878 replies to this topic

[WCB]

WCB:
All members of National associations affiliated with IMCA are members of IMCA. In the US there are three moth associations afik, the traditional moths, the modern moths and the International Moths and I think only the last is affiliated with IMCA.

WWW:
No, in the soviet union only the party members got to vote on decisions affecting everyone. In IMCA all the members get to vote on things which affect them and only them. They do not get to vote in the Laser association unless they are also a member there. And no one outside the IMCA gets a vote on our decisions either.

Thanks Phil. I'm a member, or at least was in 2010 and have yet to re-up in 2011, in the US International Moth class. Time to pay my dues...

On another note, when you're bonding the rack tubes, how many carbon layers do you use? I'm working on the aft rack joint and so far I've bagged on two layers of 200g/m uni and I'm wondering how much further to go.

[spencerogden]

The rules do not really need to be changed to make wingrigs legal, but the measurement procedure does. That might be easy but there are other issues needing repair:
1. The present mast length limit of 6.25m...
2. The 90mm ring allowance...
3. Booms up to 90mm are presently un measured...
4. Luff pockets are not all counted. ...
Its all a bit inconsistant.

So while we think our rules are simple these problems occur in the details. These excepotion clauses were added over time to sort out various perceived difficulties. It seems that we now have the oportunity to remove the accumulated ambiguity rather than add more sub rules and exception clauses which might only add more confusion in the future.

A lot of these issues can be addressed by adoption of the ISAf manual as they have recommended but some adjustments will need to be made. Thes include adding retaining our mast length rule, retaining our luff length rule and having it apply to all measured area including wing masts and wing rigs. and counting all of the area and increasing the limit accordingly so that all present conventional rigs remain on maximum.

As one of the draftsman preparing the new proposals I would like to see our rules simpler and more easily interpreted, and applied, rather than adding clauses and making them more complex and open to different interpretations. The ISAF manual gives us that oportunity.

We can make a separate decision on whether we will ban wingrigs or limit the area of wing masts as well as whether slots will be allowed.

Phil, I'm a newer member, but I think this is a great direction to go in, simplification. I was quiet surprised when I first read the Moth rules to see all of the oddities you pointed out above. I can see how rules can grow like barnacles to patch individual issues as they come up, but at this point the rig rules seem to create more questions than they answer. The adoption of the ISAF Measuring Guide seems like a good first step.

Mast length seems like another arbitrary limit. I can understand wanting to limit overall rig height to avoid getting to crazy, and for traditional reasons think a limit should remain. But the current limit on "mast" lengths has just introduced further complexity with mast stumps. It seems the current restriction isn't good at limiting rig height.

Its been suggested before, but what about a bottom of the hull to tip, for end of foil to tip limit as a more direct way of limiting the size of the total package? This would seem to remove inconsistencies in the structure between soft and hard rigs, and more directly limit what is trying to be controlled. Does this idea have any traction?

[SimonN]

Phil

I have to both support and reiterate what you say about simplifying the rules. I know we don't agree on exactly how - you want to get rid of such rules as no cats - but it is essential that the Moth rules are as simple as they can be. Most people think that in a development class, the more complex a set of rules, the tighter the contro and the less probles. I think it is exactly the opposite and tight rules lead to more abuse and loopholes. In addition, people end up spending vast sums of money on very small gains.

In addition to simplicity, it is essential that one rule applies to all. We should not have something that says if it is a solid sail, it is subject to the following rules and if it is a soft sail, it is subject to another. I would also suggest that much can be gained through definitions rather than through pure rules The advantage of that is that it is easier to agree a new definition than it is to rewrite rules. Keep the rules simple!

Rob

We also need to accept that in order to ensure the survival of the class, the rules must be changed to clean up a number of issues related to the rig and the one sail rule.

This is way over dramaitic. The survival of the class is not at stake. Trust me. I have heard this sort of comment so many times about other things and the class is still here. Yes, this might effect the overall popularity of the class, but this is not life and death for the class.

I'm gravitating toward supporting a slotless solution as the best way forward. It should be able to be framed using a simple rule that still allows non-aerodynamic slots (e.g. banning a wing mast and jib but not a round mast and jib). C'est la vie. I don't think banning slots will affect any competitive boats other than the very small number of existing wings.

Trying to come up with a way of banning what you consider as undesirable slots but leaving desirable ones in has the potential to create a huge amount of trouble. What you need to do is decide whether you want wings or not. If you don't, it's easy to write the rules to ban them without much drama. For instance

Boats must have 1 sail and 1 mast

Definitions

Sail - Any part of the sail, except for battens and corner reinforcements (defined in ISAF rules) must be able to be folded through 180 degrees and the radius of the edge must be less than (say) 3 mm and return to its original form without damage.

Mast - A mast shall pivot around one single point and must be symetrical around the fore and aft centreline of the mast at all times. A mast must not be able to change its section. Only the area of that part of the spars that will not pass through a ring of 90 mm internal diameter shall be included in the overall sail area.

I believe that it is as simple as that. Maybe we need to tidy up the luff length rule as well.

HOWEVER, I am very much against this. I cannot see a problem in allowing wing development at this point in time. In fact, I have yet to hear/read a single decent argument as to why the class should ensure that wing sails are not allowed, breaking years of tradition as a development class. A wing dows not change the essence of the boat in the same way as allowing cats, sailboards or kiteboards would. The class has never banned something because it might make the class less popular. As said before, using that idea, foils would have been banned in the early days, because many people thought the boats would be too difficult to sail and even less people would sail them. I actually think that with a few years of development, wings wil be seen to be almost as practical as soft sails to be cheaper over time for most sailors. I see them as having the potential for being good for the class, rather than bad.

[RobG]

Mast length seems like another arbitrary limit. I can understand wanting to limit overall rig height to avoid getting to crazy, and for traditional reasons think a limit should remain. But the current limit on "mast" lengths has just introduced further complexity with mast stumps. It seems the current restriction isn't good at limiting rig height.

Its been suggested before, but what about a bottom of the hull to tip, for end of foil to tip limit as a more direct way of limiting the size of the total package? This would seem to remove inconsistencies in the structure between soft and hard rigs, and more directly limit what is trying to be controlled. Does this idea have any traction?

A simple height of rig rule is appealing, but separate luff and mast length rules are required too.

The rules need to cater for raked rigs, curved luffs and irregular shapes like a leading edge with tubercles. Note that at present there is a limit on luff length, but other parts of the sail may extend beyond that length.

