ianlf

F-22 Update

Recommended Posts

Did someone engineer the rig / spreader geometry on this rig or was it an educated guess in the factory I wonder?

 

 

Seemed like a reasonable question to me. Whats the problem with providing an answer?

 

 

In the Houses of The Holy, it's tantamount to impertinence. Someone will be along shortly to show you the door.

 

How's the yellow boat doing, bud?

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone engineer the rig / spreader geometry on this rig or was it an educated guess in the factory I wonder?

 

 

Seemed like a reasonable question to me. Whats the problem with providing an answer?

 

No problem at all for anyone prepared to discuss things out in the open. The internet can be a great resource for answering questions or spreading information, and for pricking the inevitable balloons full of misinformation. But there are also armchair experts not prepared to use their own name, but who can argue endlessly about things that they may not know much about, and it can all then turn into quite a time waster. Always much easier to express opinions from behind a mask rather than face to face. Then before you know it the professional knockers will start their attacks - hang on, already have.

 

So if someone wants to argue F-22 spreader aspects, without being there or having observed the mast behavior as diamonds are tensioned, or knowing where the second reef is, then they should at least be prepared to back their opinion with their name and qualifications, or experience.

 

In this respect, the statement

 

"If you reduce the spreader rake there is nothing supporting the lower panels of the rig when reefed.

The mast will want to invert (as the forestay point is now higher than the mainsail) and the thing will come down."

 

is irrelevant in this case as the second reef has the headboard only just below the forestay, but not far enough to cause any significant inversion problems. The higher mounted side stays also help to counter this, as they are pulling aft from above the forestay, which tends to to counter the reefed main pull below, whereas the old single point rotation system does nothing to reduce any inversion risk. Another plus for the three point rotation system.

 

Inversion must always be a consideration when reefing, but I do not believe it is not a factor in this case. It was simply a very light mast that was expected to fail at some point and it did. Spreader rake can also be very much an educated guess, which is why so many spreaders have adjustable rake. One really never knows for sure until one tries it.

 

That mast had already stood up quite well for 8 months, and at this stage I intend using much the same minimal 'you gotta be nuts' laminate on the mast for our next factory boat only, but with a spreader change, plus a little more selective reinforcement. Sticking one's neck out with such things can be the best way to learn, and while there will always be the occasional 'crash and burn' sometimes it can work out very well.

 

Ian Farrier

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is irrelevant in this case as the second reef has the headboard only just below the forestay, but not far enough to cause any significant inversion problems. The higher mounted side stays also help to counter this, as they are pulling aft from above the forestay, which tends to to counter the reefed main pull below, whereas the old single point rotation system does nothing to reduce any inversion risk. Another plus for the three point rotation

"I'm not an engineer but" - the single point rotation system must do SOMETHING to prevent inversion? Now if the shrouds were lower than the forestay - say at the same height as the headboard when 2x reefed maybe we could say nothing?

 

Interesting your going with another light mast - I understand your reasoning, but as somebody pointed out above the insurance climate is currently so difficult if I were an owner I would sacrifice some weight/performance benefits in order to have a bulletproof mast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian has pointed out that the "insurance" is part of the Farrier Research and Development costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian has pointed out that the "insurance" is part of the Farrier Research and Development costs

 

Noted Rushman - and great news, well done Ian. However long term Ian won't replace ALL masts that break.

 

I understand that the best mast is the one that is JUST strong enough to stay in one piece - But I would personally want a mast that can take the full level of abuse. Mast breakages mean time off the water, great expense, and often pissed off insurance companies.

 

Australian Div 2 OMR racing is great racing... but I suspect there is no need to shave off as much laminate as possible for performance and weight gains.

 

Agreed standing the thing up in a carpark is easier if lighter - but for the same reasons mentioned above... give me a slightly heavier one and I'll winch it a bit harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

is irrelevant in this case as the second reef has the headboard only just below the forestay, but not far enough to cause any significant inversion problems. The higher mounted side stays also help to counter this, as they are pulling aft from above the forestay, which tends to to counter the reefed main pull below, whereas the old single point rotation system does nothing to reduce any inversion risk. Another plus for the three point rotation

"I'm not an engineer but" - the single point rotation system must do SOMETHING to prevent inversion? Now if the shrouds were lower than the forestay - say at the same height as the headboard when 2x reefed maybe we could say nothing?

 

Interesting your going with another light mast - I understand your reasoning, but as somebody pointed out above the insurance climate is currently so difficult if I were an owner I would sacrifice some weight/performance benefits in order to have a bulletproof mast

 

The single point rotation system is just not as good structurally, and the shrouds being positioned lower than jib would make inversion worse.

 

Having a bullet proof mast is the general and understandable attitude, but as a result many carbon masts end up being almost as heavy as an aluminum mast, making their cost hard to justify. The extra light carbon mast that we are experimenting with is purely a development mast, and as such not insurable, and it should not be. If we can keep such a mast up for a few years, through thick and thin, then it may become a viable option and only then insurable. The standard carbon mast should however be insurable as this is more like a rock.

 

However, one good thing about our carbon mast is that it is potentially very repairable, being in three sections. We will probably bring the failed mast back to NZ to replace the bottom two sections, so it can be our next mast, along with new spreaders plus a little extra reinforcement in the lower sections where it broke. Then we can try and break it all over again…….

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an owner (biased of course) point of view the F-22 will be, and already is, a great class to be part of as the numbers grow. In the same way that well priced parts could easily be sourced for the Tramp and most of the F-boats, I have been able to get through the pain of breaking my first boat mast and moved on to a retirement gardening project like my wife has always been trying to get me to try.

I hope you don't mind me sharing it here, you will notice there are no trolls in my garden....

 

post-10329-0-33893800-1404272165_thumb.jpg

 

All the bits were nearly perfectly transferable, the job has actually been fun, and I will be back on the water for both day's winter series racing this weekend.

 

Thanks to the wonderful Godwin boys who are happy to wait longer for their mast while they finish their boat off!

 

 

Peter

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an owner (biased of course) point of view the F-22 will be, and already is, a great class to be part of as the numbers grow. In the same way that well priced parts could easily be sourced for the Tramp and most of the F-boats, I have been able to get through the pain of breaking my first boat mast and moved on to a retirement gardening project like my wife has always been trying to get me to try.

I hope you don't mind me sharing it here, you will notice there are no trolls in my garden....

 

IMG_20140702_132556_682low.jpg

 

All the bits were nearly perfectly transferable, the job has actually been fun, and I will be back on the water for both day's winter series racing this weekend.

 

Thanks to the wonderful Godwin boys who are happy to wait longer for their mast while they finish their boat off!

 

 

Peter

Good work Pete. My wife doesn't understand my garden projects either.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ian has pointed out that the "insurance" is part of the Farrier Research and Development costs

Noted Rushman - and great news, well done Ian. However long term Ian won't replace ALL masts that break.

 

I understand that the best mast is the one that is JUST strong enough to stay in one piece - But I would personally want a mast that can take the full level of abuse. Mast breakages mean time off the water, great expense, and often pissed off insurance companies.

 

Australian Div 2 OMR racing is great racing... but I suspect there is no need to shave off as much laminate as possible for performance and weight gains.

 

Agreed standing the thing up in a carpark is easier if lighter - but for the same reasons mentioned above... give me a slightly heavier one and I'll winch it a bit harder.

Testing to failure is one of the best ways to verify your calcs are correct, and probably the only practical way with something as complex as a laminated wing mast on a boat. The end result is a better understanding of wing mast design, and lighter, stronger rigs for the general public

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the broken mast.

 

Been there, done that....twice already with F-32RX masts.

 

The solution was to have a third carbon mast built with longitudinal moment of inertia increased by 50% (10% weight) compared to F-32 plan.

 

That mast has held up very well, even in tough offshore racing conditions (line honours in May 2014 race across the Bay of Biscay)

 

MM F-32RX #46 "Sarimanok"

 

.

 

 

post-33011-0-60255700-1404343556_thumb.jpg

post-33011-0-29144000-1404345025_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the f-boat yahoo group list: "I have also had concerns over the years that some carbon masts were not much lighter than the aluminum equivalent, mainly due to the masts being so expensive to make. Thus manufacturers tend to put in extra carbon, just to guard against warranty claims, but this extra carbon made them more expensive again. This is something I want to avoid with the F-22 carbon mast, so my own mast will likely continue to be lighter than the production mast, just so we can find the lower limit and any weak areas. "

 

Since inquiring minds want to know, are you designing to some loading (gathered experimentally? Has anyone ever taken sail loading data in situ?), or matching strength equivalent to aluminum masts already in service? What design margin is being carried and what knockdown on final allowable stresses are you using to allow for fatigue resistance? Is the analysis all based on beam theory or is some analysis code being used (Abaqus, Nastran, Ansys)? How much additional margin will be added between build iterations after failures? If the standard approach to carbon spars is to add excessive conservatism with extra laminate it seems like there would have to be a pretty well thought out optimization in the design to aim for a light as possible mast and I am curious to know your approach.

 

Andy Miller, F22 #135 with Ballenger spar just delivered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the broken mast.

 

Been there, done that....twice already with F-32RX masts.

