tendegreealex

Evelyn 32-2 Rudder upgrade

Recommended Posts

Hello,

Phils foils has an upgraded E32 rudder on their website...

Anyone on here buy one? Use it? Have any experience?

Wondering if this shape was good or if I should have a new one designed.

I have some good designers at hand, but no use in reinventing the wheel if its not needed.

 

 

Cheers and thanks for any input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who designed that one?

 

we had CCI (aka Phils foils) build us a Farr designed CF rudder and are very happy with it. It would've been nice if Farr had gotten the design right in the 1st place and not needed a redesign of a major component or if Beneteau had been more demanding about the handling characteristics of one of their line but oh well, that's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beiker could draw you up something fancy with anti stall tubercules..? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beiker could draw you up something fancy with anti stall tubercules..? :)

I have spoken with Paul.

Again, wondering if anyone has used the CCI rudder, as it is already designed and reasonably priced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that although expensive it is definitely worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure there was a 32 listed for sale on here about 6 months ago that had the rudder you're looking at on it.

One question I'd have its what did they do for a lower bearing.

There isn't one now on the 32's and this is the root of many of the rudder post issues they have.

I think it would be tricky to put a proper rudder bearing in considering the hull has a pretty pronounced V to it aft.

Interesting that when you click on the pics of the phils foil rudder one shows a carbon shaft and the other a metal one.

Without adding a bearing you'll be forced to go with a metal shaft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Phils foils has an upgraded E32 rudder on their website...

Anyone on here buy one? Use it? Have any experience?

Wondering if this shape was good or if I should have a new one designed.

I have some good designers at hand, but no use in reinventing the wheel if its not needed.

 

 

Cheers and thanks for any input.

You might as well go for the upgrade, since the PHRF comm let's the Ev-32's slide on all the other modifications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Beiker could draw you up something fancy with anti stall tubercules..? :)

I have spoken with Paul.

Again, wondering if anyone has used the CCI rudder, as it is already designed and reasonably priced.

 

 

It would be very reasonable if the CAD 3400 price tag included more than just the blade. Mind you, that is in Canadian dollars, so maybe USD 2500 for the blade? Probably closer to USD 4000 all in. Not too unreasonable though really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hello,

Phils foils has an upgraded E32 rudder on their website...

Anyone on here buy one? Use it? Have any experience?

Wondering if this shape was good or if I should have a new one designed.

I have some good designers at hand, but no use in reinventing the wheel if its not needed.

 

 

Cheers and thanks for any input.

You might as well go for the upgrade, since the PHRF comm let's the Ev-32's slide on all the other modifications

 

No matter what I do here its a 3 second hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil did us one for our Hobie33 some years back. We never spun out again. He did it on the old post to save some $. It probably will cost you 3 sec/mi. though. And you DO need to tell your handicapper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Beiker could draw you up something fancy with anti stall tubercules..? :)

I have spoken with Paul.

Again, wondering if anyone has used the CCI rudder, as it is already designed and reasonably priced.

 

It would be very reasonable if the CAD 3400 price tag included more than just the blade. Mind you, that is in Canadian dollars, so maybe USD 2500 for the blade? Probably closer to USD 4000 all in. Not too unreasonable though really.

 

It cost me roughly 6500 USD, all in.

 

I figure that's roughly $10 per wipeout/windcheck up & downwind.

 

Well worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automatic hit even if its the same cord depth and area?

Generally speaking the rudders are only marginally larger but deeper with a shorter chord and (obviously) less camber. Designed primarily to prevent aeration and regain control from excess weather helm but it can have the ancillary effect of moving the CLR aft somewhat, which also helps with weather helm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Automatic hit even if its the same cord depth and area?

Generally speaking the rudders are only marginally larger but deeper with a shorter chord and (obviously) less camber. Designed primarily to prevent aeration and regain control from excess weather helm but it can have the ancillary effect of moving the CLR aft somewhat, which also helps with weather helm.

 

Yeah, It just has to be reported. Any change in depth is a hit. went through this with my SC 27 here a few years ago. New rudder= way better boat. we could press the boat so much harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automatic hit even if its the same cord depth and area?

The way it should be!

NOBODY ever made a change to there boat to go slower or mkae the boat slower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Automatic hit even if its the same cord depth and area?

The way it should be!

NOBODY ever made a change to there boat to go slower or mkae the boat slower

 

 

That is the credo of our local PHRF board.

 

However, I view it more along the lines of "if you make changes, you will be subject to penalty". It doesn't mean they will assign a penalty- but this is their justification if they do"

 

As an example, a local boat built an open transom and the local board assigned a nominal 1 sec penalty, even though from all indications it ended up making the boat slightly heavier.

