• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, WCB said:

Maybe he should be forced to buy an ad since he's looking to solicit a sugar daddy who will build his boat.

I wouldn't come to SA to raise money to fund this project. However, if I wanted to know what the average person with some familiarity with sailing thought of the Crossbow fl, I couldn't do better than partake of the abounding "wisdom" available here. Luckily for me a couple of above average forumites have  responded for which I am also grateful.

Crossbow fl 161SA + one ft 2 (1).jpg

Crossbow fl-trapwing system-DSS insignia best so far -.jpg

Crossbow fl-primer 006.JPG

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another re–post of images you've already posted 4 or 5 times on the previous page (and many times in other places).

It's coming up to 10 years since you started on this concept and you still don't have anything even remotely resembling a working model, much less a detailed design of the most important and innovative components.

Please see Creativity Is Not Enough (Theodore Levitt, Harvard Business Review)

Quote

Ted Levitt, a former editor of HBR and one of the most incisive commentators on innovation to have appeared in our pages, takes dead aim at the assumption that creativity is superior to conformity. He argues that creativity as it’s commonly defined—the ability to come up with brilliantly novel ideas—can actually be destructive to businesses. By failing to take into account practical matters of implementation, big thinkers can inspire organizational cultures dedicated to abstract chatter rather than purposeful action. In such cultures, innovation never happens—because people are always talking about it but never doing it.

My emphasis.

Please do not re–post anything you've already posted in this thread. Reference it if you must, but do not re–post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobG said:

Yet another re–post of images you've already posted 4 or 5 times on the previous page (and many times in other places).

It's coming up to 10 years since you started on this concept and you still don't have anything even remotely resembling a working model, much less a detailed design of the most important and innovative components.

Please see Creativity Is Not Enough (Theodore Levitt, Harvard Business Review)

My emphasis.

Please do not re–post anything you've already posted in this thread. Reference it if you must, but do not re–post it.

I thought you were gone?* That you come back and make such a completely and incredibly false statement makes me wonder why you waste your time? There have been NUMEROUS working models testing the single most critical component of the boat-the movable ballast system. And the system works well and is easy and lots of fun to learn to sail. 

And this exceptionally uninformed statement is totally wrong and just simply made up out of thin air by you! Again, why do you waste time with your own bullshit?! You make no credible effort to understand this concept and just fabricate total horseshit-but I don't understand why you spend your time on such an unhelpful and unproductive waste of your time??!

* "Yeah, sorry, I'm outta here."

Some of the working models that have tested the Trapeze Power Ballast System--and a new boat with the most advanced version of the system yet will be sailing relatively soon:

 

Scow with PBS 3 - Copy.JPG

Melges 24 RC Power Ballast System.jpg

Micro foiler 1.jpg

2007-01-25 11.06.53.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crossbow fl and Model Testing:

Some people have a mental block when it comes to using RC models to test the characteristics of a fullsize design or to just explore a concept to be used on fullsize sailboats. Problem is that most likely they have no idea how accurate such testing can be-and may not know how many recognized designers have used RC models and static models to test various aspects of their designs. It is true that you have to know what you can test at model size and what you can't test. I was lucky enough to work with Dr. Sam Bradfield one summer when he used one of my large Flyer Cubed RC trimarans to test the foil configuration for his 40' Skat. We tested the rig postion relative to the foils, the CG relative to the foils, the boats balance and more. We could not (accurately) test the foil section, only the foil configuration and to a large extent foil planform and area. 

On Crossbow the testing of the Trapeze Power Ballast System on various RC models has led  to development that will translate directly to the fullsize boat and has saved thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of development time.

-----------------------------

Some of the well known designers that have used RC model testing to develop their boats and or a concept include:

Greg Ketterman(Hobie Trifoiler), Paul Larsen(SailRocket), Alain Thebault(Hydroptere), Dr. Sam Bradfield(SKAT), Yves Parlier(60' cat),
Hugh Welbourn(DSS), Bill Burns(CBTF), and many others.
RC model testing works and is a valuable development tool that can save time and money.

pix credits top to bottom: Bradfield(SKAT), Thebault(Hydroptere), Yves parlier(60'cat):

Hydrosail-flyer 3 test model.jpg

31.jpg

parliers cat model.jpg

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for regurgitating yet again stuff you've already posted multiple times on the previous page and elsewhere over the last many years. I have no idea why you think it's proof of anything, nor why relentlessly re–posting it will serve any useful purpose.

To make it clear, the sliding weight system in your images does not address any of the challenges of your tilting, swiveling, sealed tube system. They have been pointed out to you over the years (such as how the tilting/swiveling mechanism is controlled or how the sealed beam is controlled or what is the fail—safe if the battery dies with the weight and beam at full extension). You've not addressed any of them with anything more than the most cursory of explanations.

If you really have "a new boat with the most advanced version of the system yet" then post pictures of that.

PS.
Your last post has gone up a font size. I guess that's the internet version of translation by volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An old saying...There's the steam that blows the whistle, and the steam that turns the wheels. All we've seen so far is a lot of whistle-tooting.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RobG said:

Yet another re–post of images you've already posted 4 or 5 times on the previous page (and many times in other places).

It's coming up to 10 years since you started on this concept and you still don't have anything even remotely resembling a working model, much less a detailed design of the most important and innovative components.

Please see Creativity Is Not Enough (Theodore Levitt, Harvard Business Review)

My emphasis.

Please do not re–post anything you've already posted in this thread. Reference it if you must, but do not re–post it.

the good old cult of innovation. let's all strive for moonshot reinventions to solve problems that were solved decades ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dgmckim said:

the good old cult of innovation. let's all strive for moonshot reinventions to solve problems that were solved decades ago!

Incredible!