 

The solution was to have a third carbon mast built with longitudinal moment of inertia increased by 50% (10% weight) compared to F-32 plan.

 

That mast has held up very well, even in tough offshore racing conditions (line honours in May 2014 race across the Bay of Biscay)

 

MM F-32RX #46 "Sarimanok"

 

.

is the black mast in the photo fixed or rotating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete , I was wondering where your boat went to , not good hope you get things sorted soon , maybe you have called your boat "mast " instead of Boom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry for the broken mast.

 

Been there, done that....twice already with F-32RX masts.

 

The solution was to have a third carbon mast built with longitudinal moment of inertia increased by 50% (10% weight) compared to F-32 plan.

 

That mast has held up very well, even in tough offshore racing conditions (line honours in May 2014 race across the Bay of Biscay)

 

MM F-32RX #46 "Sarimanok"

 

.

is the black mast in the photo fixed or rotating?

 

Rotating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the broken mast.

 

Been there, done that....twice already with F-32RX masts.

 

The solution was to have a third carbon mast built with longitudinal moment of inertia increased by 50% (10% weight) compared to F-32 plan.

 

That mast has held up very well, even in tough offshore racing conditions (line honours in May 2014 race across the Bay of Biscay)

 

MM F-32RX #46 "Sarimanok"

 

.

 

I forgot to add that the new mast also has further reinforcements and a compression post at the spreader. This is the area where the previous carbon mast failed. So maybe a lighter mast with those reinforcements would still be OK, but after two really bad experiences I wasn't willing to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe a lighter mast with those reinforcements would still be OK, but after two really bad experiences I wasn't willing to find out.

 

I suspect your not the only victim of a broken mast that feels that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the broken mast.

 

Been there, done that....twice already with F-32RX masts.

 

The solution was to have a third carbon mast built with longitudinal moment of inertia increased by 50% (10% weight) compared to F-32 plan.

 

That mast has held up very well, even in tough offshore racing conditions (line honours in May 2014 race across the Bay of Biscay)

 

MM F-32RX #46 "Sarimanok"

 

.

 

Good to hear that your third mast is working out and congratulations on the line honors result!

 

For those considering a carbon mast, it should be noted that no details or specifications for a carbon mast are included in my plans, as carbon masts are not a uniform item like aluminum extrusions, so design is best left up to the actual carbon mast manufacturer. They usually just need the basic mast dimensions from the plans as a guide, along with boat righting moment, and they can then design the mast to suit their available section shapes, carbon types, spreader type and/or number etc. etc. - numerous variables in other words.

 

Carbon mast design and manufacturing is a specialist field, and a bit tricky, as one is looking for the maximum strength coupled with minimal lightness, and it is easy for things to go wrong. So one has to be careful - the best masts are more expensive, but can be worth it in the long run, with a more reliable spar. A number of carbon masts have been designed and built for both the F-32 and F-33 over the years by various carbon mast manufacturers, and most have been successful. One of the first was on the F-33 Carbon Tiger:

 

http://www.f-boat.com/f-33News.html

 

This mast was designed and built well, and I believe it is still standing after 11 years, which included some very hard racing.

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Seahorse Magazine there was an excellent article written by RedBull Formula 1 structural engineer who had a back ground in marine industry. Three major differences between marine and F1 world he pointed out were:

- Budget

- Scale of components

- lack of testing to destruction

 

So if Ian is putting one of the major components trough some real world testing to destruction I recon this is fantastic! How many even major budget production companies are doing this?

I've lost mast most likely due to material weakness (aluminum) and I do appreciate some extra safety but don't want to have a telephone pole on boat. To have extra safety in the right place requires that weaknesses are discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since inquiring minds want to know, are you designing to some loading (gathered experimentally? Has anyone ever taken sail loading data in situ?), or matching strength equivalent to aluminum masts already in service? What design margin is being carried and what knockdown on final allowable stresses are you using to allow for fatigue resistance? Is the analysis all based on beam theory or is some analysis code being used (Abaqus, Nastran, Ansys)? How much additional margin will be added between build iterations after failures? If the standard approach to carbon spars is to add excessive conservatism with extra laminate it seems like there would have to be a pretty well thought out optimization in the design to aim for a light as possible mast and I am curious to know your approach.

 

Andy Miller, F22 #135 with Ballenger spar just delivered

 

That's a lot of ground to cover Andy, and I'm trying to build boats here…. :) But, in general, all my designs (including masts) are based on practical experience in both building and sailing over many years, and on what has worked, coupled with theory, and a lot of hard work.
A new design normally starts out with what looks right based on experience, the numbers are then run to check all structural aspects are right, and it is then built and test sailed hard. I have always believed in the value of building my own boats (7 Trailertris and around 10 F-27s hands on) and then real world testing, right from the very beginning. The original Trailertri #1 for instance, was built with only half strength folding struts, which were replaced just before I sold it.
post-18231-0-35044900-1404508064_thumb.jpg
Trailertri #1 being launched for the very first time. Note the 'tilt' trailer. Meant one could
launch without getting the wheel bearings wet, but it sure made retrieving hard work
These struts were then checked for any failure signs and to see if they would still fit in the original assembly jig. I was expecting to see some distortion, but they still fitted almost perfectly. I did notice some distortion in the upper folding struts, which was opposite to what I had expected. But worked out why and this was allowed for in all later designs. Thus I could be confident that the actual folding struts on every subsequent boat would likely last forever. How many copies have done this sort of testing?
post-18231-0-61497800-1404508219_thumb.jpg
And sailing - had found out about color film by now….
Same thing applies to masts - I like to use the lightest possible mast (usually under spec) on my own personal boat just to see if it could be broken and how. I also try to avoid getting bogged down too much in theory, or multiple unfinished designs with numerous computer renderings. I just prefer one or two well thought out good designs that are finished, and then well tested, and this approach seems to have worked reasonably well for all aspects.
Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to the man! No vaporware here... This is a perfect example of 'been there, done that' engineering. Keep up the great work Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a busy week getting the next (stronger and heavier, but still light) mast ready for the weekend racing, it was a relief to get a good long race Saturday in light winds and today in fresh stuff.

The shrouds were again stretching all weekend, maybe the sudden release of tension and then floating in the bay might make them uncreep? Otherwise everything just felt better with some more improvements in the tack area and all four clutches cosy together on the mast base = two less holes in the mast!

 

On Saturday in mainly 5 knots we had a good 9 mile beat to windward, and a port tack start got us out near the front early. We trailed Turning Point as closely as we could in spite of Zebb using a very nice and flat screacher upwind. They were the only boat ahead of us at the windward mark so we headed downwind for the first time (in a race) in this boat and tried a few different modes searching for the best vmg on the 9 mile run. We tweaked the boomless main but it didn't really seem to need it. The masthead 55 sq.m. kite worked great considering how light the conditions were, and 90 degrees apparent seemed to be the best angle to steer to with lots of experimentation on how much board to leave down. The boat certainly would not drive deeper like I was able to do with my beloved F-27. On this leg the Boss Racing and Frequent Flyer (Firefly) cats got through us predictably. A couple of reaching legs finished the course off and in spite of some parking and major shifts in the breeze swinging our relative positions around, that is how we finished over the line (4th) but the good news was winning on corrected time.

 

Today we started in 15-20 knots from the south-west and I don't mind admitting that I was a bit shaky about deja-vous as we thought about putting a reef in. The course was all reaching so we elected to not shorten sail and this was a good decision. Exciting screacher rides were the order of the day, and it was nice to get the confidence back in a mast that looked great. The cats got us again and Hasta La Vista, the Crowther Hemlock 36 also narrowly beat us by using a screacher on one leg more than we did. Today's race was the Otter Rock Cup and is not part of the overall series.

 

No work on the boat this week.

 

Pic is of the crew in racing crash test dummy helmets, note the bandaids that helped the mast stay together.

 

post-10329-0-41837000-1404632680_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see everything went together well and worked to your satisfaction.

Hopefully we'll get out there to join you in annoying the bigger boys.

 

 

Ken

F22r 223 (the one without a mast)(but with a boom)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see you're back on the water Pete. So the big question now is when are you getting the boat measured for OMR. The world waits with baited breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMR? I am a cruiser but will get around to it Peter. Seriously just loving being on the water, and spent the first night aboard on the weekend, LUXURY. Visitors reckon I should have called her the Tardis but that one is overdone already and finish times would be unverifiable in such a vessel....

Pics are before and after we added the screacher during a reach where the wind softened back to about 12 knots.

 


post-10329-0-01289200-1404773054_thumb.jpgpost-10329-0-29530600-1404772675_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Seahorse Magazine there was an excellent article written by RedBull Formula 1 structural engineer who had a back ground in marine industry. Three major differences between marine and F1 world he pointed out were:

- Budget

- Scale of components

- lack of testing to destruction

 

So if Ian is putting one of the major components trough some real world testing to destruction I recon this is fantastic! How many even major budget production companies are doing this?

I've lost mast most likely due to material weakness (aluminum) and I do appreciate some extra safety but don't want to have a telephone pole on boat. To have extra safety in the right place requires that weaknesses are discovered.