 

On the other hand, other boats have made more significant changes and ended up with no penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Automatic hit even if its the same cord depth and area?

The way it should be!

NOBODY ever made a change to there boat to go slower or mkae the boat slower

 

right, unless it's changing from crappy symmetric spinnakers to magic asymmetric spinnakers. they're so slow they start by giving you +9s mile just for making such a stupid mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a displacement boat and you switch from Symetrical to Asymetrical tacked on centerline, you will be slower in the moderate to heavy air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Automatic hit even if its the same cord depth and area?

The way it should be!

NOBODY ever made a change to there boat to go slower or mkae the boat slower

 

right, unless it's changing from crappy symmetric spinnakers to magic asymmetric spinnakers. they're so slow they start by giving you +9s mile just for making such a stupid mistake.

 

 

Most, if not all PHRF boards have known formulae for dealing with a change from Sym to Asym, so should be no surprises there.

 

I think they are talking mainly about changes to hulls, foils, and rig dimensions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Automatic hit even if its the same cord depth and area?

The way it should be!

NOBODY ever made a change to there boat to go slower or mkae the boat slower

 

On the other hand if the class rules require that a boat that was designed to sail with only a 100% headsail be optimized with a 155% headsail before they can appeal their rating by providing race results demonstrating their actual observed performance then that boat might necessarily require a new rudder to account for the PH mandated and now unbalanced sail plan.

 

In that case the class rules require a certain sail plan with a 155% which necessarily require other changes be made in parallel. If those parallel changes are not made the boat actually goes slower with the larger sail plan than it would with the smaller sail plan.

 

I guess the point is it that if class rules inadvertently create a slower boat when optimized according to class rules the boat should either not be penalized for countering the negative effect or recognized as being optimized and reviewable (via race reuslts) with the smaller sail plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a displacement boat and you switch from Symetrical to Asymetrical tacked on centerline, you will be slower in the moderate to heavy air.

complete and utter bullshit. Demonstrable by looking at the results of well-sailed boats that have switched from sym to asym, for instance a well known farr 40, farr 30, and farr 395, for starters. They didn't get slower by switching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are a displacement boat and you switch from Symetrical to Asymetrical tacked on centerline, you will be slower in the moderate to heavy air.

 

complete and utter bullshit. Demonstrable by looking at the results of well-sailed boats that have switched from sym to asym, for instance a well known farr 40, farr 30, and farr 395, for starters. They didn't get slower by switching.

+1

 

PHRF New England

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Results? Not sure if the Farr 30 is a true displacement boat, Farr 395 was always a sprit boat it should not get a credit over its base rating. Farr 40s transitioned to masthead kites a few years back, I assume their rating adjusted as well. Is the SA the same going from Sym to Asym? Maybe your region should put a limiter on that +9 rule and have it governed by downwind SA-D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Results? Not sure if the Farr 30 is a true displacement boat, Farr 395 was always a sprit boat it should not get a credit over its base rating. Farr 40s transitioned to masthead kites a few years back, I assume their rating adjusted as well. Is the SA the same going from Sym to Asym? Maybe your region should put a limiter on that +9 rule and have it governed by downwind SA-D.

The Farr 30 is a true displacement boat in marblehead except maybe twice a summer. Farr 40 OD in PHRFNE is -6. Take off the pole, tack to the bow, make it +3. Add a 30% sprit, masthead asym, back to -6. Sails well below -6 since switching. You're right about the 395, that was my mistake. A J35 switched to a carbon mast and a retractable sprit and ended at 75 (stock J35 is 72).

 

As to your bolded comment, there was a plan in place to make the ratings fairer. It was even voted on - and passed - by the phrf governors. It was then placed on hold with no vote for an entire season, and then voted out at the next meeting based on the comments of the commodore of PHRF, who happens to own a converted Farr 30, and a sail maker, who happens to sell to several converted boats. So short of forming a new PHRF authority in Mass Bay, we're kind of stuck. PHRFNE has pretty much let us know what they think of fairness in ratings, due process, and transparency.

 

I've been told that PHRF fairness - or lack of it - is not the reason our sport is in decline, and it's probably true that it's a small piece of it. But I know of at least one boat in Mass Bay whose owners have owned the boat for 30+ years - since it was new - and are considering getting out of the game because they don't think they can get a fair shake. My personal experience with a redesigned rudder for my old boat ranged from -1 second in PHRFNE to -9 in the Chesapeake (I raced with my old rudder because that's just stupid).

 

So I'll stick with my statement, having raced with and against many of these boats both before and after their conversions, that they do not slow down by going to an asym. Maybe 20 years ago when the chute shape was new and terrible, but these days? I can see North or Quantum out there saying "yeah, convert - sure you'll be slower but it'll be totally worth it because the chute costs more." Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what your problem with the Farr 40 is, I got around to looking at the PHRFNE site. Base Farr 40 MH Spin is -6. If they add a 30% sprit there is no credit, rating remains the same but if they use both Sym and Asym they take a -3 hit. The spin area still must remain the same as the sym.