So the mast length might be measured from the bottom of hull normal to the waterline up to the mast step, then along the leading edge of the mast to the tip. The luff length can remain, but it should apply to the leading edge of any element that contributes to total sail area. That will reduce the length of the wing component of a wing mast to the same maximum length as a sail luff and prevent trailing elements from having longer leading edges than the first element (where an element is any discrete component of the rig, not just those bits separated by slots).

--
Rob

[IC Nutter]

A simple height of rig rule is appealing, but separate luff and mast length rules are required too.

Rob

Why? Just bang two posts in the ground, lie the boat on its side with the rig up and main foil in and make sure it can pass between the posts.

[IC Nutter]

In fact, I have yet to hear/read a single decent argument as to why the class should ensure that wing sails are not allowed, breaking years of tradition as a development class.

SimonN,

You seem to be very concerned about this point. Is anyone actually seriously arguing that wings should be banned? I don't recall seeing anything on these pages to support that argument. Maybe it's a silent majority thing.

[RobS]

In fact, I have yet to hear/read a single decent argument as to why the class should ensure that wing sails are not allowed, breaking years of tradition as a development class.

SimonN,

You seem to be very concerned about this point. Is anyone actually seriously arguing that wings should be banned? I don't recall seeing anything on these pages to support that argument. Maybe it's a silent majority thing.

I suspect most of the actual moth sailors discuss their opinions on the future of moth wings face to face. It only seems to be those who don't sail moths that are arguing about it here.


I think it would be far more interesting getting SimonN's opinions of the potential use of wing sails in a class he sails such as the 18's (don't they still allow rig development?)

[RobG]

A simple height of rig rule is appealing, but separate luff and mast length rules are required too.

Rob

Why? Just bang two posts in the ground, lie the boat on its side with the rig up and main foil in and make sure it can pass between the posts.

Under such a system, a convex luff could be much longer than a straight luff. Also, mast height could be traded off for foil depth. There would be an advantage to making the depth of the hull minimal so that the length of mast is maximised, something like a windsurfer hull with a deck-scraping boom to maximise the aspect ratio while maintaining a reasonable foil depth.

The current mast limit is 6250 mm, foil strut length below the hull should be perhaps 1300 mm, so 7550 mm overall. A Moth for flat water could have foil struts only 600 mm long and a hull 150 mm thick, allowing the top of the rig to be 6800 mm above the deck and be sail all the way up. That would produce a very much higher aspect ratio rig than is possible now (max luff 5185 mm), the crew would probably tack around the back of the boom. Curving the luff and raking it back allows it to be even longer, while still fitting within 7550 mm.

I'm not saying that's bad per se, but these are significant changes from what has been a Moth for a long time, so their effects must be acceptable to those involved.

And yes, there are many people in the class who believe wings should not be allowed. Such views were expressed in videos from Belmont, they don't seem to be presented here but the issues have been mentioned. The people expressing those views are not just those new to the class, or who might be seen as having a vested interest in banning wings.

This forum is in no way representative of the class, it's just a convenient place to discuss the issues and canvas a wide variety of ideas.


--
Rob

[Phil S]

Simon,
I think we are really on the same wave length. Several weeks ago when the major rule review was initiated, I raised the option of considering deleteing as many redunant rules as possible, including the Cat ban and sheeting requirements. These were intoduced when there was fear that the moth class would turn int a catamaran class during he 1960s cat boom , and fear that it would turn into a sailboard class during the 1970s sailboard boom. I really believe that moths have now moved beyond those threats and the rules now are un-necessary. BUT I got little support from moth owners and so I am happy to let these points lie. There are much more important things to be done.

The definitions of sail and spar are adequately covered in the ISAF Sail Area manual. We do not need to re write them. Do not confuse this manual with the ISAF sail measurement manual used by most OD international classes, this is specifically not used by the moth class, so areas of corners etc is not a moth concern.

Requireing a single sail and a single mast (or spar) is not enough to ban wings unless you specify a minimum area of the sail. Who will be brave enough to decide what this arbitary number would be, and in the process shape the appearance of moths for many years? I think it would be a backward step.

The mast height limit is based on 1960s unstayed rigs. I had an unstayed rig last year and a max length mast proved to be marginally lower overall height than a normal mast on a stump, resulting in a low boom issue when tacking. IF we change to a measurement from the underside of the hull I think the 6.25m will have to be increased to match existing boats.

After earlier discussion I am against the overall, foil to mast head limit. I see too much oportunity for special gear for light flat venues (with tall rigs and short foils) and for rough windy venues (with short rigs and long foils) and the consequuent regatta management policing issues if the weather changes from one to another, where people could end up using a tall rig and long foil and be class illegal without detection.

While those who are outside the class or the main moth centres do not perceive any anti wing sentiment, be assured that at such significant places as the IMCA AGM at Belmont there was a strong feeling expressed by maybe half the people present that wings were the wrong way for the class to go. These people and those in the class with similar views around the world must be given the oportunity to vote for their wishes, just as those who have contrary views. If no vote is take we can expect a period of grumbling, inuendo, instability and some consequent departures from the class from both sides. Not a good position and why IMCA is doing something about it. A decision will be made and I hope most will agree to stick with it whatever it is.

[RobG]

We also need to accept that in order to ensure the survival of the class, the rules must be changed to clean up a number of issues related to the rig and the one sail rule.

This is way over dramaitic. The survival of the class is not at stake.

Fair cop. Probably should have said "important to keep the class up to date" or similar.

Trying to come up with a way of banning what you consider as undesirable slots but leaving desirable ones in has the potential to create a huge amount of trouble. What you need to do is decide whether you want wings or not. If you don't, it's easy to write the rules to ban them without much drama.

I was suggesting no slots in the sail area as a way of enforcing the one sail rule independently of the type of sail. Banning slots has benefits (including, but not limited to, addressing the "slotted wings are two sails" argument) with minimal negative effects. It doesn't ban un-slotted wings and possibly doesn't affect wing performance too much (or at all).

As you point out, wings can be banned specifically and fairly simply by a folding test to define the "soft" part and specifying what percentage of the total sail area must comply. Maybe there can also be a maximum span of rigid parts to tighten it further without needing to define a mast or sail. The numbers can be negotiated to satisfy the no wing crowd, perhaps based on what is considered sufficient to allow wing masts but not wing sails. I don't think they're a big issue, they can be tweaked from time to time if that's what the class decides. The sub-committee should be talking with enough people to ensure a suitable option is available.