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 4:18 PM, Doug Lord said:

Crossbow fl 2018 :

Summary of Features and Specifications:
-------------------------------
Features:
1) Self-bailing cockpit
2) Boat rightable from 90+ degree knockdown by crew w/o crew movement using the wing regardless of the position of the sliding ballast.
a. ballast wing is sealed and has buoyancy much greater than that required to float the ballast sliding inside.
b. ballast+ wing can be moved manually or electrically faster than a crew on a trapeze could move.
3) Rig utilizes modified rotating, A Class wing mast, sealed with masthead buoyancy to prevent turtling,
4) Ballast wing pivots:
a. to allow trailering
b. to move ballast aft when required with wing extension.
c. also pivots athwartship to keep weight low to windward and to keep lee side of wing clear of water.
5) Ballast is adjustable in 10lb increments,
6) Boat can be sailed off a beach,
7) Boat features an asymetrical spinnaker, an underdeck spinnaker chute and retractable bow pole,
8) Seating arrangement: (NEW) .
a. The skipper will sit relatively low in the boat on a seat that will manually or electrically rotate 180 degrees. This will allow the skipper to steer with his or her aft hand and handle the single sheet and Trapeze Power Ballast System with their forward hand. For Class racing weight equal to the difference between 250lb. and the skippers weight will be carried in a ballast compartment under the seat. 250lb is the maximum crew weight for racing.
9) Large, buoyant "spray rails" act to help provide a dry ride and knockdown recovery,
10) Self-tending jib with variation of Swift solo single sheet system.
11) Boat uses removable, "plug-in" DSS foils for greatly increased power to carry sail with speed.
12) The new changes effectively "turbo" the boat even allowing for windward planing.
13) Boat has an extremely wide crew weight range: approx 100lb to 250lb for normal sailing. All ratios are based on 250lb crew and would drastically improve with lighter crew weight. For class racing, it would be my desire to see a class adopt the maximum crew weight as standard with lighter crew carrying weight under the seat-or perhaps two "weight classes"-whatever it takes to encourage the widest participation.
-------------
Specifications: (changes are to be expected)
Hull length-15.6' 
Beam- 4.75'
---at waterline-3.75'
Sail Area-(boat will use a carbon A Class wing mast from Matt McDonald/ Falcon Marine LLC, laid up specifically for this boat).
--upwind- 161 sq.ft.
-- downwind- 290 sq.ft.
Weight-sailing weight w/o crew- 223lb which includes:
--hull, rig, foils-124lb
--Trapeze Power Ballast System:
---wing-21lb. @ 12'-16' length overall, pivots for transport, and moving weight aft.
--- max ballast 78lb(8 pieces of lead-removable-.25" X 8" X 12"-about 9.72lb each)
Max Crew weight: 250lb-boat is designed as a singlehander.
All up sailing weight including crew-473lb
DSS Foils: each 1.63 sq.ft.( 6" X 39") 6.5/1 aspect ratio, Welbourn section.
Electrical System for moving ballast: Engineered by Rick Willoughby, who did the original "ballast mover" spread sheet.
-------
Ratios-
see Eric Sponbergs Design Ratio's PDF below
-------------
DLR=55.6 
---
SA/D=
--upwind-42.48
--downwind- 76.78
---
SA/ws-
--3.7/1 
--3.48/1 including DSS foil
---
SCP/Total weight= .3 and .34 if upwind RM from DSS foil is counted.
===========

 

Attached Files:

  •  

 

 

 

 

Top Crossbow fl,  Bottom Crossbow XPRO(possible experimental prototype) 

pix by dl

Crossbow fl-primer 005.JPG

Crossbow XPRO 004.JPG

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the same crap once again with a couple of chairs added this time, still no full size sailing prototype, but what else would we expect from possibly the biggest bullshitter on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug I'll keep this brief is I don't interrupt your important work...

You are so full of shit , do something real, actual size and with real people sailing it -- then others may be interested.

Stop polluting interesting conversations with your fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going to give my kids some balsa and see what they come with. The I’ll post the same pics for 10 years. Sound good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

19 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

2) Boat rightable from 90+ degree knockdown by crew w/o crew movement using the wing regardless of the position of the sliding ballast.

Can you please explain how this is achieved? You have an immobile (disabled) crew sitting in a seat (strapped in?). Correct? 

Just how do you get the centre of effort far enough from the centre of bouyancy to right the boat when the wing is now vertical? Moving the weight about inside the wing doesn't do anything constructive towards moving the C-o-E towards where it needs to be, because it - the wing - is now vertical.

Righting a traditional dinghy, and I know that you will respond that Crossbow-fl isn't a traditional dinghy, requires weight on the end of the extended centre- or dagger-board. That's usually a human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, GBRNoah said:

"

Can you please explain how this is achieved? You have an immobile (disabled) crew sitting in a seat (strapped in?). Correct? 

Just how do you get the centre of effort far enough from the centre of bouyancy to right the boat when the wing is now vertical? Moving the weight about inside the wing doesn't do anything constructive towards moving the C-o-E towards where it needs to be, because it - the wing - is now vertical.

Righting a traditional dinghy, and I know that you will respond that Crossbow-fl isn't a traditional dinghy, requires weight on the end of the extended centre- or dagger-board. That's usually a human.

It works because the buoyancy of the wing is several times that required to float the ballast. If the wing is extended max to windward and the boat knocked down, the crew can simply move the joystick to immerse the wing(helped by the weight in the wing). As the wing is immersed it pivots about the fore and aft axis moving the immersed CB of the wing  to increase righting moment. The boat will start to right itself from the point that the lee wingtip is immersed. This has been tested on a model and works well. No ballast keel necessary.....

The wing will move fast enough that the crew could move it during the knockdown, likely preventing the boat from ever reaching 90 degrees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

It works because the buoyancy of the wing is several times that required to float the ballast. If the wing is extended max to windward and the boat knocked down, the crew can simply move the joystick to immerse the wing(helped by the weight in the wing). As the wing is immersed it pivots about the fore and aft axis moving the immersed CB of the wing  to increase righting moment. The boat will start to right itself from the point that the lee wingtip is immersed. This has been tested on a model and works well. No ballast keel necessary.....

The wing will move fast enough that the crew could move it during the knockdown, likely preventing the boat from ever reaching 90 degrees. 

Jesus that’s funny. The weight helps move the sealed ballast thingy down? You realize that the one thing going for your sealed mini-ama was it’s floats. And now your going to sink it?

stick to models. No one dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you should realize*, the weight helps the wing move down(from max up) when the boat is at 90 degrees**. Power is required to use the wing to right the boat-manual or electric. But you knew that, right?!

*No, after all this you still don't get it.........