 

I wonder if there is much point testing a component to destruction unless the loads are being recorded as well, otherwise you do not know what you are actually testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In Seahorse Magazine there was an excellent article written by RedBull Formula 1 structural engineer who had a back ground in marine industry. Three major differences between marine and F1 world he pointed out were:

- Budget

- Scale of components

- lack of testing to destruction

 

So if Ian is putting one of the major components trough some real world testing to destruction I recon this is fantastic! How many even major budget production companies are doing this?

I've lost mast most likely due to material weakness (aluminum) and I do appreciate some extra safety but don't want to have a telephone pole on boat. To have extra safety in the right place requires that weaknesses are discovered.

 

I wonder if there is much point testing a component to destruction unless the loads are being recorded as well, otherwise you do not know what you are actually testing.

 

its like a computer with a fancy 3 d program..... anybody can draw cute multis .... but actually building one is a different story ...

 

I rather have a guy like Ian testing it on a real boat, in real water, etc etc and than make changes and give me a product which works, dont need to know what newtons were at work when the stick exploded....

 

again some peeps have a computer ..some others knowledge ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do some people think computers substitute knowledge? Its a tool just like a hammer or a paint brush..., just because you have the tool doesn't make you a boat builder or an artist... not having the tools does make your job a lot harder though..

 

Putting load cells everywhere and environmental recording equipment would be a very costly experiment and the data that you could amass would then have to be analysed ..again doable but not probably practical for us mere mortals. It does however allow for testing that is non destructive.

 

However looking at the point of failure and having some video of it happening would be very useful when doing load simulations in a high end stress analysis CAD because it would allow for virtual testing of design changes. Reinforcements could then be modeled against the original design and gut feelings (which are very good when you have the background knowledge) can be tested and verified.

 

 

End of the day you use the tools you have and the ones you feel comfortable with. Both approaches are valid.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

And my name is Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great comments and hi again Mark! Load cells work great in the lab, but the real world has shifty winds, operator issues (as the operator I can attest to that), and all sorts of factors that the injuneers admit are often beyond them. Nasa had a lot of experts with loadcells that missed some real stuff, and you only have to say Hubble and a lot of experts who tested that in the lab will hide and wish they had done more field testing.

 

The reality is that #1 mast was damn light, and felt it. #2 has a lot bit more carbon in the right places, and if it holds together in all our sailing conditions, we are happy campers. The smashing experience was not fun, but if it reduces weight aloft for such a relatively cheap and dropdead gorgeous wing with a 504 mm circumference, the boys and I have the stackhats ready for more of the r & d program on the water.

 

Peter H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great comments and hi again Mark! Load cells work great in the lab, but the real world has shifty winds, operator issues (as the operator I can attest to that), and all sorts of factors that the injuneers admit are often beyond them. Nasa had a lot of experts with loadcells that missed some real stuff, and you only have to say Hubble and a lot of experts who tested that in the lab will hide and wish they had done more field testing.

 

The reality is that #1 mast was damn light, and felt it. #2 has a lot bit more carbon in the right places, and if it holds together in all our sailing conditions, we are happy campers. The smashing experience was not fun, but if it reduces weight aloft for such a relatively cheap and dropdead gorgeous wing with a 504 mm circumference, the boys and I have the stackhats ready for more of the r & d program on the water.

 

Peter H

Peter, load cells aren't just for the lab they are used for measuring real world loads and conditions. Im not saying your mast should have had them. But at least you can get your story straight.

 

The simplest way to avoid all these hassles is to get an experienced spar builder to do the job for you. They, through the experience and the use of the correct tools, can already get very close to the right spar for the job. I know for a fact you can dial in your own personal safety factor if you wish. Building carbon spars isn't a dark new art. Some companies have been doing it for ages and are very very good at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smashing experience was not fun, but if it reduces weight aloft for such a relatively cheap and dropdead gorgeous wing with a 504 mm circumference

 

Having the mast in 3 pieces at deck level certainly does reduce weight aloft!!!! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest way to avoid all these hassles is to get an experienced spar builder to do the job for you. They, through the experience and the use of the correct tools, can already get very close to the right spar for the job. I know for a fact you can dial in your own personal safety factor if you wish. Building carbon spars isn't a dark new art. Some companies have been doing it for ages and are very very good at it.

 

Have you checked the price for a carbon mast lately? I have recommended or used many, but the available spars can also be limited, and I prefer not to end up with a compromise section that is expensive. An early requirement for the F-22R was always a carbon wing mast as standard, so I designed one to suit the F-22 perfectly, plus associated items like the below 'all carbon' mast step were also tailored to match. Try and buy something like that anywhere else.
post-18231-0-34627900-1404981452_thumb.jpg post-18231-0-06371500-1404967574_thumb.jpg
The all carbon deck step, while the clutches mounted on mast foot work so well, that we now have 4 mounted there
I continue to look at commercial carbon masts, as we cannot keep up with demand at present, but they would have to be a more expensive option.
I can also remember many saying why are you spending all that time developing your own folding system, as there are already ones out there? The simplest hassle free way would be to use one of those, or just make it demountable. Except the Farrier Folding System™ has now probably outsold all the others combined, as it just works better and is dead easy to use. Even many of the old demountable diehards are now copying it.
There are also dozens of commercial trailer manufacturers, who have all been doing the same old galvanized trailers for ages, and a huge amount of time would have been saved if one had been used. I certainly could have done without all the extra work. But I prefer to go that little bit extra, and once you see how well our alloy and fiberglass trailer works, then the old galvanized frame trailer looks rather tired, antiquated, and just waiting for the rust to appear.
post-18231-0-63609400-1404967915_thumb.jpg
A trailer one can even sleep on.

Ian Farrier

Farrier Marine,

Designs That Work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a real shame that the F22 has had a couple of failures. I hope they can be overcome as I have been watching / waiting for the F22 for some time. Does anybody know where the next boat is going to? It's interesting to see the response from the Corsair guys. Apparently they are offering full refunds on any Ferrier deposits for new boats sold...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a real shame that the F22 has had a couple of failures. I hope they can be overcome as I have been watching / waiting for the F22 for some time. Does anybody know where the next boat is going to? It's interesting to see the response from the Corsair guys. Apparently they are offering full refunds on any Ferrier deposits for new boats sold...

 

Hmmm….sounds like someone sure is desperate - I had heard things were bad, but not that bad.

 

And a couple of failures? Details?? I at least always test thoroughly, and don't cover up when something fails, even test items that are expected to fail. Having had my trailerables taken across numerous oceans, even around the world (with an unmatched safety record) one tends to be very careful when designing, and test as much as possible in order to find any weak areas.

 

Also a good idea for any designer to actually build and test his own designs as I do, as a lot of things on the drawing board frequently don't work very well in the real world. Poor design, inexperience, or lack of testing can lead to serious losses and coverups, as has been covered on this forum in the past.

 

Next two boats are going to Europe, and then to the USA as per latest update:

 

http://www.f-boat.com/pages/News4/FM-Factory2014.html

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs That Work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a real shame that the F22 has had a couple of failures. I hope they can be overcome as I have been watching / waiting for the F22 for some time. Does anybody know where the next boat is going to? It's interesting to see the response from the Corsair guys. Apparently they are offering full refunds on any Ferrier deposits for new boats sold...

Wow, I don't know where to start.

 

As the owner of the only production F22 on the water, the only failure I have had in our increasing number of racing and cruising hours is with the prototype lightweight mast which lived up to the "Boom!" boat name. The replacement production mast which was up in 6 days is a fair bit heavier (all carbon) so we are hoping it does the job. Feels great so far, but I am only a sailor.

 

There are a few little bits which we are enjoying testing and improving, but I would like to know of any other failures. I can see that in spite of you hiding behind a pseudonym, you are another lover of the g-boats and must be trolling in this site because there is no g-action. If I do have any other failures to address, please let me know so I can fix them before this weekend's race.

 

The Corsair deal sounds great, can't wait to see proof....

It would seriously be great to see them back in the game with a modern design to compete with the better stuff.

 

Peter H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, Ian, Where in the USA? Can't wait to see it. Don't make me come

to NZ. Not really a bad idea, do you need any unpaid shop sweepers/

boat testers? Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, Ian, Where in the USA? Can't wait to see it. Don't make me come

to NZ. Not really a bad idea, do you need any unpaid shop sweepers/

boat testers? Doug

 

First one is going to Texas or Arizona, depending on owners movements, and then possibly one other in the same container. Fortunately our floor stays mostly clean so shop sweepers are not a big requirement right now, and we have more than enough boat testers!

 

post-18231-0-16294000-1405802038_thumb.jpg

Factory as photographed this morning

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs That Work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's a real shame that the F22 has had a couple of failures. I hope they can be overcome as I have been watching / waiting for the F22 for some time. Does anybody know where the next boat is going to? It's interesting to see the response from the Corsair guys. Apparently they are offering full refunds on any Ferrier deposits for new boats sold...

Wow, I don't know where to start.

 

As the owner of the only production F22 on the water, the only failure I have had in our increasing number of racing and cruising hours is with the prototype lightweight mast which lived up to the "Boom!" boat name. The replacement production mast which was up in 6 days is a fair bit heavier (all carbon) so we are hoping it does the job. Feels great so far, but I am only a sailor.