The slot issue needs to be addressed as it will almost certainly resurface regardless of whether wings are banned or not. For example, some one may put a slot in the leading or trailing edge of a wing mast (e.g. a wing mast with a trailing flap separated by a slot that meets the span and % rigid specs, with a soft sail on the back of the flap - deja vu all over again).

I agree that wings should be allowed, I'm looking for options to address various issues as independently as is reasonable.

--
Rob

[Amati]

It seems to me that separate subsections will be needed to specify measuring methods for "solid" surface sails and soft sails. Large wingmasts may be a subsection of the soft case.

On the whole, however, the terms mast and sail are outmoded. Perhaps taking a step back is in order, to somehow take projected area into account as a first principle.

On Amati's drag point I agree there must be an angle below which drag becomes advantageous offwind, I.e. Ddw in the extreme case. Figuring out what Cl would be needed to make this pay across the range of angles and windspeeds seems like a doable set of
Calculations.

based on ar=1, but low re...

http://www.jmech.org.tw/pdf/24302.pdf

I looked at one rc post that was talking about l/d @ 50 at high turbulent aoa's....

Paul

[Phil S]

Karl,
No-one measures projeced area of sails, we measure the area around the surface, which might end up close to each other when the sail is fully flattenned but the two areas are senothing alike when the sail is at maximum depth. The ISAF manual does the same with spars, wingmasts and wing rigs, it measures around the leeward side when the rig is set at maximum camber. That is how we measured Bora's wing, the forward pannel with maximum flap deflection and parately one side of the aft pannel as it is symetrical.

Amati,
I doubt moths need high lift / high drag sections anytime when foiling is possible. Once foiling the apparent wind is almost always forward of the beam, when any drag is detrimental and L/D ratio becomes much more critical. Consequently I see thinner sections with less camber being successful as moth wings. Virtually no championship racing happens in sub foiling conditions anymore, certainly race committees are reluctant to start races if foiling is not possible. Not something I always agree with but that is how it has developped.

[SimonN]

I think it would be far more interesting getting SimonN's opinions of the potential use of wing sails in a class he sails such as the 18's (don't they still allow rig development?)

First off, Rob, I think this comment is very unfair. I haven't owned a Moth for about 6 months but if my back gets up to it again, I will buy another. I cannot actually imagine that I will never own a Moth again. I built my first Moth in 1973 - it was actually my second moth - and in the intervening years have owned (I think!) 9. And for the record, I stopped sailing 18's before I sold my last Moth!

However, I do currently sail a class, A Class cats, where wings have been tried and where I will possibly build a wing. However, there are some serious issues. The wing that Ben Hall built was, IMO, too heavy and not strong enough. It flexd too much which meant it wasn't quick upwind. That wing is now owned by Oracle Racing and the word is that they sorted this issue out. It was very fast downhill. But the really big issue with a wing on an A is weight and the centre of gravity. In any waves, an A pitches and with a heavy rig, it's not good. Ben Hall describved it as "the tail wagging the dog!"

Ben's wing weighed about as much as all the gear he took off his boat from the conventional rig, such as mast, sails, mainsheet system and track. The problem was that the weight was significantly higher. Another issue is that A Class rigs are tall - the mast is 9 metres long.

The A's also have pretty well developed rigs with wing masts and soft sails. The section length of the wing mast is about 335mm. There is a train of thought that such a rig is already fairly close to teh performance of a wing sail rig.

I do, however, believe that if we use unobtainium and build wing light enough, it can be a winner. Being a bit more serious, the way of reducing the weight of the rig is to reduce the complexity. Ben's wing had twist in the front and rear elements, but had no "middle" element to control the slot. The fear is that the way forward would be to build a wing with no twisting front element, which I think could be light enough. However, the lack of twist might really hurt the downwind performance.

I have been discussing this with Adam May non stop since he built his wing and we have the design but I am still not sure whether to build. I think there are still a few tricks to try with a conventional rig which will give us many of the downwind benefits of the wing but still give us the current rig for upwind and when the boat pitches.

Some have also commented on how difficult Ben's rig was to manage. Compared with the Moth, this wing was both very tall and far more area. The boat had to be rigged on it's side. The wing did break down into 4 pieces for transport. If I build a wing rig, I am not sure whether I would rig it like Ben or go for it C Class style. I would make the mast break down into 4 parts, which I know would fit into my existing trailer. I would simply make a carrying frame.

As for a wing rig on an 18' skiff, Dream on! The rig is far too tall and the sail area for too big. The weight would be a killer. Not only is the rig huge, but it needs to be able to handle a huge kite, 3 big guys hanging off it and the slamming of the Sydney Harbour chop. I just don't see it happening. I do know that somebody was talking about a cat style wing mast, which I think would work very well, but that's another story.

I hope that all helps. And just for the record, at this moment in time, based on what i have heard from Moth sailors I speak to, I am preparing myself for a wing ban. I hope that as it becomes more of a reality, people will consider the argumensts and make the right decision, as I stil haven't heard a single reason why people think it will be bad for the class. I was hoping this thread owuld have aserious debate about it, but unless I missed it, I haven't seen a well thought out rational for banning wings.

[GybeSet®]

how about ....

they are planning to make the wing sail-plan larger ?

i think wings could be allowed, but they should be within the shadow a current legal MOTH sail presents

[SimonN]

how about ....

they are planning to make the wing sail-plan larger ?

i think wings could be allowed, but they should be within the shadow a current legal MOTH sail presents

First, nobody is planning to mak ethe wing sail plan larger. ISAF has a very good way of measuring the 2 different types of sail so that they can be considered equal.

And as for wings fitting within the shaddow of a curent, legal Moth sail, how would you propose to achieve that when there is no "standard" Moth sail? For instance, while there is a maximum luff length, there is no minimum. And I believe that most sails are well inside the maximum luff length.

I understand your concern but it really is a false one. I believe you base your argument on the fact that the slot isn't measured. However, the slot only gets bigger when you reduce the profile of the sail. At the biggest profile, when there is no camber, the slot is minimal, only enough to allow clearance of the elements. We are talking millimetres and in area, about 0.02 of a square metre, or 0.25% of the sail area.