** The question about a knockdown assumes the wing is max out to windward and the boat is knocked over 90 degrees resulting in the wing sticking up if the crew didn't move it during the knock down. From that position the weight helps the wing go down but power is required to push the wing down far enough to right the boat.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:
4 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

It works because the buoyancy of the wing is several times that required to float the ballast. If the wing is extended max to windward and the boat knocked down, the crew can simply move the joystick to immerse the wing(helped by the weight in the wing). As the wing is immersed it pivots about the fore and aft axis moving the immersed CB of the wing  to increase righting moment. The boat will start to right itself from the point that the lee wingtip is immersed. This has been tested on a model and works well. No ballast keel necessary.....

The wing will move fast enough that the crew could move it during the knockdown, likely preventing the boat from ever reaching 90 degrees. 

Jesus that’s funny. The weight helps move the sealed ballast thingy down? You realize that the one thing going for your sealed mini-ama was it’s floats. And now your going to sink it?

stick to models. No one dies.

You just don't appreciate the genius of it all......... the wing+ ballast is safe because the bouyancy of the wing is many times the weight of the ballast, and yet the bouyant wing submerses easily because of the weight of the ballast!

Completing a working prototype of Doug Lord's sailing contraption will be the first step of the world's first practical perpetual-motion machine!

BTW Doug have you spec'd the actuators needed to drive this wing back & forth and round & round etc etc? And not only have the power necessary to pull the boat upright (got a calculation for that, in ft/lbs or whatever other measurement you like), but also to move the ballast super-quick for hi-performance sailing?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

You just don't appreciate the genius of it all......... the wing+ ballast is safe because the bouyancy of the wing is many times the weight of the ballast,and yet the bouyant wing submerses easily because of the weight of the ballast!

Completing a working prototype of Doug Lord's sailing contraption will be the first step of the world's first practical perpetual-motion machine!

BTW Doug have you spec'd the actuators needed to drive this wing back & forth ? And not only have the power necessary to pull the boat upright (got a calculation for that, in ft/lbs or whatever other measurement you like), but also to move the ballast super-quick for hi-performance sailing?

-DSK

What a stupid half-ass distortion of what I said!!

Yes.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Doug Lord said:
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

BTW Doug have you spec'd the actuators needed to drive this wing back & forth ? And not only have the power necessary to pull the boat upright (got a calculation for that, in ft/lbs or whatever other measurement you like), but also to move the ballast super-quick for hi-performance sailing?

-DSK

What a stupid half-ass distortion of what I said!!

Yes.

And?

You've had your specs on weight questioned several times, generally you respond by attacking the questioner. Actuators and trunnions and bearings are heavy.

What actuators would you use? How do you plan to incorporate these features into a boat which ends up being lighter than most hi-performance sailboats that don't have them?

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

" . ballast+ wing can be moved manually or electrically faster than a crew on a trapeze could move. "

Doug, this is very hard to believe.

 

That's why I asked about actuators. I have some experience with various kinds, in industry........  seems likely to be heavy and a power hog, if there is one that can meet his specs at all. And it's going to be kinda spendy, too.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience with electrical stuff in small, wet boats in salt water leads me to the conclusion that it is a huge hassle to keep the electrical stuff from corroding and shorting out. It will either fail a lot or require tons of maintenance to keep it all alive. And honestly, this boat appears to me to be the answer to a question nobody is asking. It doesn't appear to do anything a Weta can't do at a sixth of the cost. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

As you should realize*, the weight helps the wing move down(from max up) when the boat is at 90 degrees**. Power is required to use the wing to right the boat-manual or electric. But you knew that, right?!

*No, after all this you still don't get it.........

** The question about a knockdown assumes the wing is max out to windward and the boat is knocked over 90 degrees resulting in the wing sticking up if the crew didn't move it during the knock down. From that position the weight helps the wing go down but power is required to push the wing down far enough to right the boat.

Weight helps the wing go down. You realize that means it counters what your trying to do...  but you’re an idiot so I guess, no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MisterMoon said:

My experience with electrical stuff in small, wet boats in salt water leads me to the conclusion that it is a huge hassle to keep the electrical stuff from corroding and shorting out. It will either fail a lot or require tons of maintenance to keep it all alive. And honestly, this boat appears to me to be the answer to a question nobody is asking. It doesn't appear to do anything a Weta can't do at a sixth of the cost. 

 

Thats interesting. There are sailboats like the Martin 16, SKUD, and quite a few others designed for people with some disabilities that very successfully use electrical equipment for steering, sheeting etc. Depends on how it's designed. The Crossbow fl wing will move ballast  center to 12' out in about  2-3 seconds and do it all day for two days w/o recharging. The new system will even be more efficient and a little quicker-and may be radio controlled. The Ballast Mover spreadsheet is in the boatdesign thread but it's a little dated but interesting to fool with.

Oh, and Crossbow fl is rightable by the crew with very little hand movement(no body movement, no swimming) , or ,probably optionally, automatically neither of which the Weta can do! And the Crossbow fl won't turtle like the Weta does.

The key is speed and moving up to 78lb.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Weight helps the wing go down. You realize that means it counters what your trying to do...  but you’re an idiot so I guess, no

You just don't get it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you just said outright that the objective of the boat was to create an earnestly fun boat for disabled sailors, this would be a good deal better received. It seems that you're asserting to everyone that sailing will be revolutionized by restricting free motion and requiring a seatbelt. This rankles many, but is rarely the focus of discussion.

DRC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave Clark said:

If you just said outright that the objective of the boat was to create an earnestly fun boat for disabled sailors, this would be a good deal better received. It seems that you're asserting to everyone that sailing will be revolutionized by restricting free motion and requiring a seatbelt. This rankles many, but is rarely the focus of discussion.

DRC

I tried this with him, and I agree with you. But nope, I got lambasted that I just didn’t see the future for all sailors.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

It works because the buoyancy of the wing is several times that required to float the ballast. If the wing is extended max to windward and the boat knocked down, the crew can simply move the joystick to immerse the wing(helped by the weight in the wing). As the wing is immersed it pivots about the fore and aft axis moving the immersed CB of the wing  to increase righting moment. The boat will start to right itself from the point that the lee wingtip is immersed. This has been tested on a model and works well. No ballast keel necessary.....

The wing will move fast enough that the crew could move it during the knockdown, likely preventing the boat from ever reaching 90 degrees. 

