing/paddle craft will be a lot finer aft. Now if you were to cut two lasers at max beam and join the two front sections...
  13. JimC

    I.C. Down wind question

    Its a considerable exaggeration. Noone gets wafted to the front on the wings of a perfect on the day handicap. It might, i suppose, be true if you had a very small fleet of very disparate boats. When I've analysed results of big UK dinghy handicap events the winner often wins on any feasible handicap, and mid fleet sailors in the same class are still mid fleet.
  14. I believe its doable, at least in the medium to long term given good faith and resources. I imagine there will be much detail in builder contracts prohibiting better mousetraps. Supplied boats for major events help. Little point in a perceived boat speed advantage if its gone when most wanted. Good use of statistics in structured trials can show up whether there are real differences. Tornado history utterly irrelevant. That's a measurement class without supplied boats.
  15. JimC

    US Portsmouth Yardstick Change?

    Announcement from US Sailing. https://www.ussailing.org/news/pyonline-qa/ https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/portsmouthyardstick/