[atg]

Karl,
No-one measures projeced area of sails, we measure the area around the surface, which might end up close to each other when the sail is fully flattenned but the two areas are senothing alike when the sail is at maximum depth. The ISAF manual does the same with spars, wingmasts and wing rigs, it measures around the leeward side when the rig is set at maximum camber. That is how we measured Bora's wing, the forward pannel with maximum flap deflection and parately one side of the aft pannel as it is symetrical.

Amati,
I doubt moths need high lift / high drag sections anytime when foiling is possible. Once foiling the apparent wind is almost always forward of the beam, when any drag is detrimental and L/D ratio becomes much more critical. Consequently I see thinner sections with less camber being successful as moth wings. Virtually no championship racing happens in sub foiling conditions anymore, certainly race committees are reluctant to start races if foiling is not possible. Not something I always agree with but that is how it has developped.

Well, you could just set the soft sail up rigged on the boat with max vang and cunno and outhaul and take that area. But I digress.

I think for an event like Dubai (not that I was there mind you) the extra lift of multiple slots downwind might have paid dividends. Seems like Amac was reported to be in low/slow mode much of the time and did well vs people trying to heat it up; being able to generate more lift in low mode should be even faster because the drag force is more aligned with the direction of travel, i.e. less penalty because you don't have to hike it flat. The windstrength where that will pay changes with a wing vs soft sail and presumably with slots vs none. But perhaps you are correct and all that is needed to keep the flow attached fully offwind in light air is more twist to the whole program. But that carries a weight penalty (probably). In any event I don't think it is quite so simple. Which is why I keep asking if anyone has run some numbers, because if you go enough faster the apparent comes forward again but you are sailing lower etc etc. Seems like a fun spreadsheet to put together.

Karl,
No-one measures projeced area of sails, we measure the area around the surface, which might end up close to each other when the sail is fully flattenned but the two areas are senothing alike when the sail is at maximum depth. The ISAF manual does the same with spars, wingmasts and wing rigs, it measures around the leeward side when the rig is set at maximum camber. That is how we measured Bora's wing, the forward pannel with maximum flap deflection and parately one side of the aft pannel as it is symetrical.

Amati,
I doubt moths need high lift / high drag sections anytime when foiling is possible. Once foiling the apparent wind is almost always forward of the beam, when any drag is detrimental and L/D ratio becomes much more critical. Consequently I see thinner sections with less camber being successful as moth wings. Virtually no championship racing happens in sub foiling conditions anymore, certainly race committees are reluctant to start races if foiling is not possible. Not something I always agree with but that is how it has developped.

Well, you could just set the soft sail up rigged on the boat with max vang and cunno and outhaul and take that area. But I digress.

I think for an event like Dubai (not that I was there mind you) the extra lift of multiple slots downwind might have paid dividends. Seems like Amac was reported to be in low/slow mode much of the time and did well vs people trying to heat it up; being able to generate more lift in low mode should be even faster because the drag force is more aligned with the direction of travel, i.e. less penalty because you don't have to hike it flat. The windstrength where that will pay changes with a wing vs soft sail and presumably with slots vs none. But perhaps you are correct and all that is needed to keep the flow attached fully offwind in light air is more twist to the whole program. But that carries a weight penalty (probably). In any event I don't think it is quite so simple. Which is why I keep asking if anyone has run some numbers, because if you go enough faster the apparent comes forward again but you are sailing lower etc etc. Seems like a fun spreadsheet to put together.

[IC Nutter]

And just for the record, at this moment in time, based on what i have heard from Moth sailors I speak to, I am preparing myself for a wing ban.

What is it that is proposed to be banned? Completley rigid wings only? What about wing mast/soft sail combos? If not the latter, is there a line to be drawn on wing vs sail area?

[Ncik]

And just for the record, at this moment in time, based on what i have heard from Moth sailors I speak to, I am preparing myself for a wing ban.

that would be a shame.

[SimonN]

Maybe I should have made myself a little clearer. I do not know what rules will be proposed but I do know that there needs to be a positive vote (I think 60% in favour) for a proposed rule change to definbe and effectively allow wing sails. The feeling I get is that while a fair number of championship sailors are likely to vote for such a rule, there is a grass roots feeling that the class should not allow wing sails. I have no way of knowing if the "sample set" I am using is truly representative of the grass roots thinking around the world, but I think there is a real chance wing sails will not be allowed.

However, again depending on rule wording, I believe that wing masts like we see on A Class cats are currently allowed in teh rules and as such, there would need to be a proposal to ban them which I suspect is not being worked on.

[Phil S]

This is based on some preliminary discussion amoungst those involved in preparing the IMCA proposals, I do not know if this will be the final way it will go but its what some of us see as the best way to sort out the class issues.

I think there will need to be a 60% majority in favour of the vote to ban wingrigs, or whatever we decide the wording of a wingrig is going to be, rather than a 60% vote to allow them. There will be separate vote to tidy up the rules, some of which ISAF has recommended, which still needs to be done for good equity reasons independant of whether the class alows wing rigs.

If by chance the anti wing people see the tidy up motion wording as allowing wings and if consequently it does not gain the 60% needed, the status quo wrt to our rules will remain. In preparing the proposals and the vote we have to make sure that everyone knows that these are two different issues to be decided by two different votes.

If the vote is against the tidy up proposals then the anomolies and ambiguities in the present rules will remain in force, in fact they will have been endorsed by the lost vote to remove them.

As a result we should expect a lot of weird rigs, like the 6.25m high wing Dave Lister proposed to build for Belmont. It always satified the wording of the rule if not the intent. Only the multi element rig would remain unmeasurable. A no gap wing could still be measured and it could be as tall as the mast length limit. Remember that wing masts with or without sails attached can be measured according to our current rules and several wing masts have existed and been measured over at least 30 years.

So IMCA members please be aware that there are two separate issues, We most certainly need to tidy up our rules and we should all accept the text being prepared by our committee after lots of discussion and consultation about where problems exist. You will also get a vote on wing rig legality and this has to be taken as a separate issue. Both votes need a 60% majority to succeed and the class definately needs the tidy up vote to be successful.

[www]

As a result we should expect a lot of weird rigs, like the 6.25m high wing Dave Lister proposed to build for Belmont. It always satified the wording of the rule if not the intent. Only the multi element rig would remain unmeasurable. A no gap wing could still be measured and it could be as tall as the mast length limit. Remember that wing masts with or without sails attached can be measured according to our current rules and several wing masts have existed and been measured over at least 30 years.