 

It sounds like you are having issues with your committee. Have you gone to any meetings? Tried to get on the Committee? What area does PHRFNE cover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what your problem with the Farr 40 is, I got around to looking at the PHRFNE site. Base Farr 40 MH Spin is -6. If they add a 30% sprit there is no credit, rating remains the same but if they use both Sym and Asym they take a -3 hit. The spin area still must remain the same as the sym.

 

It sounds like you are having issues with your committee. Have you gone to any meetings? Tried to get on the Committee? What area does PHRFNE cover?

how do you think I know what's going on? Yes I've been to the meetings, I've spoken up, and I've watched them circle their wagons. PHRF-NE covers from Maine to the canal - PHRF Narragansett Bay is the next one over, and ECSA uses the same formula as PHRF-NE.

 

Regarding the Farr 40, which I'm only using as an example - it applies equally to the Farr 30 and some of the others - follow this (it's actually worse for the Farr 30). A Farr 40 rates -6 in OD configuration, which is a 100% J pole for the sym. So get rid of the sym and say you're tacking the new asym on centerline. Rating goes to +3, spinnaker goes to the deck, you get 9s and a bigger spinnaker. Now add on a fixed sprit. It'll cost you 3s / 10% of J. you add a 30% sprit, take a 9s hit, and now you are back to -6, and your chute(s) are a great deal bigger than your original sym chute, you're going faster, and you're going almost as deep as you were with your pole back - doesn't matter because you make it up on the VMG in almost every condition you sail in.

 

The Farr 30 is an even better deal because you're not only getting the +9 for the bow-tacked spinnaker, you're also getting another +3, because the "standard" pole on the F30 is oversized, so now you go and put your 30% sprit on and you end up at a rating of 60 or even higher, 66 for one of them, when your base was 54. Not only do you get a great deal, but you actually switch classes so instead of racing against the A boats, you race against the B boats.

 

All of this is, of course, in direct conflict with the BYLAWS of PHRF-NE, because a) they are supposed to re-evaluate yearly based on race records and they never have, and b ) they work from the aforementioned principle that modifications will be evaluated for their "speed advantage". Also that you don't get any credit for undersized sails. And yet I can convert to a demonstrably faster sail configuration, that is also, for the record easier to handle during maneuvers, sets, and douses, and get credit for slowing my boat down.

 

When you ask about getting involved, it's worth noting that this particular group received empirical, unbiased evaluation of the effects of making this change across a broad spectrum of boat types and after vigorous debate rejected it in favor of maintaining a system that protects the vendors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In PHRF NorCal our rating went from 126 to 99 for switching from a symmetrical to an asymmetrical with a 4' sprit (short by similar boats standards, but 40% of J). So, pretty much the same as your region... Uh, not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In PHRF NorCal our rating went from 126 to 99 for switching from a symmetrical to an asymmetrical with a 4' sprit (short by similar boats standards, but 40% of J). So, pretty much the same as your region... Uh, not!

Roleur - that's a big swing, and for the record probably would have been either 0 or -3 if PHRF-NE had stuck with their formula. Out of curiosity, how well has the boat performed relative to its new rating?

 

Also as an aside - are you nuts? :) G'luck in the 1-2. Definitely will be following your progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've only done downwind races in that region with the downwind rating, so hard to say. We have a pretty refined rating here locally and the NorCal rating seems inline compared to boats we regularly race against locally. I'm not complaining about it. Just observing the change.

 

I would happily take the J/120 to Bermuda if someone would pay to ship it from the West Coast to the East Coast and back...

 

So, in this case I fall into the you run what your brung category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riley, I'm not trying to pick a fight here. Just trying understand what you are dealing with up there.

 

On the Farr 40 you said the asym kite is bigger, how are they able to carry a bigger kite without penalty? On the Farr 30 the standard SPL is larger than J so the girths are set from that, tacking to the bow gets +9. Where are you getting the other +3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riley, I'm not trying to pick a fight here. Just trying understand what you are dealing with up there.

 

On the Farr 40 you said the asym kite is bigger, how are they able to carry a bigger kite without penalty? On the Farr 30 the standard SPL is larger than J so the girths are set from that, tacking to the bow gets +9. Where are you getting the other +3?

if it's anything like PHRF LIS

A symmetric spinnaker is to be defined as having luff and leech within 2% of each other and being symmetric about the centerline in shape and material. An asymmetric shall have over 5% difference in luff and leech lengths. The maximum, unpenalized spinnaker luff length (SL) shall be equal to .95 √(I²+JC²).