So you have the masthead at water level, and your magic weighted, but buoyant, wing lifts the hull out of the water. Where's the CoG? How do you stop water ingress into this supremely clever device that slides athwartships and fore/aft AND has ballast moving about inside it? Where's the power source? Where are the motors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dave Clark said:

If you just said outright that the objective of the boat was to create an earnestly fun boat for disabled sailors, this would be a good deal better received. It seems that you're asserting to everyone that sailing will be revolutionized by restricting free motion and requiring a seatbelt. This rankles many, but is rarely the focus of discussion.

DRC

I have never said the boat would require a seatbelt!!!! Further, I've said words to the effect that this boat would be an earnestly fun boat for all sailors-not just disabled sailors.

From post 11:

Crossbow fl is not specifically directed at handicapped sailors-it is directed at all sailors that would enjoy a spectacular new way to sail a monohull fast without the physical demands of current performance monohulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GBRNoah said:

So you have the masthead at water level, and your magic weighted, but buoyant, wing lifts the hull out of the water. Where's the CoG? How do you stop water ingress into this supremely clever device that slides athwartships and fore/aft AND has ballast moving about inside it? Where's the power source? Where are the motors?

It's not magic-its science!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Doug Lord said:

It's not magic-its science!

So answer the damn questions then!

Where's the CoG?

How do you stop water ingress into this supremely clever device that slides athwartships and fore/aft AND has ballast moving about inside it?

Where's the power source?

Where are the motors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when dinghy anarchy used to be a safe place from the fool of foils and bathtub toys, LOL.  Just FYI, the ignore function still works great!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 4:18 PM, Doug Lord said:

Crossbow fl 2018 

Summary of Features and Specifications:
-------------------------------
Features:
1) Self-bailing cockpit
2) Boat rightable from 90+ degree knockdown by crew w/o crew movement using the wing regardless of the position of the sliding ballast.
a. ballast wing is sealed and has buoyancy much greater than that required to float the ballast sliding inside.
b. ballast+ wing can be moved electrically faster than a crew on a trapeze could move. NEW- Single electric motor inside boat attached to line from each end of wing allows very fast athwartship movement. Battery inside boat with enough capacity for two days sailing w/o recharging with very frequent wing movement. With a 14' wing , ballast moves 12' to windward of the heeled CB. Total RM from 14' wing=1083ft.lb. Total RM wing+ crew=1583 ft.lb. Line from center of boat, each side, to sealed roller and from roller to ballast allows weight to move when wing is moved. Basic wing control system has been tested on several RC boats over 20+ years and works extremely well. Control is the same as on an rc version using a weatherproof joystick.

3) Rig utilizes modified rotating, A Class wing mast, sealed with masthead buoyancy to prevent turtling,
4) Ballast wing pivots:
a. to allow trailering
b. to move ballast aft when required with wing extension.
c. also pivots athwartship to keep weight low to windward and to keep lee side of wing clear of water.
5) Ballast is adjustable in 10lb increments via watertight hatch. NEW
6) Boat can be sailed off a beach,
7) Boat features an asymetrical spinnaker, an underdeck spinnaker chute and retractable bow pole,
8) Seating arrangement: (NEW 2013) .
a. The skipper will sit relatively low in the boat on a seat that will manually or electrically rotate 180 degrees. This will allow the skipper to steer with his or her aft hand and handle the single sheet and Trapeze Power Ballast System with their forward hand. For Class racing weight equal to the difference between 250lb. and the skippers weight will be carried in a ballast compartment under the seat. 250lb is the maximum crew weight for racing.
9) Large, buoyant "spray rails" act to help provide a dry ride and knockdown recovery,
10) Self-tending jib with variation of Swift solo single sheet system.
11) Boat uses removable, "plug-in" DSS foils for greatly increased power to carry sail with speed.
12) The new changes effectively "turbo" the boat even allowing for windward planing.
13) Boat has an extremely wide crew weight range: approx 100lb to 250lb for normal sailing. All ratios are based on 250lb crew and would drastically improve with lighter crew weight. For class racing, it would be my desire to see a class adopt the maximum crew weight as standard with lighter crew carrying weight under the seat-or perhaps two "weight classes"-whatever it takes to encourage the widest participation.
-------------
Specifications: (changes are to be expected)
Hull length-15.6' 
Beam- 4.75'
---at waterline-3.75'
Sail Area-(boat will use a carbon A Class wing mast from Matt McDonald/ Falcon Marine LLC, laid up specifically for this boat).
--upwind- 161 sq.ft.
-- downwind- 290 sq.ft.
Weight-sailing weight w/o crew- 223lb which includes:
--hull, rig, foils-124lb (target)
--Trapeze Power Ballast System:
---wing-21lb. @ 12'-16' length overall, pivots for transport, and moving weight aft.
--- max ballast 78lb(8 pieces of lead-removable-.25" X 8" X 12"-about 9.72lb each)
Max Crew weight: 250lb-boat is designed as a singlehander.
All up sailing weight including crew-473lb
DSS Foils: each 1.63 sq.ft.( 6" X 39") 6.5/1 aspect ratio, Welbourn section.
Electrical System for moving ballast: Engineered by Rick Willoughby, who did the original "ballast mover" spread sheet.
-------
Ratios-
see Eric Sponbergs Design Ratio's PDF below
-------------
DLR=55.6 
---
SA/D=
--upwind-42.48
--downwind- 76.78
---
SA/ws-
--3.7/1 
--3.48/1 including DSS foil
---
SCP/Total weight= .3 and .34 if upwind RM from DSS foil is counted.
===========

 

Attached Files:

  •  

Crossbow fl 161SA + one ft 2 (1).jpg

Crossbow fl-primer 006.JPG

Crossbow fl 161SA + one ft 2 (1).jpg

Crossbow fl-primer 006.JPG

 

Updated spec sheet above. This is preliminary information and will not be complete until a fullsize prototype is built and tested. The basic concept of the boat and sailing with a Trapeze Power Ballast System has been tested with RC models over the last 20+ years.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Doug Lord said:

 

Updated spec sheet above.

I still don't see any spec for the batteries or the actuators, both of which are major components.