So now you are saying that if there are no rule changes the wing will be allowed? But it is not now? And Listers tall wing was not allowed, due to fact that ISAF turned down the interpretation? But with no rule changes the ISAF rejection of the interpretation (or whatever way you want to describe it) will then just mysteriously go away?

Yeah, I know Bora says that you Phil calls it like it is.......I wonder who is more confused? You, me or Bora?

www

[Phil S]

No, ISAF decided that our rules could measure a wing mast and a sail but not a multi element wing rig. They did not say it could not rule a single element wing, which could be a single element wing rig or a wing mast supporting a sail, in fact wng masts have been measured for 30 odd years.

The IMCA Executive (not ISAF) advised Dave that if he built his 6.25m tall wing rig they would ban it under rule 4.2"The measurer shall report on the measurement form anything which he may consider to be unusual or to depart from the intended nature of the boat or to be against the general interest of the class and a certificate may be refused, even if the specific requirements of the class are satisfied." Which some thought was a very heavy hand.

I am saying that if we propose rule amendments which remove this loophole and the members vote against them, then rule 4.2 can no longer be used as the membership would have endorsed the idea. And that is when all existing rigs become obsolete.

[Jethrow]

Hi WWW

Just a quick question. Did Phil run over your dog or something? You seem to be blaming him for everything that's wrong with the world...

[atg]

Just another booth on the trollroad.

[JimC]

I am saying that if we propose rule amendments which remove this loophole and the members vote against them, then rule 4.2 can no longer be used as the membership would have endorsed the idea. And that is when all existing rigs become obsolete.

That's quite a big call Phil. I'd say that's only supportable if there is an individual vote on that individual item. As soon as you have bundled a change up in a package, and the package is not supported then all the vote indicates is that the package was not supported and the members prefer the status quo to *all* the bundled changes. And in this case the status quo includes 4.2 and what seems to me an entirely reasonable IMCA interpretation of that particular concept.

I've been in this situation with rule packages before and always been very opposed to them. What can happen is that the rule framers put together a package which contains more and less controversial items, because they say, and not incorrectly, some combinations of passes and fails wouldn't make sense. You do have to trust your members not to pass something that doesn't make sense, and even if they do ultimately its their privilege to do so. You should be very wary of reducing their ability to vote for what they want by reducing the ballot choices. Especially be aware that history may demonstrate that someone got their sums wrong and one part of the package wasn't nearly as desirable as it seemed at the time.

[GybeSet®]

there is EVERY chance all existing rigs will become redundant

for example if the new ones have a larger spread of sail, which it appears they will

[Phil S]

Jim, what you say is absolutely correct but as a lot of the existing anomonolies are inter related splitting the amendments into separate parts so that some might be passed and some might be lost could in fact make matters worse not better. We are well aware of the risks but until the committee prepare the draft and IMCA members get to see what is proposed we can not accept critism in this area.

The jibe from Gybe is absolutely wrong, he has obviously not read what has been written earlier about the prospect of changing what is to be included in measured area and the consequent maximum total area allowed to match as close as possible the actual area of existing rigs. He most certainly has not read what will be offered for a vote because it has not as yet been finalised. Such illinformed comments can only be meant to be disruptive.

[www]

Hi WWW

Just a quick question. Did Phil run over your dog or something? You seem to be blaming him for everything that's wrong with the world...

Actually no the dog is still here. And I do appreciate Phils responses so I will try to change my tone.

However, I am trying to understand the present rule situation, including the ISAF "interpretation" (or rejection of the class interpretation, or whatever). Why because until Phil few posts ago made somewhat of a clarification of this issue it was very unclear and the class officers has made no, or certainly inadequate attempt to clarify things. Phil's response is that the working group is on to this but as he says himself in these last few posts and as Jim's post also highlights, there may very well be a situation were all the proposals are rejected (pretty hard to get 60% of the vote) and then we are left with the current rules.

If we are left with the current rules I very much like to understand what they are. In fact we are sailing under those at the moment and any change will take awhile.

So to Phil I apologise if I was rude, honestly didn't intend to. I was and still am frustrated by inconsistencies in the arguments that I think I hear which I do think does the class a great disservice. Quite probably not Phil's fault though.

And Jethrow I did leave open the likely possibility that I was the one being most confused. Some may have thought that was the obvious answer rather than seeing it as an attack on Phil.

www

[www]

[quote name='Phil S' timestamp='1297459702' post='3162326']
No, ISAF decided that our rules could measure a wing mast and a sail but not a multi element wing rig. They did not say it could not rule a single element wing,

Thanks for the information Phil.

What specifically is the problem with the muli element wing rig (as opposed to the single element)in our rules according to ISAF then?

Are there other issues than the slot that is the problem here, or does the slot have nothing to do with it except that it would be very hard to have a slot on a single element one?

www

[Phil S]

I understand ISAF's issue with the multielement wing was that our rules and procedures say how to measure a sail and a mast, even a wing mast, but do not cover how to measure solid flaps which are not either. And our definition do not help. The one sail rule also influenced the decision as some moth sailrs consider the aft wing element a second sail. So the wingrigs could not be measured under current rules.

For Belmont ISAF recommended that the class vote to decide if the wings could be used and if so, that they should be measured using the ISAF Sail Area manual, and that is what happenned. The manual doses not address what is sail and what is mast, it just measures area. The gap/two sail issue was bypassed by the vote to allow the rigs to be used.

We now need to change our rules and procedure wording if we want this to continue. But several other inconsistancies arose over the debate in 2010 and it is evident that some of the rules and procedures need to be changed to remove other loopholes and correct anomonolies. We are drafting at least two proposals, one to correct the anomonolies etc, and one to ban wing rigs of a definition yet to be determined. If that proves difficult to agree on amounst our committee we may have a third vote to ban slots in wing rigs over a certain size, because a lot of the anti wing sentiment in the class is directed at the multi element wings as having two effective "sails".

Other than contributions from a few committee members nothing has yet been formulated. Adam May has indicated that this weekend he will have some time to collect the input and put somthing together for committee discussion. I do not expect that any details will be agreed upon for a few more weeks so until then there will be nothing much else to comment on.

[Ncik]

Will there be a general question regarding whether or not the class members want wing rigs at all? It seems to me we don't even know that answer yet, although I suspect it would be a conditional yes.

Once this is known the questions can be refined to determine the preferred form of wing rigs.

[eric nelson]

Will there be a general question regarding whether or not the class members want wing rigs at all? It seems to me we don't even know that answer yet, although I suspect it would be a conditional yes.