 

There are a few little bits which we are enjoying testing and improving, but I would like to know of any other failures. I can see that in spite of you hiding behind a pseudonym, you are another lover of the g-boats and must be trolling in this site because there is no g-action. If I do have any other failures to address, please let me know so I can fix them before this weekend's race.

 

The Corsair deal sounds great, can't wait to see proof....

It would seriously be great to see them back in the game with a modern design to compete with the better stuff.

 

Peter H

Back in the game Peter? Back in the game? Come on, be a little fair. The most recent Sprint launched was doing a fair job in Thailand last weekend. As some of those that raced how it went. As for the refunded deposit, its news to me. Someone wants a corsair I will sell them one, their deposit is a matter for them and Ian/Peter. I would imagine given the strong interest in the F22 thay could almost on sell their deposit for a premium. Seriously - the F22 has a strong forward order base if one person pulled out it wouldn't affect the factory I wouldn't think, just make other customers a little happier they were further up the list.

 

But seriously Peter - Baclk in the game?

 

Hmmm….sounds like someone sure is desperate - I had heard things were bad, but not that bad.

As for Ian's comments about things being bad. What a serious load of invective drivel. Seriously Ian - get over it, you and Corsair fell out some years ago, since then the factory isn't where it was, isn't owned by the same people and doesn't make the same boats. In fact - what precisely have you heard - out with it, so a reasoned response can be provided to tangental snarky unsupported unreferenced comments.

 

Peter and Ian, you have a good product, you don't need to denigrate your opposition to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's a real shame that the F22 has had a couple of failures. I hope they can be overcome as I have been watching / waiting for the F22 for some time. Does anybody know where the next boat is going to? It's interesting to see the response from the Corsair guys. Apparently they are offering full refunds on any Ferrier deposits for new boats sold...

Wow, I don't know where to start.

 

As the owner of the only production F22 on the water, the only failure I have had in our increasing number of racing and cruising hours is with the prototype lightweight mast which lived up to the "Boom!" boat name. The replacement production mast which was up in 6 days is a fair bit heavier (all carbon) so we are hoping it does the job. Feels great so far, but I am only a sailor.

 

Peter H

A couple of failures? I've been scratching my head over that one too. Have been trying to figure out what that second failure could be....
Have certainly found many little issues as we test sailed the first F-22, as is normal, but slowly eliminated them all until we found nothing wrong on our last sail, which is how it should be done. I'm sure there are still glitches to be found, but they will all be taken care off as they become apparent.
But going over what that 'second failure' could possibly be, starting at the bow. The retractable and swing up spinnaker pole has worked well, until one day it worked its way forward to fall off the front of the boat while being trailered, and the carbon end mount came out and disappeared.
post-18231-0-99698700-1405809101_thumb.jpg
But solved this by a slightly different pivot bolt slot (has a kink in it) so that it was impossible for the pole to work its way out while being trailered. Perhaps this was the second failure?
Then a hefty Aussie tried to crawl out to the end of the pole, and broke the inner carbon end. The pole is self supporting, but was never designed for this, and few poles are. However, one has to try to Aussie proof the boat, so we replaced the end with a stronger one that might just take an Aussie standing on it, or maybe not, as they deserve the occasional dunking anyway.
No other problems in the bow area, the under deck furler works great, wide stance bow pulpit works great, nothing has broken. Moving back to the all carbon mast foot and step area, everything again has worked very well, nothing has broken, and the foot mounted clutches are superb. In fact we mount all four clutches (when needed) there now, and have taken the two off the side of the mast, eliminating any deck turning blocks.
post-18231-0-31393900-1405809147_thumb.jpg
Rotation control has been trouble free, but most will not need it anyway, as the boomless main rotates the mast just about perfectly all on its own, and we never used any rotation control after the second sail. Racers will need a little extra fine tuning when needed, but a 1 : 1 is all that is required.
Daggerboard has worked fine - no problems there. Third generation beams and folding system have worked perfectly as per usual and again, no problems there. Certainly very dry compared to the older style beams. Side stays do not have to be touched at all when folding, as they come in all on their own, and still support the mast when folded. Only issue is they have been a bit tight when folded, but this has now been rectified.
Boomless main has worked fine, and roller furls and reefs very well. Designer managed to rip the furling batten through stitching at the aft end once, while asleep at the tiller, having left mainsheet attached to the rotating tab. However, did not stop us from sailing, and batten end pocket has now been reinforced so that it can take these loads. A double shackle system at the end now makes it very difficult for anyone to do this (even sleepy designers or Aussies)
No problems in the cockpit area or down below - all works fine and nothing has failed. Traveler control lines have had some minor jamming issues, due to the angle required for boomless main, but these are now being resolved.
Rudder and outboard have both worked fine - no failures there. The Aussies did try to hammer the rudder pivot pin in while locking cross pin was in place, and managed to generate some cracks in the case, but these are cosmetic only, and don't threaten the integrity. Easy enough to repair.
One always has to concentrate on any new design for some time, and test it out, just to be sure all the bugs are found and eliminated. That is why it takes me a full year to usually do any design, and it is why I only have a few actual designs compared to many. Always better to do one thing well, rather than many things poorly.
As for Mr. madaboutmultis - on Anarchy for just one day before spouting out his claims, and now it appears he cannot back them up. It seems he was only trying to cause mischief, and is not game enough to use his name.

Ian Farrier

Farrier Marine
Designs that Work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Ian's comments about things being bad. What a serious load of invective drivel. Seriously Ian - get over it, you and Corsair fell out some years ago, since then the factory isn't where it was, isn't owned by the same people and doesn't make the same boats. In fact - what precisely have you heard - out with it, so a reasoned response can be provided to tangental snarky unsupported unreferenced comments.

 

Still beating the same old drum Andrew - I gave up on Corsair 14 years ago, and now have my own modern and much more advanced products which are doing very well thanks, and frankly I seldom pay much attention to Corsair. The people I had a problem with there are now also long gone.

 

The only time I have to comment is when my reputation or that of my folding system is threatened by a product that has not been designed or built well, or backed up poorly. Plenty of references to back that up if you want them.

 

Your beef is with MadaboutMultis for his unsubstantiated comments which seemed to be more trying to sabotage the F-22, while trying to switch over my buyers. Sounded like a disgruntled competitor, or someone with a big chip on their shoulder. Bit pointless too, as I frequently tell F-22 buyers to buy something else for sailing now if they cannot wait, best choice being something with a good resale value like an F-24 or F-27. However, it appears all want something modern and unique and are all hanging in there, so thanks for the support guys!.

 

Considerable patience has been required, as it has been slow, with it all being done on a very small budget. But we are finally getting near the end of a very long development road, and almost ready to start revving things up.

 

post-18231-0-16564400-1405816283_thumb.jpg

 

Another of the very advanced options available for the F-22, a 'kick back'

pivoting centerboard that works (I've designed and used them for years).

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs That Work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for Ian's comments about things being bad. What a serious load of invective drivel. Seriously Ian - get over it, you and Corsair fell out some years ago, since then the factory isn't where it was, isn't owned by the same people and doesn't make the same boats. In fact - what precisely have you heard - out with it, so a reasoned response can be provided to tangental snarky unsupported unreferenced comments.

 

Still beating the same old drum Andrew - I gave up on Corsair 14 years ago, and now have my own modern and much more advanced products which are doing very well thanks, and frankly I seldom pay much attention to Corsair. The people I had a problem with there are now also long gone.

I'm not beating any drum Ian. I only responded because you made an unsubstantiated claim. As is your wont.

 

And I refer you to what I said to Peter.

Peter and Ian, you have a good product, you don't need to denigrate your opposition to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the game Peter? Back in the game? Come on, be a little fair...

 

Heck Andrew, even when I say nice things I get in strife. It IS good to see Corsair ads back in the boatpoint etc ads, it IS good to know someone is standing up for them, as they HAVE been out of the picture locally for a while IMHO. You and I have discussed the dealership continuity issues before and it IS good that things are on track for the new summer coming.

More boats on the water = more happy sailors!

 

Now get me that Outremer, I am a little sore from racing around the bay today on a little boat.

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else sick of Ian and Peter's continued rant about having to post you name, address, date of birth, phone number etc before being allowed to express an opinion in this topic.

It seems that they both think that if they do not know who you are personally, then your thoughts are not just an attack on their product.

 

This is SA guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I offer proof that Mr Hackett bears no ill will. And he knows who I am!post-46369-0-03973200-1405857044_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else sick of Ian and Peter's continued rant about having to post you name, address, date of birth, phone number etc before being allowed to express an opinion in this topic.

It seems that they both think that if they do not know who you are personally, then your thoughts are not just an attack on their product.

 

This is SA guys.

You are right Pete, it is SA. So have you anything to say about the F-22 on the F-22 Update site or are you just trolling around?

Your positive or negative comments are always welcome here if they have something to do with the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now get me that Outremer, I am a little sore from racing around the bay today on a little boat.

 

Peter

O45 ordered.