A back-of-envelope sketch is great for laying out general concepts and configuration, but this is not a design. A DESIGN includes materials, layup schedule (and/or req moments of inertia), for a mechanical assembly like the trunnions, slides, and actuators it must include a force diagram, some dimensions (don't forget the square surface area of foils, that's kinda important)....... this is just a childish kludge.

If one of my high school sailing students had come to me with this, I'd be glad to go over it bit by bit and show him what is needed to produce a working design. An adult pretending to be a designer who won't answer basic questions?

-DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if everyone actively avoided this thread it would probably go away. What’s the point of arguing with someone who actively refuses to listen or participate in a non-hostile way? There’s a point where it’s not worth the effort

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

It's not magic-its science!

actually, it's engineering. And in this case, it's missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgmckim said:

You know, if everyone actively avoided this thread it would probably go away. What’s the point of arguing with someone who actively refuses to listen or participate in a non-hostile way? There’s a point where it’s not worth the effort

Interesting comment from someone who said this as his major contribution to the conversation:

"the good old cult of innovation. let's all strive for moonshot reinventions to solve problems that were solved decades ago!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, I started sailing canoes 3 years ago. Before that it was all trapeze.

What you are describing is a motorized canoe plank.

What you are totally missing is, well, everything actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Doug, I started sailing canoes 3 years ago. Before that it was all trapeze.

What you are describing is a motorized canoe plank.

What you are totally missing is, well, everything actually.

Wow! Really insightful-sounds like you really know your stuff.....

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame you-I don't see how that thing rights itself either..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 9:56 AM, Doug Lord said:

Key facts that are ignored or overlooked about the technical aspects of the Crossbow fl Trapeze Power Ballast System:

1) The wing is shaped to reduce aerodynamic drag.

2) The ballast is sealed inside the watertight wing. It is accessible and can be reduced or increased thru a watertight access hatch.

3) The wing and ballast move simultaneously  allowing the ballast to wind up around 12' to windward of the CL of the boat.

4) The wing will keep the boat upright even with the ballast max out to lee(or to windward). In the event of a knockdown the wing can be used to right the boat. The buoyancy of the wing is many times greater than that needed to float the ballast.

5) The wing/ballast combo will move faster than any human crew from side to side,max out to max out.

6) Battery capacity will be enough for at least two 12 hour days of racing with frequent system use.

7) The sealed ballast wing pivots about a vertical axis and about a horizontal axis running fore and aft:

a. the wing pivots about a vertical axis to move weight aft and for trailering.

b. the wing pivots about the horizontal, fore and aft axis to allow the windward end of the wing to drop a bit(and the leeward end to rise) as the wing/ballast combo is moved to windward. This same movement is automatically reversed should the immersed wing be moved to leeward helping to right the boat. 

8) The wing-tips contain one cubic foot of buoyancy and are shaped to provide dynamic lift in the event of incidental contact with the water at speed.

Crossbow fl-primer 006.JPG

FS--Maybe this will help--or not.......

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last post didn't help, huh? Try studying #7 and # 8.............

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

Well, Doug, perhaps you could do a better sketch of your boat, showing how it rights itself then?

 

1 hour ago, Doug Lord said:

My last post didn't help, huh? Try studying #7 and # 8.............

Nope, it did not.

Words, words, words.
Show me the maths or it is all just words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand the "words", but you would understand the math? Rigiiiiht, I just bet you would...........

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Doug, there is a difference between "not getting it" and "not buying it."  Not Getting it means that we don't perceive the merits of the concept, not buying it means that we believe there are significant structural and practical problems which we doubt can be solved in a satisfactory way. Regardless of my previous post, which ignored the sliding of the wing, I understand what you are trying to do, but I believe there are problems to which you either don't accept, refuse to recognize, or simply deny are problems.

I guess it depends on the purpose of the exercise. Are you trying to design a product which can be sold and built in numbers? Are you just trying to prove a point or are you expecting us to cheer  as you flog your dolphin on the internet.  Boats with 14' beam are logistically difficult to manage.  The Hobie Trifoiler and the Windrider Rave were limited as to where they could be launched and recovered.  Most launching ramps are designed to accommodate boats that can be trailered without special permits. So just a bit over 8'.  The C Class, at 14' is very restricted in where it can be based simply because the the boat is so wide.  You cannot sail down in between the docks in a marina and have room to stop at the end. So beam, while an easy way to enhance stability, does not come without penalty in use.  Fast Yacht and others have attempted to share their experience with a small boat that has a 7' long sliding seat which alternately extends 5' from each rail.  These boats are trouble when the infrastructure isn't compatible with their characteristics. This can be as simple as the freeboard of the floats.  But there are excellent sailing venues which are compatible with the IC simply because of the seat and the constraints it places on how we sail the boat.

So I think your 14"+ proposed sliding wing will present use problems. I base this on experience with 14" wide catamarans , boats with sliding seats and boats with hiking racks. 

There are also structural problems with you wing system as you have described it.  I think this is because you fundamentally don't understand how the IC seat works and why. The problem isn't holding the seat up, it is keeping it connected to the boat, The foundations of an IC seat carriage are significant and suitably massive to survive full impact with waves at 15+knots.  This imparts a backward and upward moment into the structure which is not expected by novice engineers. If you expect the CrossbowFL to perform in the same realm as the IC, these moments will be much larger and more difficult to contain.  It is not hard to imagine the tragic consequences of the wing rotating aft toward the sailor when the windward foundation sheers away.

Finally there are things that don't scale very effectively because of the constraints of modeling.  Absolute mass effects how you do things. The Moth launching techniques work because the boat is so light and small. The Waszp is the same size, but the additional; weight makes launching and recovering a totally different problem and introduces difficulties which don't affect the Moth, which in turn requires different compromises.  My 50% bigger Moth had these problems, I could not hold the boat upright while swimming next to it because the rig was too tall and heavy and exceeded the buoyancy of my body and life jacket. On a Moth this dowesn't happen just because of the mass of the objects involved.  So while models are very useful, they don't answer all questions. Any model which can be handled by a human being is hundreds of times stronger than the full size vessel will be simply because we can't actually scale structures unless we start breaking yarns of carbon fiber down. 