Once this is known the questions can be refined to determine the preferred form of wing rigs.

Did you read about the second of the two proposals Phil discussed? You can't ban (or allow) something unless you define what that thing is. A sheet of plywood could be a "wing."

[Phil S]

Nick,
If everyone has a different concept of what wingrig they want banned or accepted then asking that question is not as easy as it sounds.

I think that a significant number of members who have expressed doubts about the legality or desirability of wing rigs have this opinion based on their perception that the multi element rigs fail the one sail rule. So if we ask one question about all wing rigs in general we would get a differnt answer than if we asked a question about single element wingrigs with no slot. We may decide to ask both questions rather than one.

I think that no one wants to allow wingrigs which are 6.25m high when sails can be only 5.185m high. I doubt also anyone would want wings rigs of larger area than sail rigs. So rather than have these aspects colour the vote about banning wingrigs outright we plan to offer a bundle of interrelated amendments to correct these anomonolies as a separate question. Whether wingrigs get banned or not these amendments will prevent such loopholes being exploited on wingmast/sail rigs or anything else some clever mothie creates.

[www]

Will there be a general question regarding whether or not the class members want wing rigs at all? It seems to me we don't even know that answer yet, although I suspect it would be a conditional yes.

Once this is known the questions can be refined to determine the preferred form of wing rigs.

Did you read about the second of the two proposals Phil discussed? You can't ban (or allow) something unless you define what that thing is. A sheet of plywood could be a "wing."

I think Ncik is on to something there as, even though I recognise the arguments against it. It would seem to me that perhaps it is easier discussing and voting on what concepts the class members would like to allow and then formulate the best wording of the rules possible for those concepts. Rather than the committee first have certain concepts in mind when writing a menu of rules to pick from?

I also think that the speed of the process is harmful to the class.

www

[JimC]

It would seem to me that perhaps it is easier discussing and voting on what concepts the class members would like to allow and then formulate the best wording of the rules possible for those concepts.

Not possible consitutionally.

I also think that the speed of the process is harmful to the class.

Major rule changes often take several years to talk through, reach consensus on options and then finally vote on, especially in International Classes. I think the Australian 14s and the Int14s were talking about merging rule sets for about ten years before it actually happened.

[teknologika]

I also think that the speed of the process is harmful to the class.

www

I think this was an issue in the lead-up to the worlds with wings having been built and uncertainty if they could be used.

At this point, all time is doing is harming development of the wings, as most of us are having a wait and see attitude with what happens with the rules before commencing any real R&D.

This is also giving people who are prepared to take the risk a head start on everyone else.

But ...

The class can easily vote in another NOR exemption at the next worlds if we still haven't got this right and we want wings to sail.

The class must get this right, and if it that takes 2-3 years then so be it. What we have is way to valuable to screw it up with a snap, incorrect decision.

If they are in, then they are in, if they are out, then they are out, and I'll roll which ever way the class decides, whenever it does.

[Ncik]

Nick,
If everyone has a different concept of what wingrig they want banned or accepted then asking that question is not as easy as it sounds.

This is why the question should be worded such that it is general. Something along the lines of "Do you think wing rigs have a place in moth class development?"
Answers
- Yes (unconditionally within sail area and luff length)
- Yes (conditionally)
- No (absolutly not)

Admittedly option one already makes the assumption about sail area measurement rules that do not exist for wing rigs in moths, however most ppl would agree that 8sqm is the upper limit.

Ofcourse like any poll the question and answers can be tweaked to give whatever result the questioner wants...
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3gMcZic1d4U

[Phil S]

Nick,
That is just what was done last year. We had an informal on line questionnaire of members with items about wing rigs, numbers of elements, gaps, package size when dismantles etc. There was I think a majority in favour of wings but not infavour of gaps and multi lements. I have not seen the final results but Robbo spoke on the subject at the AGM. I think Doug Culnane ran it so he might be able to help out here.

This happenned well before we had the formal vote on allowing Bora's wings to be used at the regatta

Its based on the members response to the questionnaire and the vote, plus further discussion that the rule proposals are being formulated.

[RobG]

Nick,
If everyone has a different concept of what wingrig they want banned or accepted then asking that question is not as easy as it sounds.

This is why the question should be worded such that it is general. Something along the lines of "Do you think wing rigs have a place in moth class development?"
Answers
- Yes (unconditionally within sail area and luff length)
- Yes (conditionally)
- No (absolutly not)
[...]

I agree with Phil that there's not much to be gained by asking the general question as there are a number of reasons for anti-wing sentiment.

The IMCA constitution already has a guiding principle of "one sail", what is really up for debate is how to apply that to various rigs without perfect foresight into the kinds of rigs that might be developed in the future. Simply banning or allowing "wing sails" might work for now but will not last for long.

The simplest way is to address the various issues, e.g. use the ISAF measurement guide so that any rig can be measured, then apply the one sail rule as being no slots as that is a more general application of the one sail rule. It still means that a slot must be defined, but I think that's a reasonably easy task.

If rigid wings are to be prohibited (which can be done completely separately to the one sail bit above), then the rules can require a certain percentage of the total sail area to pass a folding test and a maximum chord of any spar so that wing masts are allowed but not fully rigid sails.

There's not much point in arguing hypothetical detail until the committee proposes something, but it is interesting to discuss options and scenarios.

--
Rob

[Ncik]

Ok, not a problem.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what the result is because if there is a ban on any aspect of wing rigs there is always the option of developing outside of the class rules to prove a certain concept, if someone believes in it enough. If a concept becomes viable later down the track it can always be addressed again, but it will likely take longer and be more difficult.

I must admit I am only a potential mothie at this point in time. Have been actively looking for a boat for awhile now though. Not sure if wing rigs will influence my decision making.

[Phil S]

Putting the rule writer's clairvoyant mind to work I think the rule review should also attempt to address the new elephant in the room, kite sails. At present they are not banned but would have to be only 8sqm and be sheeted from the hull, not direct to hand, so it might be difficult to adapt. The real advantage would be the height of the sail in the wind and I hope we can include something with or instead of the mast height rule to limit how high a sail of any type can be set.

At the AUS nationals we had 105 moths on a single start line. I doubt that would be possible with long kite strings.

[eric nelson]

Putting the rule writer's clairvoyant mind to work I think the rule review should also attempt to address the new elephant in the room, kite sails. At present they are not banned but would have to be only 8sqm and be sheeted from the hull, not direct to hand, so it might be difficult to adapt. The real advantage would be the height of the sail in the wind and I hope we can include something with or instead of the mast height rule to limit how high a sail of any type can be set.