 

Seriously, drop down the office this week, give me a call before you come, I will shout the coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As for Ian's comments about things being bad. What a serious load of invective drivel. Seriously Ian - get over it, you and Corsair fell out some years ago, since then the factory isn't where it was, isn't owned by the same people and doesn't make the same boats. In fact - what precisely have you heard - out with it, so a reasoned response can be provided to tangental snarky unsupported unreferenced comments.

 

Still beating the same old drum Andrew - I gave up on Corsair 14 years ago, and now have my own modern and much more advanced products which are doing very well thanks, and frankly I seldom pay much attention to Corsair. The people I had a problem with there are now also long gone.

I'm not beating any drum Ian. I only responded because you made an unsubstantiated claim. As is your wont.

 

And I refer you to what I said to Peter.

 

 

Peter and Ian, you have a good product, you don't need to denigrate your opposition to be successful.

 

Same old stuff Andrew, claims with nothing to back them up. There is just no need to denigrate any opposition, or is offering a good modern boat denigration in your view?

 

As for sales, everyone knows they are slow, and this comes from many varied sources. If not, and my sources are wrong, then it should be easy to prove otherwise with actual sales figures, which is what I would do. I built Corsair from nothing over 6 years, to where we were delivering 100 near perfect boats (2 a week) when I relinquished full control in 1991.

 

post-18231-0-82137900-1405885145_thumb.jpg

Myself and John Walton with boat #100 in 1989, after 5 years of sweat.

We then built 96 the next year, 102 in 1991

 

Production should have then continued to increase with the added benefit of my all new designs, and the outstanding reputation that had been established at that time. Had I stayed on, the aim was to reach 6 a week, and plans were actually in process to build a factory big enough to do this on the Mexican border. But then Corsair decided to go their own way, and sales started to decline with just 70 sold in 1995.

 

However, with the much lower costs in Vietnam making lower prices possible, and multihulls now becoming mainstream, surely what was done in 1990 can be easily bettered now. How many a year have been sold over the past few years, and how many in Australia? You have the actual figures, not me. Rather than criticizing Peter or I for responding to a anonymous post that was knocking the F-22, how about just offering some facts to back your position.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Production should have then continued to increase with the added benefit of my all new designs",

 

Just curious; what new designs were these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Production should have then continued to increase with the added benefit of my all new designs",

 

Just curious; what new designs were these?

Amongst trimarans similar to the f-27, the list will include the F-44 catamaran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Production should have then continued to increase with the added benefit of my all new designs",

 

Just curious; what new designs were these?

 

F-24 and F-31

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian should be happy that we did not break anything last weekend racing and a different daughter came down to Brisbane for her first sail. She was so impressed she even did a quick little vid :

As you can see, 5-10 knots and very pleasant sailing into another swinging westerly, gotta love winter sailing in Brisvegas. The 3 quick cats got us again, and we managed to hold off the rest of the fleet over the line. Rush Hour joined us on the way north to the Whitsundays, and it was pleasing (for us) to beat Drew as they have always beaten us on my F-27. We are starting to believe that this boat is faster than all my previous boats on all angles and wind strengths now, good times!

We also had some really good battles with Ian Jones' F82R and the cuddy F-22R Midnight Rain. Rain seemed very similar in upwind work but we put big gaps on reaches and downwinds surprisingly. Her skipper Bill is a great sailor who I have sailed with a lot, so this day of racing produced a stack of useful data for us.

 

Today's highlight was actually in the Transport Department where trailer registration was a breeze and the only issue was getting away from all the inspection guys who would not stop touching my work of art (trailer). Lucky the process doesn't involve the boat, or I would still be there.

 

Peter H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice video. what do you call the line from mast near furling handle

to forward cleat? Is that to keep jib sheets from fouling on something?

thanks, doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice video. what do you call the line from mast near furling handle

to forward cleat? Is that to keep jib sheets from fouling on something?

thanks, doug

It is not perfect, but a preventer is the best we can call it to stop the jib sheets going under mast base on our boat. I don't think it will be needed with alterations to future rigs. We ARE in love with 2:1 sheeting though.

The boomless rig has created quite a few new names for controls and connectors, confuses the heck out of newbies on board when you start unfurling the main. Best we can do for where the mainsheet snapshackle connects to all the clew holes for varying the outhaul is

Grossegelsschothornschlaufe. Thanks to my german teacher wife for that one.

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Peter, let me say you lucky man with the first F22! (Production i mean) My father and I greatly regret ever getting rid of our old F24MK2, best boat we ever owned (not the fastest, but still beat pretty much everything over here! Except our Raider 302 and Tornado).
To me... and i can't quite tell if its just the video, but the mast looks... under-rotated, i mean there's no view to see if thats the case, but it just looks a little shy both on the up and down legs...

image012.gif

 

Also the sheet catching looks like it could be solved with a very small piece of bungie going from the roller furling point to the forward most point of the mast base (just infront where the daggerboard comes out)

 

And what made you choose to not have the furling jib?... Or is there a reason it isnt being used...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter next time you upload a video tick the box that makes it available on the mobile app!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Peter, let me say you lucky man with the first F22! (Production i mean) My father and I greatly regret ever getting rid of our old F24MK2, best boat we ever owned (not the fastest, but still beat pretty much everything over here! Except our Raider 302 and Tornado).

To me... and i can't quite tell if its just the video, but the mast looks... under-rotated, i mean there's no view to see if thats the case, but it just looks a little shy both on the up and down legs...

image012.gif

 

Also the sheet catching looks like it could be solved with a very small piece of bungie going from the roller furling point to the forward most point of the mast base (just infront where the daggerboard comes out)

 

And what made you choose to not have the furling jib?... Or is there a reason it isnt being used...

You have good eyes mate, and your love of rotation would come from the awesome F24 that I regretted selling also until I fell more in love with the F27!

What you are seeing is correct, but magnified by the big white wing mast. The 24 (and others) mast rotated easily due to the boom forward forces and was then reduced by the boom mounted rotation control. On the boomless 22 we have a new dynamic that is still being tweaked. We have a few forces now working against the rotation with a flat mainsail that is great when it blows, and no boom pushing rotation into the system. Even when I move the "outhaul" to the most aft point there is not enough power low down (yet) in the main to allow easy rotation. We have split positive rotation controls and in the video I think they were locked off. The trouble we have found so far is that forcing more rotation flattens the sail even more. I won't tell you how bad the wing looks if someone forgets to release the rotation in a tack. That is why I have left weak and fusible double braid on the rotator.

Working on the geometry as we speak/type.

 

The bungy was a quick solution that worked pretty well on the jib. A saddle in front of dboard ropes would be a good attachment point but I am resisting adding too many bits of extra hardware unless they are really needed. The sheets are actually going under the mast if left undirected, on every second tack. 2:1 probably doubles it!

 

Thanks for the feedback, come on over for a sail.

 

Peter

 

Peter next time you upload a video tick the box that makes it available on the mobile app!

Thanks MItch, Rach realized that and we couldn't change it after upload or can we?

 

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

nice video. what do you call the line from mast near furling handle

to forward cleat? Is that to keep jib sheets from fouling on something?

thanks, doug

It is not perfect, but a preventer is the best we can call it to stop the jib sheets going under mast base on our boat. I don't think it will be needed with alterations to future rigs. We ARE in love with 2:1 sheeting though.

The boomless rig has created quite a few new names for controls and connectors, confuses the heck out of newbies on board when you start unfurling the main. Best we can do for where the mainsheet snapshackle connects to all the clew holes for varying the outhaul is

Grossegelsschothornschlaufe. Thanks to my german teacher wife for that one.

 

Peter

 

Believe it or not, that slight corner one can see on the forward end of the mast step is what can catch the sheet (Murphy's Law strikes again).

 

post-18231-0-60628200-1406143033_thumb.jpg

 

Only happens if the sheets get in a certain way, and not very often, so was not really a big issue during our testing. But would certainly use a preventer as Peter has when racing.

 

However, it's an easy fix, and already implemented, this corner is just rounded off on the mast foot.

 

Ian Farrier

 

 

Farrier Marine

Designs That work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have good eyes mate, and your love of rotation would come from the awesome F24 that I regretted selling also until I fell more in love with the F27!

 

What you are seeing is correct, but magnified by the big white wing mast. The 24 (and others) mast rotated easily due to the boom forward forces and was then reduced by the boom mounted rotation control. On the boomless 22 we have a new dynamic that is still being tweaked. We have a few forces now working against the rotation with a flat mainsail that is great when it blows, and no boom pushing rotation into the system. Even when I move the "outhaul" to the most aft point there is not enough power low down (yet) in the main to allow easy rotation. We have split positive rotation controls and in the video I think they were locked off. The trouble we have found so far is that forcing more rotation flattens the sail even more. I won't tell you how bad the wing looks if someone forgets to release the rotation in a tack. That is why I have left weak and fusible double braid on the rotator.

Working on the geometry as we speak/type.

 

 

Peter

Would a boom fix the rotation control issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have good eyes mate, and your love of rotation would come from the awesome F24 that I regretted selling also until I fell more in love with the F27!