I actually have a useful suggestion which may appeal to you.  It seems to me that after reading your posts for all these years that you really want to ride on one of your models.  You are trying to design boats on which you can sit securely and still go like hell.  I would venture to say that you are obsessed by this vision, but haven't been able to realize it for any number of reasons.  Have you considered POV goggles like the drone guys use? This could make your sailing a more immersive experience (yuk yuk) and could possibly be used by other boat modelers.  The drone races happen with POV goggles, why not sailing races? Suitably waterproofed with sight lines where you need them, could provide another whole dimension to thumb yachting.

SHC

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and by the way Doug, Fastyacht happens to be a professional Naval Architect and engineer currently employed in the field.  So don't dis his fucking math skills. Peoples lives depend on him getting this shit right,  and he can be held liable for mistakes. Tat was a dick thing to say.

SHC

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steve Clark said:

 

Doug, there is a difference between "not getting it" and "not buying it."  Not Getting it means that we don't perceive the merits of the concept, not buying it means that we believe there are significant structural and practical problems which we doubt can be solved in a satisfactory way. Regardless of my previous post, which ignored the sliding of the wing, I understand what you are trying to do, but I believe there are problems to which you either don't accept, refuse to recognize, or simply deny are problems.

I guess it depends on the purpose of the exercise. Are you trying to design a product which can be sold and built in numbers? Are you just trying to prove a point or are you expecting us to cheer  as you flog your dolphin on the internet.  Boats with 14' beam are logistically difficult to manage.  The Hobie Trifoiler and the Windrider Rave were limited as to where they could be launched and recovered.  Most launching ramps are designed to accommodate boats that can be trailered without special permits. So just a bit over 8'.  The C Class, at 14' is very restricted in where it can be based simply because the the boat is so wide.  You cannot sail down in between the docks in a marina and have room to stop at the end. So beam, while an easy way to enhance stability, does not come without penalty in use.  Fast Yacht and others have attempted to share their experience with a small boat that has a 7' long sliding seat which alternately extends 5' from each rail.  These boats are trouble when the infrastructure isn't compatible with their characteristics. This can be as simple as the freeboard of the floats.  But there are excellent sailing venues which are compatible with the IC simply because of the seat and the constraints it places on how we sail the boat.

So I think your 14"+ proposed sliding wing will present use problems. I base this on experience with 14" wide catamarans , boats with sliding seats and boats with hiking racks. 

There are also structural problems with you wing system as you have described it.  I think this is because you fundamentally don't understand how the IC seat works and why. The problem isn't holding the seat up, it is keeping it connected to the boat, The foundations of an IC seat carriage are significant and suitably massive to survive full impact with waves at 15+knots.  This imparts a backward and upward moment into the structure which is not expected by novice engineers. If you expect the CrossbowFL to perform in the same realm as the IC, these moments will be much larger and more difficult to contain.  It is not hard to imagine the tragic consequences of the wing rotating aft toward the sailor when the windward foundation sheers away.

Finally there are things that don't scale very effectively because of the constraints of modeling.  Absolute mass effects how you do things. The Moth launching techniques work because the boat is so light and small. The Waszp is the same size, but the additional; weight makes launching and recovering a totally different problem and introduces difficulties which don't affect the Moth, which in turn requires different compromises.  My 50% bigger Moth had these problems, I could not hold the boat upright while swimming next to it because the rig was too tall and heavy and exceeded the buoyancy of my body and life jacket. On a Moth this dowesn't happen just because of the mass of the objects involved.  So while models are very useful, they don't answer all questions. Any model which can be handled by a human being is hundreds of times stronger than the full size vessel will be simply because we can't actually scale structures unless we start breaking yarns of carbon fiber down. 

I actually have a useful suggestion which may appeal to you.  It seems to me that after reading your posts for all these years that you really want to ride on one of your models.  You are trying to design boats on which you can sit securely and still go like hell.  I would venture to say that you are obsessed by this vision, but haven't been able to realize it for any number of reasons.  Have you considered POV goggles like the drone guys use? This could make your sailing a more immersive experience (yuk yuk) and could possibly be used by other boat modelers.  The drone races happen with POV goggles, why not sailing races? Suitably waterproofed with sight lines where you need them, could provide another whole dimension to thumb yachting.

SHC

 

 

So, no Japanese Bullet Train then? Dang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

Wow! Really insightful-sounds like you really know your stuff.....

You really are thoroughly pig ignorant in how you converse with people when trying to demonstrate your designs. Or are you in a constant state of denial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

FS--Maybe this will help--or not.......

No, it’s just the same regurgitated crap from many other posts. Do you save time by just copying and pasting from the same 5-10 templates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Steve- thanks for the comments. With models you have to know what you can and can't scale up accurately, that's for sure. The structural and safety requirements of the wing have been considered long ago and continue to be looked at very carefully. The wing retaining system is very strong with back-up. The Crossbow fl has much more freeboard than the IC but wave impacts have been considered from day one- thanks in part to Julian Bethwaite and others including you.

The wing rotates for trailering or stowage-see 18' Trapwing model pix below.

This comment I disagree with emphatically: 

"Regardless of my previous post, which ignored the sliding of the wing, I understand what you are trying to do, but I believe there are problems to which you either don't accept, refuse to recognize, or simply deny are problems."

The only reason there is to post about this project on SA is to try to learn as much as I can amid the overflowing horseshit that is part of this experience. I wouldn't waste my time if I didn't think the benefits outweigh the crap.

--------------------------------------------------

Fastyachts comments have mostly been asinine-not worth a shit as best I can tell........If he acts professionally as he does anonymously I pity his clients.

Crossbow fl trapwing early idea.JPG

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, as usual has just answered in a far more eloquent and patient way than most of us here. 

Might be worth listening to him Doug. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Doug Lord said:

Thanks, Steve- thanks for the comments. With models you have to know what you can and can't scale up accurately, that's for sure. The structural and safety requirements of the wing have been considered long ago and continue to be looked at very carefully. The wing retaining system is very strong with back-up. The Crossbow fl has much more freeboard than the IC but wave impacts have been considered from day one- thanks in part to Julian Bethwaite and others including you.

The wing rotates for trailering or stowage-see 18' Trapwing model pix below.

This comment I disagree with emphatically: 

"Regardless of my previous post, which ignored the sliding of the wing, I understand what you are trying to do, but I believe there are problems to which you either don't accept, refuse to recognize, or simply deny are problems."