At the AUS nationals we had 105 moths on a single start line. I doubt that would be possible with long kite strings.

This should probably be in a new thread, but a kiteboat with hull sheeting has already been done by Don Montague. http://project.kiteboat.com/video the project summary video at 5:54 has a good view of his system. Of course, it uses a whole lot of already banned electronic controls to make it work.

[Pinner]

I don't mean to highjack this thread, but could someone point me in the direction as to where to buy the plastic wing covering or a primer on how to apply it

[kprice]

I don't mean to highjack this thread, but could someone point me in the direction as to where to buy the plastic wing covering or a primer on how to apply it

from the moth wiki http://wiki.mothosph...php?title=Wings


The film used is 50 micron heat shrink, the same used for sealing CD's in stores.

Steve Clark: ( from http://www.boatdesig...gy-34697-3.html) The stuff we have been using since 1995 is DuPont Clysar. This is a packaging shrink film that you find around Cd's and Video cassettes. It is pretty cheap and readily available off the Internet. We have also used 3M storm window kits when in a pinch. These come with their ow supply of double sided tape, but because the pieces are not all that big you have top count on overlaps at the ribs to cover a big wing. But, you should know that the Stars and Stripes 88 wing was covered with this stuff. We have never been able to determine that one film was any better than another film. So until we know that, I would say any heat shrink will work.

[Pinner]

Awesome, thank you. So I assume I can just use a double sided tape to fix the film (with some excess) and then it will shrink tight w/ heat

[Ncik]

seem to recall someone saying that clear packing tape was used instead of double sided.

[Rob-aust]

Has been interesting to read the various views. Regarding the mast height limit, would seem to be a simple solution to amend the allowed mast to be a measure from keel to top of mast, can be any combination of mast stump and wing. Re the allowed luff length, using the style of present wings, any shaped part of wing is sail, the extension below that is not aerodynamic is support, and so part of the mast. Luff length of the wing is the shaped length.

[Rob-aust]

To limit an overall distance from foil to tip of mast seems a negative, what is achieved by linking mast height to foil depth, let the foils find their own depth, allow the testing of 2m deep foils, or more, without penalty to rig height.

[anja]

I've just posted some of the photos I've made during the Worlds in Belmont.

https://picasaweb.go.../2011WMBelmont#

Feel free to download anything you like.

Anja / mottenfieber sailing tv

[Ncik]

Results of the questionnaire have been published on the international moth website.

Seems that Australia with the biggest fleet and most to lose are the most conservative. The rest of the world seems to want wings.

[teknologika]

The latest mothcast is up featuring a chat with Bora and Bear and is mostly about the wing campaign. http://mothcast.net

[teknologika]

Results of the questionnaire have been published on the international moth website.

Seems that Australia with the biggest fleet and most to lose are the most conservative. The rest of the world seems to want wings.

I think that the aus vote was heavily influenced by the (then) upcoming worlds.

[Phil S]

The Aust vote was also registered on the questionaire as totally anti wing even although it was actually more like 60/40 anti wing. Thats the nature of the quota voting system. As Bruce says many people would have voted according to their ambitions at Belmont, fearing a wing domination, and may now have other opinions.

[JimC]

Australia ... are the most conservative.

IME Australian fleets are almost always the most conservative when it comes to changing the box.

[Phil S]

Australia ... are the most conservative.

IME Australian fleets are almost always the most conservative when it comes to changing the box.

GBR also voted for an indefinate ban on wing rigs but later voted to approve use for Belmont regatta.

[Ncik]

Results of the questionnaire have been published on the international moth website.

Seems that Australia with the biggest fleet and most to lose are the most conservative. The rest of the world seems to want wings.

I think that the aus vote was heavily influenced by the (then) upcoming worlds.

I can see that. With the 60/40 split within Australia it would be interesting to see the results of a similar vote today.

[atg]

Australia ... are the most conservative.

IME Australian fleets are almost always the most conservative when it comes to changing the box.

GBR also voted for an indefinate ban on wing rigs but later voted to approve use for Belmont regatta.

How many people voted in each country?

[RobG]

Seems that Australia with the biggest fleet and most to lose...

Seems to me the person with the most to lose was the bloke who stuck his neck out to get 3 wings to Belmont.

--
Rob

[atg]

The Aust vote was also registered on the questionaire as totally anti wing even although it was actually more like 60/40 anti wing. Thats the nature of the quota voting system. As Bruce says many people would have voted according to their ambitions at Belmont, fearing a wing domination, and may now have other opinions.

Do our rules cover procedures for conducting votes of this nature? E.g. If there is a class association vote , but only three class members know about it and/or vote, is it valid? Does there need to be a quorum of some sort, like 60% of registered class members responding, for it to be considered legitimate? And is there any rule about how much notice is required before the votes are counted? Seems a relevant question. I'll look later as I am at work.

[spencerogden]

How do I read the section in the minutes about proposed rule changes:

This vote [in 3-4 months] would be in the form of 2 proposed sets of class rules being:
- One set with a general tidy up of a number of redundant and/or conflicting
rules
- One set with the general tidy up and rules to include methods to account
for and measure, and restrictions on wingsails.

Does this indicate that in 3-4 months there will a vote, only member of the Executive Committee, on whether to accept wings, but that it is still not a sure thing?

[Ncik]

Seems that Australia with the biggest fleet and most to lose...

Seems to me the person with the most to lose was the bloke who stuck his neck out to get 3 wings to Belmont.

--
Rob

Bora's was a personal risk. I was referring to the class/association.

[teknologika]

Do our rules cover procedures for conducting votes of this nature?

Yes absolutely ... (The IMCA constitution)

E.g. If there is a class association vote, but only three class members know about it and/or vote, is it valid?

It depends on the constitution of the individual national association. For example Scott (the sitting Aus. President) has full power to vote as he sees fit on behalf of the association, as long as it is within the spirit of the constitution. He decided to take a vote of all IMCA Aus. class members as it was the right thing to do, however he didn't really HAVE to. So yes it probably is valid, but check with your local IMCA president and ask them how and why they voted the way they did.

Does there need to be a quorum of some sort, like 60% of registered class members responding, for it to be considered legitimate? And is there any rule about how much notice is required before the votes are counted? Seems a relevant question. I'll look later as I am at work.