 

The following shall be reported for asymmetric spinnakers. 1. How the sail will be attached to the boat (i.e., centerline tacked on bow, on fixed sprit, on articulating sprit, pole, etc.) If a boat has multiple asymmetric spinnakers that are attached in different manners, the largest of each must be reported separately. 2. The luff, leech, SMG, and foot dimensions. 3. The area of the sail as measured using the IRC formula. A.Area = ((SLU+SLE)/2)*((SF+(SMG*4))/5)*.83

 

so....an assy kite can have a larger (sometimes MUCH) S/A yet still not get penalized based on this formula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much info about rudders in here.

 

 

who designed the CCI E32 rudder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riley, I'm not trying to pick a fight here. Just trying understand what you are dealing with up there.

 

On the Farr 40 you said the asym kite is bigger, how are they able to carry a bigger kite without penalty? On the Farr 30 the standard SPL is larger than J so the girths are set from that, tacking to the bow gets +9. Where are you getting the other +3?

I know you're not picking a fight and this is my point exactly. how the hell are they allowed to carry a bigger kite and end up back at -6? It makes no sense unless your business model is built on selling fast sails and hardware mods in a way that allows you to claim your boat is slower.

 

And like I said, if you read the phrf-ne mod credits and debits, for the farr 30 you start at 54. you get +9 just for the bow tack, and +3 because the spin pole is bigger than J. so you start at +12 before you even start putting the sprit on. trust me - Indra specifically designed their sprit to move their rating from 54 to 60 so they wouldn't be in fleet A. And believe me when I say they are very, very fast downwind. A couple years ago I raced against them with a class-legal Farr 30 in our class as well. Indra was in a different zip code than the stock Farr, yet rated +6 seconds over them.

 

I know it's not perfect, but this is why I would love to see ORR or ORC supplant PHRF in NE. and if not that, then at least a nationally managed PHRF to get rid of some of the politics that protect stupid rules like this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Riley, I'm not trying to pick a fight here. Just trying understand what you are dealing with up there.

 

On the Farr 40 you said the asym kite is bigger, how are they able to carry a bigger kite without penalty? On the Farr 30 the standard SPL is larger than J so the girths are set from that, tacking to the bow gets +9. Where are you getting the other +3?

I know you're not picking a fight and this is my point exactly. how the hell are they allowed to carry a bigger kite and end up back at -6? It makes no sense unless your business model is built on selling fast sails and hardware mods in a way that allows you to claim your boat is slower.

 

And like I said, if you read the phrf-ne mod credits and debits, for the farr 30 you start at 54. you get +9 just for the bow tack, and +3 because the spin pole is bigger than J. so you start at +12 before you even start putting the sprit on. trust me - Indra specifically designed their sprit to move their rating from 54 to 60 so they wouldn't be in fleet A. And believe me when I say they are very, very fast downwind. A couple years ago I raced against them with a class-legal Farr 30 in our class as well. Indra was in a different zip code than the stock Farr, yet rated +6 seconds over them.

 

I know it's not perfect, but this is why I would love to see ORR or ORC supplant PHRF in NE. and if not that, then at least a nationally managed PHRF to get rid of some of the politics that protect stupid rules like this one.

That is utterly absurd. And people wonder why big boat sailing in the US is dying.

 

I think PHRF has to be nationized for exactly the reason you say.

 

Yours is one of the more extreme examples I've seen, but it's generally the same where I race. Just look at the entry list for almost any event in SoCal, it's way down in the last few years. It's a lot of factors beyond the sport, but rating issues is something the sport can control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I have been at the meetings with Ryley to confirm all this. I even questioned the execs and the answer was it was done for safety and less crew! Such BS. Nothing like making boats obsolete and not competitive because owners don't want to shell out for s sprit and multiple kites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Espo's idea of a asym on a short sprit on a 29 might not be as bad idea as originally thought. Lol

Don't go by me. I can't even read a ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryley, The larger spinn pole on the Farr is baked into its base rating. Where are you getting +3? Take that out, PHRFNE calls out that for every 10% increase in SPL/Girth is -3. The Farr SPL is 24.7% greater.

If the Aysm is tacked to the bow then SPL and J are the same and areas should be similar. As you increase SPL the +9 goes down, which is correct because you are making the sail larger. All this makes sense to me.

 

That said, ORC is transparent and its scoring system is extremely flexible so that it can be implemented simply at a local level and scaled up to higher end regattas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think PHRF has to be nationized for exactly the reason you say.

 

 

 

Smartest thing I've seen said in a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think PHRF has to be nationized for exactly the reason you say.

 

 

 

Smartest thing I've seen said in a long time.

Thanks, other than the fact I didn't spell check the autocorrect on nationalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now