 

What you are seeing is correct, but magnified by the big white wing mast. The 24 (and others) mast rotated easily due to the boom forward forces and was then reduced by the boom mounted rotation control. On the boomless 22 we have a new dynamic that is still being tweaked. We have a few forces now working against the rotation with a flat mainsail that is great when it blows, and no boom pushing rotation into the system. Even when I move the "outhaul" to the most aft point there is not enough power low down (yet) in the main to allow easy rotation. We have split positive rotation controls and in the video I think they were locked off. The trouble we have found so far is that forcing more rotation flattens the sail even more. I won't tell you how bad the wing looks if someone forgets to release the rotation in a tack. That is why I have left weak and fusible double braid on the rotator.

Working on the geometry as we speak/type.

 

 

Peter

Would a boom fix the rotation control issue?

yes

 

but there should be ways to fix them without a boom

 

just a little more thinking, tweaking, positioning + designing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Peter, let me say you lucky man with the first F22! (Production i mean) My father and I greatly regret ever getting rid of our old F24MK2, best boat we ever owned (not the fastest, but still beat pretty much everything over here! Except our Raider 302 and Tornado).

To me... and i can't quite tell if its just the video, but the mast looks... under-rotated, i mean there's no view to see if thats the case, but it just looks a little shy both on the up and down legs...

image012.gif

 

Also the sheet catching looks like it could be solved with a very small piece of bungie going from the roller furling point to the forward most point of the mast base (just infront where the daggerboard comes out)

 

And what made you choose to not have the furling jib?... Or is there a reason it isnt being used...

Thanks for posting that darth. I often have discussions with people who claim that rotating masts should just be rotated to align the chord with the apparent wind. My position is that doing so is wasting the effect and that the mast should be rotated to become part of the foil with the chord of the foil aligned with the apparent wind. Your diagrams support my position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have good eyes mate, and your love of rotation would come from the awesome F24 that I regretted selling also until I fell more in love with the F27!

 

What you are seeing is correct, but magnified by the big white wing mast. The 24 (and others) mast rotated easily due to the boom forward forces and was then reduced by the boom mounted rotation control. On the boomless 22 we have a new dynamic that is still being tweaked. We have a few forces now working against the rotation with a flat mainsail that is great when it blows, and no boom pushing rotation into the system. Even when I move the "outhaul" to the most aft point there is not enough power low down (yet) in the main to allow easy rotation. We have split positive rotation controls and in the video I think they were locked off. The trouble we have found so far is that forcing more rotation flattens the sail even more. I won't tell you how bad the wing looks if someone forgets to release the rotation in a tack. That is why I have left weak and fusible double braid on the rotator.

Working on the geometry as we speak/type.

 

 

Peter

Would a boom fix the rotation control issue?

The gooseneck on Two Tribes is on the main crossbeam, not on the mast, thus the boom has no effect on rotation. We use a positive control on rotation with controls led to cockpit. It is important to release the rotation control before tacking. The mast just under-rotates a bit with the control released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You have good eyes mate, and your love of rotation would come from the awesome F24 that I regretted selling also until I fell more in love with the F27!

 

What you are seeing is correct, but magnified by the big white wing mast. The 24 (and others) mast rotated easily due to the boom forward forces and was then reduced by the boom mounted rotation control. On the boomless 22 we have a new dynamic that is still being tweaked. We have a few forces now working against the rotation with a flat mainsail that is great when it blows, and no boom pushing rotation into the system. Even when I move the "outhaul" to the most aft point there is not enough power low down (yet) in the main to allow easy rotation. We have split positive rotation controls and in the video I think they were locked off. The trouble we have found so far is that forcing more rotation flattens the sail even more. I won't tell you how bad the wing looks if someone forgets to release the rotation in a tack. That is why I have left weak and fusible double braid on the rotator.

Working on the geometry as we speak/type.

 

 

Peter

Would a boom fix the rotation control issue?

The gooseneck on Two Tribes is on the main crossbeam, not on the mast, thus the boom has no effect on rotation. We use a positive control on rotation with controls led to cockpit. It is important to release the rotation control before tacking. The mast just under-rotates a bit with the control released.

 

No worries Nuddy, we had the same set-up as what I'm guessing you have; on our Raider 302, worked a charm, and you could tune it on the fly to produce some serious power, but honestly for the F22 at that inconvenience it would be a pain in short enough races/short handed, but fully crewed in longer races it would make a notable improvement to the performance if you could tune it as you go, although some one will come up with an elegant self taking option at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have good eyes mate, and your love of rotation would come from the awesome F24 that I regretted selling also until I fell more in love with the F27!

 

What you are seeing is correct, but magnified by the big white wing mast. The 24 (and others) mast rotated easily due to the boom forward forces and was then reduced by the boom mounted rotation control. On the boomless 22 we have a new dynamic that is still being tweaked. We have a few forces now working against the rotation with a flat mainsail that is great when it blows, and no boom pushing rotation into the system. Even when I move the "outhaul" to the most aft point there is not enough power low down (yet) in the main to allow easy rotation. We have split positive rotation controls and in the video I think they were locked off. The trouble we have found so far is that forcing more rotation flattens the sail even more. I won't tell you how bad the wing looks if someone forgets to release the rotation in a tack. That is why I have left weak and fusible double braid on the rotator.

Working on the geometry as we speak/type.

 

 

Peter

Would a boom fix the rotation control issue?

The gooseneck on Two Tribes is on the main crossbeam, not on the mast, thus the boom has no effect on rotation. We use a positive control on rotation with controls led to cockpit. It is important to release the rotation control before tacking. The mast just under-rotates a bit with the control released.

 

No worries Nuddy, we had the same set-up as what I'm guessing you have; on our Raider 302, worked a charm, and you could tune it on the fly to produce some serious power, but honestly for the F22 at that inconvenience it would be a pain in short enough races/short handed, but fully crewed in longer races it would make a notable improvement to the performance if you could tune it as you go, although some one will come up with an elegant self taking option at some point.

 

The F-22 is primarily a cruiser, and we are more interested in an easy to sail boat, without complications, and minimal deck clutter. We are not looking for the last ounce of performance, and it looks like rotation control is unnecessary with the boomless main when not racing. In fact we never used it again after the first two sails - just one less thing to worry about, or to trip over.

 

The below photo shows how the mast rotates naturally with the boomless main, and this will be all that is needed for most. No need for any rotation tackle or limiter as is necessary with a boom, nor do we see the high loads of boom induced rotation, which can frequently require a 4 : 1 tackle.

 

post-18231-0-20723100-1406271742_thumb.jpg

Mast rotates like this all on its own. Best of all, no annoying deck clutter!!

 

And in drawing form:

 

post-18231-0-90396000-1406271697_thumb.jpg

 

One will of course do better by over rotating like this,

 

post-18231-0-25949300-1406271669_thumb.jpg

 

Which is dead easy to do, the controls already being there and available, but you have to fit and use them, and also remember to adjust. Hardly worth the effort if just cruising, but a definite improvement if racing.

 

Both of the above however, are way ahead of a fixed mast:

 

post-18231-0-72782100-1406271649_thumb.jpg

Meanwhile, and getting a bit annoying for those of us suffering through a New Zealand winter:

 

post-18231-0-45783100-1406272880_thumb.jpg

Photo just in from Peter Hacket who has been doing a bit of single-handing and writes:

I again fired the main and anchored against the Moreton Sandhills in a foot of water to give

her a wash all over. With a simple bridle just pulling to starboard beam with a rolling hitch, the

boat sat nicely in 5-10 knots offshore for an hour while I had lunch. This is a very convenient

mode of parking at a beach or in between races, effortless and nice to unload the rig

without pulling main down for quick stops.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse my ignorance, I live far away from the Corsair and Farrier factories.

Could you please tell a bit more what things exactly are bad in Corsair land ?

 

 

Hmmm….sounds like someone sure is desperate - I had heard things were bad, but not that bad.

 

Ian Farrier

 

 

From the bit I understand from your numerous posts, I assume that the answer will be more than rumours, and be backed up by facts as it should be.

 

I don't mean to flame, I am seriously interested in the answer.

 

BTW, I truly appreciate the discussion about the experience with the first production F-22. Seems to be a fantastic boat. Any cruising related experience, sleeping on/in the boat etc ?

 

thanks much

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have good eyes mate, and your love of rotation would come from the awesome F24 that I regretted selling also until I fell more in love with the F27!

 

What you are seeing is correct, but magnified by the big white wing mast. The 24 (and others) mast rotated easily due to the boom forward forces and was then reduced by the boom mounted rotation control. On the boomless 22 we have a new dynamic that is still being tweaked. We have a few forces now working against the rotation with a flat mainsail that is great when it blows, and no boom pushing rotation into the system. Even when I move the "outhaul" to the most aft point there is not enough power low down (yet) in the main to allow easy rotation. We have split positive rotation controls and in the video I think they were locked off. The trouble we have found so far is that forcing more rotation flattens the sail even more. I won't tell you how bad the wing looks if someone forgets to release the rotation in a tack. That is why I have left weak and fusible double braid on the rotator.

Working on the geometry as we speak/type.

 

 

Peter

Would a boom fix the rotation control issue?