It depends on the constitution of the individual national association, but for the IMCA all A.G.M.s and E.G.M.s twenty five percent or more registered National Associations represented in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum, and on any resolution involving change to the Constitution and Rules the resolution shall be carried if 2/3 or more of the Members voting in person or by proxy shall vote in favour of the resolution.

How do I read the section in the minutes about proposed rule changes:

This vote [in 3-4 months] would be in the form of 2 proposed sets of class rules being:
- One set with a general tidy up of a number of redundant and/or conflicting
rules
- One set with the general tidy up and rules to include methods to account
for and measure, and restrictions on wingsails.

Does this indicate that in 3-4 months there will a vote, only member of the Executive Committee, on whether to accept wings, but that it is still not a sure thing?

Correct. But the individual association Presidents may want to, and probably should reach out to their individual members for their opinion, again, depending on their constitution.

[atg]

Thanks Bruce. It appears things are reasonably specified for the IMCA AGM setting, but not very well on a national level.

The reason I bring it up is because the numbers don't seem to be public, and yet we base our assumptions e.g. "Australia is 60/40 against" on these same unpublished figures.

Whether that is six votes against and four votes for, or sixty votes against and forty votes for, seems relevant. Of course Presidents have the final vote either way on a Council of Presidents, but the strength of their mandate to vote a certain way depends upon the underlying vote of members, and that is the interesting bit. Does the President simply call his ten closest friends and ask their opinions?

Here in the US, we had an email go out to all members, responses were collated and summarized and sent out for all to see. Most people cc'd the entire list with their responses. So it was a fairly transparent process for registered members.

Do our rules cover procedures for conducting votes of this nature?

Yes absolutely ... (The IMCA constitution)

E.g. If there is a class association vote, but only three class members know about it and/or vote, is it valid?

It depends on the constitution of the individual national association. For example Scott (the sitting Aus. President) has full power to vote as he sees fit on behalf of the association, as long as it is within the spirit of the constitution. He decided to take a vote of all IMCA Aus. class members as it was the right thing to do, however he didn't really HAVE to. So yes it probably is valid, but check with your local IMCA president and ask them how and why they voted the way they did.

Does there need to be a quorum of some sort, like 60% of registered class members responding, for it to be considered legitimate? And is there any rule about how much notice is required before the votes are counted? Seems a relevant question. I'll look later as I am at work.

It depends on the constitution of the individual national association, but for the IMCA all A.G.M.s and E.G.M.s twenty five percent or more registered National Associations represented in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum, and on any resolution involving change to the Constitution and Rules the resolution shall be carried if 2/3 or more of the Members voting in person or by proxy shall vote in favour of the resolution.

How do I read the section in the minutes about proposed rule changes:

This vote [in 3-4 months] would be in the form of 2 proposed sets of class rules being:
- One set with a general tidy up of a number of redundant and/or conflicting
rules
- One set with the general tidy up and rules to include methods to account
for and measure, and restrictions on wingsails.

Does this indicate that in 3-4 months there will a vote, only member of the Executive Committee, on whether to accept wings, but that it is still not a sure thing?

Correct. But the individual association Presidents may want to, and probably should reach out to their individual members for their opinion, again, depending on their constitution.

[Ncik]

Hate to spoil the rivetting OT discussion, but is there any news on modifications to the existing wing rigs and/or performance information after the worlds?

[RobG]

Thanks Bruce. It appears things are reasonably specified for the IMCA AGM setting, but not very well on a national level.

The reason I bring it up is because the numbers don't seem to be public, and yet we base our assumptions e.g. "Australia is 60/40 against" on these same unpublished figures.

Whether that is six votes against and four votes for, or sixty votes against and forty votes for, seems relevant. Of course Presidents have the final vote either way on a Council of Presidents, but the strength of their mandate to vote a certain way depends upon the underlying vote of members, and that is the interesting bit. Does the President simply call his ten closest friends and ask their opinions?

Maybe, but I suspect not.

If the poll taken before the Belmont Worlds is a reliable guide, wings will not be banned if one of the "big four" nations vote in their favour (it seems likely that at least 3 will). The only real question is what restrictions will be introduced, such as slots and flaps.

I hope it is resolved soon 'cos I want to pick up a good, cheap, 2nd hand sail.

--
Rob

[Phil S]

The rules committee has had some meaingful discussion and some good ideas have been raised. Everything is now with Adam to draft some proposals for IMCA to vote on. He is a busy man with a serious full time job but we hope it will be out in a month or so.

[teknologika]

Hate to spoil the rivetting OT discussion, but is there any news on modifications to the existing wing rigs and/or performance information after the worlds?

Not other that what we discussed with Bora in the in the latest mothcast.

[aus2479]

So with the next worlds not far away are there any rumors of new wings being built?

What's this talk about mk2 wings on daily sail?

[bgulari]

Maybe

[punter]

Who cares about wings. The real action is who will win the Mothapalooza prize!

[aus2479]

Punter surely the big one is the golden cleat? after all who wants large amounts of cash when there are prizes of dubious quality to be won.


Although perhaps i will paint a wing on my soft sail and enter the show and shine.

[punter]

Punter surely the big one is the golden cleat? after all who wants large amounts of cash when there are prizes of dubious quality to be won.


Although perhaps i will paint a wing on my soft sail and enter the show and shine.

Ah yes, forgot about that one. Eyes blurred by the cash rather than the prizes of dubious quality.

[barney]

Moth Wing #3
Not too rigid though...

[aardvark_issues]

Haven't we seen one of those already?!

[barney]

There was pictures of a 24' sportsboat a few moth ago with the same technology.

[aardvark_issues]

Brett Burvill had a sail like this on his Moth in the early noughties, although I can't find the newsletter it was posted in at the moment.

[RobG]

Moth Wing #3
Not too rigid though...

Isn't that two sails, back–to–back?

[FoilerMothGuy]

Looks heavy. Surely a pocket-luff rig would be lighter and the difference in rig drag would be negligible?

http://www.moth.asn.au/rohans_site/news/wa_2001_nov.html - Brett Burvill's version from 2001. Nihil Novi Sub Sole it seems.

[aus_stevo]

lea has one of these kicking around in sydney. never really got it going, though ive been off the scene for the last year of so.

had a stupid amount of luff curve and kept popping masts. lots of weird ideas on that boat.

worth noting that by enclosing the boom you ger an extra 90mm*boom length sail area allowance. been waiting for someone to look in this direction for a while now