The only reason there is to post about this project on SA is to try to learn as much as I can amid the overflowing horseshit that is part of this experience. I wouldn't waste my time if I didn't think the benefits outweigh the crap.

--------------------------------------------------

Fastyachts comments have mostly been asinine-not worth a shit as best I can tell........If he acts professionally as he does anonymously I pity his clients.

Crossbow fl trapwing early idea.JPG

Quoted, for quite possibly the biggest and most ignorant statement in years from you Doug. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mad said:

You really are thoroughly pig ignorant in how you converse with people when trying to demonstrate your designs. Or are you in a constant state of denial?

Nothing has changed in over 10 years with him, nor those that try to guide him in the right direction. :blink:

Please stop communicating with him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FishAintBiting said:

Nothing has changed in over 10 years with him, nor those that try to guide him in the right direction. :blink:

Please stop communicating with him!

Every now and again we all have to say something, you don’t have to read if you don’t feel like it. Or post a reply. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steve Clark said:

Doug, 

Are you presenting your projects at Foiling Week in Miami next month. Would seem like a great opportunity very close to your home.

SHC

No but I sure wish I could take Fire Arrow and the WOLF concept model-it's just unfortunately impossible. Are you guys taking the UFO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastyacht said:

No comment.

Doug, you don't need my help. You can't afford me. And I'm done giving you free advice.Insert other media

Maybe, maybe not------I would have enjoyed having an intelligent conversation with you, but your post 140 changed all that........

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Doug Lord said:

No but I sure wish I could take Fire Arrow and the WOLF concept model-it's just unfortunately impossible. Are you guys taking the UFO?

Someone help out the Dougie and get his models to the event. 10 years in the closet and it’s time for prime-time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, just wondering about the sliding ballast... If I read correctly it is a rectangular lead plug up to 4" x 8" or 4" x 12" in cross section (depending on which way it is oriented within the wing) weighing up to 78 lb. Will it not be resisted by (among other things) friction from the displaced air as the ballast moves like a piston through the sealed tube, "faster than crew on a trapeze"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Clark said:

Oh, and by the way Doug, Fastyacht happens to be a professional Naval Architect and engineer currently employed in the field.  So don't dis his fucking math skills. Peoples lives depend on him getting this shit right,  and he can be held liable for mistakes. Tat was a dick thing to say.

SHC

He's also sailed a real live boat with a sliding ballast system, which Doug Lord has not.

Steve I think your suggestion about mating POV goggles to a sailing model is great. Next best thing to having Stuart Little sail it for you.

 

10 minutes ago, thengling said:

Doug, just wondering about the sliding ballast... If I read correctly it is a rectangular lead plug up to 4" x 8" or 4" x 12" in cross section (depending on which way it is oriented within the wing) weighing up to 78 lb. Will it not be resisted by (among other things) friction from the displaced air as the ballast moves like a piston through the sealed tube, "faster than crew on a trapeze"?

Well, one way to do it would be to have the BATTERY be the ballast, have a level sensor control an air pump mounted with the battery, and use air pressure to move it back & forth. That would simplify things a good deal in terms of the sensor and actuator system.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be there supporting the ETS C Class team. They are testing their new platform, won't have foils, but there is lots to prove before they take flight.

UFOs will fly through between othe gigs.

You ought to move heaven and earth to take advantage of this opportunity, which really could not be more convenient.

Demonstrating the boats in public is the best way to respond to criticism.

It's how I do it.

SHC

I always wanted to BE Stuart Little. When I was a kid, one of my favorite things was to swim next to a model. With my eyes at water level I could really imagine that model I had designed and built was full size.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, one way to do it would be to have the BATTERY be the ballast, have a level sensor control an air pump mounted with the battery, and use air pressure to move it back & forth. That would simplify things a good deal in terms of the sensor and actuator system.

I was thinking along air pressure management lines as well -- but the battery bit is brilliant. Maybe help save on excessive weight from secondary components.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thengling said:
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, one way to do it would be to have the BATTERY be the ballast, have a level sensor control an air pump mounted with the battery, and use air pressure to move it back & forth. That would simplify things a good deal in terms of the sensor and actuator system.

I was thinking along air pressure management lines as well -- but the battery bit is brilliant. Maybe help save on excessive weight from secondary components.

Well, we don't know what battery the amazing genius has in mind for this. It may be one of those new hi-tech batteries that you not only can pull a big amp draw, all of a sudden, but also has lots of effective storage capacity; maybe it even has the ability to become buoyant when you push a button.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, we don't know what battery the amazing genius has in mind for this. It may be one of those new hi-tech batteries that you not only can pull a big amp draw, all of a sudden, but also has lots of effective storage capacity; maybe it even has the ability to become buoyant when you push a button.

-DSK

It’s an antigravity battery. Heavy when you need to sink the capsize safety float, then gets light so the capsize safety float can work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thengling said:

Doug, just wondering about the sliding ballast... If I read correctly it is a rectangular lead plug up to 4" x 8" or 4" x 12" in cross section (depending on which way it is oriented within the wing) weighing up to 78 lb. Will it not be resisted by (among other things) friction from the displaced air as the ballast moves like a piston through the sealed tube, "faster than crew on a trapeze"?

It won't be a lead "plug" and won't compress air. It will only move about 4 mph which is 5.86' per second. I've considered a radio controlled version with the motor, battery and receiver in with the ballast. But for now it takes up too much room.

I'm doing a completely independent model version where the Trapeze Power Ballast System has its own separate receiver and battery making it completely independent of the "normal" boat receiver and battery. Both use the same transmitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean Kamen might have actually changed the world with the Segway if he'd given it a 3rd wheel and a $800 price tag instead of throwing tech at a non-existent problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

It won't be a lead "plug" and won't compress air. It will only move about 4 mph which is 5.86' per second. I've considered a radio controlled version with the motor, battery and receiver in with the ballast. But for now it takes up too much room.

I'm doing a completely independent model version where the Trapeze Power Ballast System has its own separate receiver and battery making it completely independent of the "normal" boat receiver and battery. Both use the same transmitter.

So not showing off the invention at foil week. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dex Sawash said:

Dean Kamen might have actually changed the world with the Segway if he'd given it a 3rd wheel and a $800 price tag instead of throwing tech at a non-existent problem.