Certainly the boom geometry if set up properly in the first place makes promoting rotation easier than I currently have. But then with that system if you are dumping main and letting traveller right out you get too much rotation when it would be nice to pull it back towards the centre. In such cases deck mounted positive and negative controls are very nice. I just think our geometry is not perfect yet. I also think this is part of the development of the boomless rig which is very early days compared to the amount of development of the traditional boom and all of those nuances including roller furling, roller reefing, in boom furling, wide booms, deep booms, wishbone booms, sonic booms,...

The jury is still out but so far our honest assessment of the current boomless rig 10/10 for cruising and 9/10 for racing, but watch this space!

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete , once you get the geometry set up , the rotation will automatically find it's sweet spot upwind , down wind you will probably need to induce rotation, sailing nacra 5.8's for 10+years I can attest to this setup working fine . The reefing may throw a spanner in this works , not sure if the geometry will be the same , would love to have a good look over your boat.

 

Jay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse my ignorance, I live far away from the Corsair and Farrier factories.

Could you please tell a bit more what things exactly are bad in Corsair land ?

 

 

Hmmm….sounds like someone sure is desperate - I had heard things were bad, but not that bad.

 

Ian Farrier

 

 

From the bit I understand from your numerous posts, I assume that the answer will be more than rumours, and be backed up by facts as it should be.

 

I don't mean to flame, I am seriously interested in the answer.

 

Already covered in Post 1048

 

Meanwhile Peter Hacket just won the QCYC Winter Series overall on his F-22, and again took line honors again in one race on Saturday. Congratulations Peter! But you will need to slow down a bit as you could give the wrong impression - the F-22 is supposed to be a comfortable easy to handle roomy small cruiser, and shouldn't be taking line honors too often...

 

I thus took a quick trip to Brisbane this weekend, to try and sort him out, and to see just what sunshine and warmth is like again.

 

post-18231-0-36173000-1406453309_thumb.jpg

 

Unfortunately it feels as good as it looks in the photo, and Peter seems to like winning. No sailing photos however, as visit was more to checkout how everything was working on the boat.

 

post-18231-0-44273000-1406453436_thumb.jpg

One thing working very well are the mast foot mounted clutches. We

now have all four there and all lines can be led directly to either winch.

You can also just see the rotation control arm as can be used for

racing. This is just a simple 'plug in' tube

 

It has been 30 years since I was last on Cabbage Tree Creek, and this was the first time I have actually sailed with Peter. We used to be neighbors, 40 years ago, when I was building the first Trailertri, and Peter came over once to see what I was doing. However he was then warned off by his father (monohull guy), and told to stay away from the crazy person building trimarans down the street….

 

Meanwhile, back in freezing Kiwi land, we have now fitted the first centerboard case (offset):

 

post-18231-0-06676500-1406453596_thumb.jpg

 

Either a daggerboard or a centerboard is available - it makes the build a little more complicated, but not overly so, but having the kick back option for shallow waters is well worth it.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee Peter/Ian I hope you won't be claiming on insurance - that would be a great disservice to fellow Australian trimaran owners

I am surprised that anyone would suggest such a thing. R&D is not insurable except for personal injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone engineer the rig / spreader geometry on this rig or was it an educated guess in the factory I wonder?

 

 

Seemed like a reasonable question to me. Whats the problem with providing an answer?

Totally unreasonable question IMO. Educated guess! I don't always agree with Ian's position on the best solution to a problem but I would never question his engineering or accuse him of an educated guess. Ian is a designer in the very best sense of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

is irrelevant in this case as the second reef has the headboard only just below the forestay, but not far enough to cause any significant inversion problems. The higher mounted side stays also help to counter this, as they are pulling aft from above the forestay, which tends to to counter the reefed main pull below, whereas the old single point rotation system does nothing to reduce any inversion risk. Another plus for the three point rotation

"I'm not an engineer but" - the single point rotation system must do SOMETHING to prevent inversion? Now if the shrouds were lower than the forestay - say at the same height as the headboard when 2x reefed maybe we could say nothing?

 

Interesting your going with another light mast - I understand your reasoning, but as somebody pointed out above the insurance climate is currently so difficult if I were an owner I would sacrifice some weight/performance benefits in order to have a bulletproof mast

IMO mast failure should not be covered by insurance. Boat insurance should be like car insurance. If you blow up your car engine you don't claim on your insurance. If your engine is damaged in a crash you do claim. Masts should be the same. If your mast is damaged in a collision then it is a claim. If you abuse your mast and break it - pay for it yourself. If it is under-engineered sue the engineer. All those masts that were lost on keelboats due to crew error on the runners should not have been insurance claims - they just blew up their engines - operator error, like changing back to second gear at 110 km/h.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else sick of Ian and Peter's continued rant about having to post you name, address, date of birth, phone number etc before being allowed to express an opinion in this topic.

It seems that they both think that if they do not know who you are personally, then your thoughts are not just an attack on their product.

 

This is SA guys.

I'm glad you are sick of it. Perhaps you will put up or shut up. I agree that if you hide behind a pseudonym your opinions are not worth a pinch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse my ignorance, I live far away from the Corsair and Farrier factories.

Could you please tell a bit more what things exactly are bad in Corsair land ?

 

 

Hmmm….sounds like someone sure is desperate - I had heard things were bad, but not that bad.

 

Ian Farrier

 

 

From the bit I understand from your numerous posts, I assume that the answer will be more than rumours, and be backed up by facts as it should be.

 

I don't mean to flame, I am seriously interested in the answer.

 

BTW, I truly appreciate the discussion about the experience with the first production F-22. Seems to be a fantastic boat. Any cruising related experience, sleeping on/in the boat etc ?

 

thanks much

Simple answer - compare the order books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would a boom fix the rotation control issue?

The gooseneck on Two Tribes is on the main crossbeam, not on the mast, thus the boom has no effect on rotation. We use a positive control on rotation with controls led to cockpit. It is important to release the rotation control before tacking. The mast just under-rotates a bit with the control released.

 

No worries Nuddy, we had the same set-up as what I'm guessing you have; on our Raider 302, worked a charm, and you could tune it on the fly to produce some serious power, but honestly for the F22 at that inconvenience it would be a pain in short enough races/short handed, but fully crewed in longer races it would make a notable improvement to the performance if you could tune it as you go, although some one will come up with an elegant self taking option at some point.

 

The F-22 is primarily a cruiser, and we are more interested in an easy to sail boat, without complications, and minimal deck clutter. We are not looking for the last ounce of performance, and it looks like rotation control is unnecessary with the boomless main when not racing. In fact we never used it again after the first two sails - just one less thing to worry about, or to trip over.

 

The below photo shows how the mast rotates naturally with the boomless main, and this will be all that is needed for most. No need for any rotation tackle or limiter as is necessary with a boom, nor do we see the high loads of boom induced rotation, which can frequently require a 4 : 1 tackle.

 

attachicon.gifmastrotated.jpg

Mast rotates like this all on its own. Best of all, no annoying deck clutter!!

 

And in drawing form:

 

attachicon.gifRotatedMastF-22.jpg

 

One will of course do better by over rotating like this,

 

attachicon.gifRotatedMastF-22R.jpg

 

Which is dead easy to do, the controls already being there and available, but you have to fit and use them, and also remember to adjust. Hardly worth the effort if just cruising, but a definite improvement if racing.

 

Both of the above however, are way ahead of a fixed mast:

 

attachicon.gifFixedMast.jpg

I agree (for once) with all you say there Ian. Adding a boom with a gooseneck on the mast is a very inelegant solution to a rotation 'problem'. You have provided the elegant solution - an easy fit spanner for racing. I don't see any downside to the boomless self-rotating setup you have developed for cruising. An owner who does both can simply fit the spanner and ropes when rigging up to race.

For myself, if I were to have a F-22 I would get the boomless but I would then modify by adding a track and cars, a very light boom with gooseneck on the cabintop, sheeting the main to the same traveller as the boomless, and lazy jacks.

This is because I keep my boat on a swing mooring and only trail once or twice/year and am totally sold on lazy jacks (been using them since 1989). The roller furling on my Sprint is great, second best IMO for a boat kept mainly with mast up and best by far for a boat that is frequently trailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

is irrelevant in this case as the second reef has the headboard only just below the forestay, but not far enough to cause any significant inversion problems. The higher mounted side stays also help to counter this, as they are pulling aft from above the forestay, which tends to to counter the reefed main pull below, whereas the old single point rotation system does nothing to reduce any inversion risk. Another plus for the three point rotation

"I'm not an engineer but" - the single point rotation system must do SOMETHING to prevent inversion? Now if the shrouds were lower than the forestay - say at the same height as the headboard when 2x reefed maybe we could say nothing?

 

Interesting your going with another light mast - I understand your reasoning, but as somebody pointed out above the insurance climate is currently so difficult if I were an owner I would sacrifice some weight/performance benefits in order to have a bulletproof mast

IMO mast failure should not be covered by insurance. Boat insurance should be like car insurance. If you blow up your car engine you don't claim on your insurance. If your engine is damaged in a crash you do claim. Masts should be the same. If your mast is damaged in a collision then it is a claim. If you abuse your mast and break it - pay for it yourself. If it is under-engineered sue the engineer. All those masts that were lost on keelboats due to crew error on the runners should not have been insurance claims - they just blew up their engines - operator error, like changing back to second gear at 110 km/h.

 

I totally agree - I don't even bother to insure my own boat for capsize, as I know how difficult it is to do - all one has to do is slow down for the conditions/corners, just as one does in a car. I've also rolled my racing car once, but never managed to do it with a trimaran, and I have raced trimarans far more often than I have raced cars.

 

Roll a racing car and you are going to be paying for it (as I did). It should be the same for racing or over rigged multihulls.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

totally agree - I don't even bother to insure my own boat for capsize, as I know how difficult it is to do - all one has to do is slow down for the conditions/corners, just as one does in a car. I've also rolled my racing car once, but never managed to do it with a trimaran, and I have raced trimarans far more often than I have raced cars.

 

Roll a racing car and you are going to be paying for it (as I did). It should be the same for racing or over rigged multihulls.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

One major problem we have with insurance is the lack of choice. We are required to be insured (liability) for racing, no policy - no race. We can't get liability only insurance, the insurance companies won't offer it, only comprehensive which includes liability. Anyone would have to be crazy to even take their boat off the mooring or out of the driveway without liability cover. I have never seen a policy with a capsize exclusion. I have seen policies with racing exclusion but that also excludes the liability. I would be very happy to have a racing exclusion that retained liability cover for racing. I'm sure racing car drivers are insured for liability.

I have rolled rally cars 3 times, always at my own cost. Capsized a racing catamaran - no insurance claim. I had a rally spectator sue me once for being hit by a flying rock, she claimed was thrown by my car. I couldn't prove it was not so it was fortunate that I was covered for liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

totally agree - I don't even bother to insure my own boat for capsize, as I know how difficult it is to do - all one has to do is slow down for the conditions/corners, just as one does in a car. I've also rolled my racing car once, but never managed to do it with a trimaran, and I have raced trimarans far more often than I have raced cars.

 

Roll a racing car and you are going to be paying for it (as I did). It should be the same for racing or over rigged multihulls.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

One major problem we have with insurance is the lack of choice. We are required to be insured (liability) for racing, no policy - no race. We can't get liability only insurance, the insurance companies won't offer it, only comprehensive which includes liability. Anyone would have to be crazy to even take their boat off the mooring or out of the driveway without liability cover. I have never seen a policy with a capsize exclusion. I have seen policies with racing exclusion but that also excludes the liability.

 

I had no trouble in NZ insuring my F-22 for everything except capsize - no problem - just asked for it to be excluded and got a very good rate as a result.

 

I would be very happy to have a racing exclusion that retained liability cover for racing. I'm sure racing car drivers are insured for liability.

 

Not when I was racing - people accepted there were risks without having to blame or sue someone else for any misfortune.

 

Now one cannot even turn left at a green traffic light any more (Down Under) without some bureaucrat slapping an extra red arrow there in case a pedestrian is crossing. Apparently we are not to be trusted to stop and let them cross. I wonder how much fuel is wasted as cars idle while being prevented from making that left turn, even when road is completely clear and is perfectly safe. It seems more and more that people down here can no longer be allowed to make decisions for themselves, or take any sort of risk.

 

Americans (and Canadians) are even allowed to turn right on a red light, and decide themselves that it is safe.

 

And to think we used to be pioneers down here. Now the old sailing ships would not even be allowed to leave the dock - would be deemed too risky by the health and safety people.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not when I was racing - people accepted there were risks without having to blame or sue someone else for any misfortune.

 

Now one cannot even turn left at a green traffic light any more (Down Under) without some bureaucrat slapping an extra red arrow there in case a pedestrian is crossing. Apparently we are not to be trusted to stop and let them cross. I wonder how much fuel is wasted as cars idle while being prevented from making that left turn, even when road is completely clear and is perfectly safe. It seems more and more that people down here can no longer be allowed to make decisions for themselves, or take any sort of risk.

 

Americans (and Canadians) are even allowed to turn right on a red light, and decide themselves that it is safe.

Depends whether you raced or rallied Ian and where. Third party extensions have been in place since the 60s for rallies in QLD. Otherwise our bureaucratic motorsport org (CAMS) does have some cover. Also Shannons offer some pretty comprehensive (as in wide ranging) motorsport vehicle policies these days.

 

The "right on Red": in north america truly is probably the single greatest contribution to mankind by that part of the world. Extremely sensible.

 

Sorry for the off topic comments - back to the F22 program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did someone engineer the rig / spreader geometry on this rig or was it an educated guess in the factory I wonder?

 

 

Seemed like a reasonable question to me. Whats the problem with providing an answer?

Totally unreasonable question IMO. Educated guess! I don't always agree with Ian's position on the best solution to a problem but I would never question his engineering or accuse him of an educated guess. Ian is a designer in the very best sense of the word.

I don't think Ian's rep as a designer has been questioned. Perhaps you could explain why it is an unreasonable question without resorting to an appeal to authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to share a couple of pics from our great weekend of sailing. It was again light and the windward leewards really suited our boat and style of sailing so we started the day on a great note with another line honours and then a third and second over the line I think, with the overall PCF win for the series. Luckily I was able to drop the big points day with the blown mast. Awesome series result for a great crew including both daughters, a cousin, and some mates who had to share the new boat's delights with me. We collected a truckload of data during the series, and have many little jobs now to get the racing kit really sorted before OMR measurement. The internal fitout continues with some serious cruising coming up as well.

 

Waiting for the wind

post-10329-0-58307100-1406553737_thumb.jpg

Start line action with the other 22 outgunning us a few times during the day.post-10329-0-35752800-1406553756_thumb.jpgpost-10329-0-16710700-1406553815_thumb.jpg

 

To cap it all off, Ian came out for a very pleasant sail on Sunday, although he was working flatout taking pictures and devising new improvements on the fly. He may have been a little jealous with us being able to sail in T-shirts at this time of the year while Christchurch requires drysuits and a chain to hold you to the boat in their conditions.

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One major problem we have with insurance is the lack of choice. We are required to be insured (liability) for racing, no policy - no race. We can't get liability only insurance, the insurance companies won't offer it, only comprehensive which includes liability. Anyone would have to be crazy to even take their boat off the mooring or out of the driveway without liability cover. I have never seen a policy with a capsize exclusion. I have seen policies with racing exclusion but that also excludes the liability. I would be very happy to have a racing exclusion that retained liability cover for racing. I'm sure racing car drivers are insured for liability.

I have rolled rally cars 3 times, always at my own cost. Capsized a racing catamaran - no insurance claim. I had a rally spectator sue me once for being hit by a flying rock, she claimed was thrown by my car. I couldn't prove it was not so it was fortunate that I was covered for liability.

In the US you can get personal liability insurance - covers you against the neighbor's kid drowning in your pool etc and is relatively cheap compared to vehicle related liability. You can use it instead of car insurance liability and it's generally cheaper. I would imagine it should cover sailing related liability. Dunno if you Antipods have that down there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Please excuse my ignorance, I live far away from the Corsair and Farrier factories.

Could you please tell a bit more what things exactly are bad in Corsair land ?

 

 

Hmmm….sounds like someone sure is desperate - I had heard things were bad, but not that bad.

 

Ian Farrier

 

 

From the bit I understand from your numerous posts, I assume that the answer will be more than rumours, and be backed up by facts as it should be.

 

I don't mean to flame, I am seriously interested in the answer.

 

Already covered in Post 1048

 

I had read that post. All I could find there was this:

"As for sales, everyone knows they are slow, and this comes from many varied sources."

 

I was actually looking for backed up facts, not hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Please excuse my ignorance, I live far away from the Corsair and Farrier factories.

Could you please tell a bit more what things exactly are bad in Corsair land ?

 

 

Hmmm….sounds like someone sure is desperate - I had heard things were bad, but not that bad.

 

Ian Farrier

 

 

From the bit I understand from your numerous posts, I assume that the answer will be more than rumours, and be backed up by facts as it should be.

 

I don't mean to flame, I am seriously interested in the answer.

 

BTW, I truly appreciate the discussion about the experience with the first production F-22. Seems to be a fantastic boat. Any cruising related experience, sleeping on/in the boat etc ?

 

thanks much

Simple answer - compare the order books.

 

Maybe I was not clear, I did not want to start yet another meaningless comparison. There is no point in comparing Corsair, an estalished and successful company with many boats sold over the years, to Farrier, a start-up company with a superb and most modern design trimaran, with one (or two) production boats delivered.

 

And nobody here can reliably compare the order books.

 

All I wanted to know is what was supposedly going bad at Corsair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not an insurance agent, so please contact your agent.

 

But if you have a HO-3 homeowner insurance policy, there is liability coverage for boats under a certain length and horsepower. Racing is never mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Please excuse my ignorance, I live far away from the Corsair and Farrier factories.

Could you please tell a bit more what things exactly are bad in Corsair land ?

 

 

Hmmm….sounds like someone sure is desperate - I had heard things were bad, but not that bad.

 

Ian Farrier

 

 

From the bit I understand from your numerous posts, I assume that the answer will be more than rumours, and be backed up by facts as it should be.

 

I don't mean to flame, I am seriously interested in the answer.

 

Already covered in Post 1048

 

I had read that post. All I could find there was this:

"As for sales, everyone knows they are slow, and this c