DL, don't be like the Segway owner

Segway owner, Jim Heselden, who died after apparently driving one of the company's vehicles of the cliff of his English estate, did not actually invent his firm's signature product. That honor goes to Dean Kamen. But with the news of his accidental death garnering so much attention, Wikipedia has put together a list of inventors who perished using their own inventors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:
5 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

It won't be a lead "plug" and won't compress air. It will only move about 4 mph which is 5.86' per second. I've considered a radio controlled version with the motor, battery and receiver in with the ballast. But for now it takes up too much room.

I'm doing a completely independent model version where the Trapeze Power Ballast System has its own separate receiver and battery making it completely independent of the "normal" boat receiver and battery. Both use the same transmitter.

So not showing off the invention at foil week. Sad.

Actually, it is sad. I would like to think that Doug Lord is not a tedious under-educated wanker. His enthusiasm is great, but the fact that he wants to put foils on anything/everything without actually understanding how foils work, and then get snarky with people who comment or in many cases try to explain; while piling impractical "innovations" on top of his "designs" while rejecting any hints about how to arrive at an actual real-live sho-nuf DESIGN that would be accepted as such and could possibly even be built. And of course posting the photos of the same models over and over and over.

There is certainly plenty of room at the table. If Doug Lord were serious, he'd be doing anything he could to get to Foil Week, as well as sucking up to Bora and the Clarks and others who have actual knowledge of how to really sail with foils. He came up with the phrase "Peoples Foiler" which I think is kinda cool, now Dave Clark has actually designed and built and is producing a Peoples Foiler...... DL could learn a lot but he won't because he doesn't want to FOIL he wants to sit on his ass and be crowned the Internet King of Foiling while not bothering to actually study and learn how foils work.

Powered sliding ballast system..... great, he's only about the dozenth person (that I know of) in history to think of this, and he -could- make a full-size unit to clamp/strap onto the gun'ls of a common one-design and TRY IT OUT for real. But he won't, because he's a tedious wanker (see above)

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

The only reason there is to post about this project on SA is to try to learn as much as I can amid the overflowing horseshit that is part of this experience. I wouldn't waste my time if I didn't think the benefits outweigh the crap.

17 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

-I would have enjoyed having an intelligent conversation with you,

You are truly delusional. You make no attempt to learn. If anybody asks a difficult question or provides a contrary point of view, rather than engage in discussion, you dismiss it or attack the person. The more they try to engage and persist, the more nasty you get with your attacks.

Fastyacht is a case in point. Let's be clear. Your attitude is what led to his attitude towards you. You take advantage at him using a pseudonym to attack is credibility, when if his real identity was known, you would look stupid just like you do when you dismiss Steve Clark's comments with any justification.

19 hours ago, mad said:

This comment I disagree with emphatically: 

"Regardless of my previous post, which ignored the sliding of the wing, I understand what you are trying to do, but I believe there are problems to which you either don't accept, refuse to recognize, or simply deny are problems."

If you post to learn, gain feedback and hope to get useful comment, you cannot simply dismiss comments like this. You demonstrate this all the time. 

20 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

The wing rotates for trailering or stowage-see 18' Trapwing model pix below.

This completely ignores most of what Steve Clark said about the issues of launching  and sailing a wide boat. Transport logistics were a minor comment.

20 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

The structural and safety requirements of the wing have been considered long ago and continue to be looked at very carefully. The wing retaining system is very strong with back-up.

Another example of your inability to engage in a discussion. Steve highlighted a real issue and you simply dismiss it with words. I agree with Steve. I do not see how the wing can survive the loads placed on it while being able to pivot the way you show in your photo. Freeboard doesn't negate the issues as it does not eliminate the problem, as you admit. Reducing the times an event happens doesn't change the loads when the event does happen.

20 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

You don't understand the "words",

I was always taught that if somebody doesn't understand what you say (or write), the starting point is to consider that your words weren't sufficient to enable to person to understand. In this case, this is certainly true because Fastyacht is not the only one who doesn't understand how your righting system is meant to work. Others have said as much and I will say it now. Your description makes no sense to enough of us to suggest you need to improve your description if you want people to understand. How can we have the "inteligent conversation" you want if we cannot even understand what you are saying? The way you describe the system makes me believe that the system won't self right and actually it stands a chance of turtling the boat, but maybe that is because you don't describe it properly.

If you want to be taken seriously, engage in serious discussion, but in the many years you have posted on here, that has never happened..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Team_GBR said:

You are truly delusional. You make no attempt to learn. If anybody asks a difficult question or provides a contrary point of view, rather than engage in discussion, you dismiss it or attack the person. The more they try to engage and persist, the more nasty you get with your attacks.

Fastyacht is a case in point. Let's be clear. Your attitude is what led to his attitude towards you. You take advantage at him using a pseudonym to attack is credibility, when if his real identity was known, you would look stupid just like you do when you dismiss Steve Clark's comments with any justification.

If you post to learn, gain feedback and hope to get useful comment, you cannot simply dismiss comments like this. You demonstrate this all the time. 

This completely ignores most of what Steve Clark said about the issues of launching  and sailing a wide boat. Transport logistics were a minor comment.

Another example of your inability to engage in a discussion. Steve highlighted a real issue and you simply dismiss it with words. I agree with Steve. I do not see how the wing can survive the loads placed on it while being able to pivot the way you show in your photo. Freeboard doesn't negate the issues as it does not eliminate the problem, as you admit. Reducing the times an event happens doesn't change the loads when the event does happen.

I was always taught that if somebody doesn't understand what you say (or write), the starting point is to consider that your words weren't sufficient to enable to person to understand. In this case, this is certainly true because Fastyacht is not the only one who doesn't understand how your righting system is meant to work. Others have said as much and I will say it now. Your description makes no sense to enough of us to suggest you need to improve your description if you want people to understand. How can we have the "inteligent conversation" you want if we cannot even understand what you are saying? The way you describe the system makes me believe that the system won't self right and actually it stands a chance of turtling the boat, but maybe that is because you don't describe it properly.

If you want to be taken seriously, engage in serious discussion, but in the many years you have posted on here, that has never happened..

Why did get dragged into this? That’s not my post you quoted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

That wasn't mad wh osaid that, it was DLord.
I think something went awry in the quotation algorythm. You can edit it to properly attribute DL

Thanks Fastyacht. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites