Jump to content


DNA's arrive in the US


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#1 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 17 January 2012 - 02:01 PM

Seven new DNA A-Class platforms arrived via container to the Florida Keys a couple of weeks ago with three of the new boats staying for the Coconut Grove Invitational winter opening regatta. Ben Moon dominated the event on his new DNA but he was also sailing with the latest Fiberfoam mast and Glaser sail (the same rig he used for a top 10 finish at the WC in Aarhus this past summer).

US sailors now have a great opportunity to measure our development against what is now considered the benchmark platform in the world (similar to the arrival of the first Flyer wave piercer in 1999). There is now a great opportunity to measure the performance of the strongest US designs like the EVO HT, the Barracudas, the evolving EVO II, the next generation of the A3 (the A4?), and the new Rodgers A-Class design from Tampa Bay. There are also the modified designs that have shown good performance this year including updates of the Flyer II and Bimare XJ with curved blades and the updated ASG3's that performed very well in the spring and at the NAC this October.

Rig development will continue with Jay Glaser continuing to fine tune his latest A-Class design on both the Fiberfoam and Hall masts that US sailors are using. Bend tests on the latest Halls now have these tubes pretty spot on to the latest Fiberfoams. Personally I am in a good position to trial the DNA against the ASG3 (modified) and have the ability to swap rigs and sails between the boats. It should be fun and interesting to learn the differences in the boats in different conditions. Personally I anticipate a light to moderate air WC this October and I believe that will keep the door open for several designs (new and older) to be very competitive.

The new DNA's looked great. The build quality is excellent and the foils package looks very well done. The boats are very close to a plug and play package in the tradition of the AHPC and Gel Tek boats from Australia and the Bimare boats from Italy.

This thread can be used for updates on the racing and tuning and what we observe and learn. Should be a fun journey to the Worlds in the Florida Keys this year. Join in or stay tuned.

#2 tiger11

tiger11

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Location:Melbourne-Elwood
  • Interests:Sailing A Class flyer 11

Posted 17 January 2012 - 05:46 PM

Seven new DNA A-Class platforms arrived via container to the Florida Keys a couple of weeks ago with three of the new boats staying for the Coconut Grove Invitational winter opening regatta. Ben Moon dominated the event on his new DNA but he was also sailing with the latest Fiberfoam mast and Glaser sail (the same rig he used for a top 10 finish at the WC in Aarhus this past summer).

US sailors now have a great opportunity to measure our development against what is now considered the benchmark platform in the world (similar to the arrival of the first Flyer wave piercer in 1999). There is now a great opportunity to measure the performance of the strongest US designs like the EVO HT, the Barracudas, the evolving EVO II, the next generation of the A3 (the A4?), and the new Rodgers A-Class design from Tampa Bay. There are also the modified designs that have shown good performance this year including updates of the Flyer II and Bimare XJ with curved blades and the updated ASG3's that performed very well in the spring and at the NAC this October.

Rig development will continue with Jay Glaser continuing to fine tune his latest A-Class design on both the Fiberfoam and Hall masts that US sailors are using. Bend tests on the latest Halls now have these tubes pretty spot on to the latest Fiberfoams. Personally I am in a good position to trial the DNA against the ASG3 (modified) and have the ability to swap rigs and sails between the boats. It should be fun and interesting to learn the differences in the boats in different conditions. Personally I anticipate a light to moderate air WC this October and I believe that will keep the door open for several designs (new and older) to be very competitive.

The new DNA's looked great. The build quality is excellent and the foils package looks very well done. The boats are very close to a plug and play package in the tradition of the AHPC and Gel Tek boats from Australia and the Bimare boats from Italy.
a
This thread can be used for updates on the racing and tuning and what we observe and learn. Should be a fun journey to the Worlds in the Florida Keys this year. Join in or stay tuned.

That will be an interesting comparison ___ As a Flyer11 owner (standard platform ) I will be most interested in your results especially the curved boards mod. I recently fitted a new profile Stevie Brewin sail to suit a bendy Saarberg mast and it has transformed my boat in all conditions so far and could not be happier ___ cheers

#3 NATHERR

NATHERR

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 17 January 2012 - 08:30 PM

Hi AClass USA 230

I am used to sail bigger cats but I am intrigued by the neat A class and would like to ask you a few questions.
1) How much did you pay to have yr DNA platform delivered to yr back garden?
2) How much for the whole package (mast, boom, main, boom and all the other stuff)?
3) How can I be sure to get from Hall or Fiberfoam one of the latest generation tubes and not a job lot?
Thanks

#4 krash

krash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Location:Lake Lanier, GA

Posted 17 January 2012 - 08:53 PM

I just modded my Flyer II with the Hall Bendy mast, a Landy and a Glaser sail, and Hall curved boards.

The boat is much more sensitive to mast rotation, and sheet tension.

I will be interesting to see how it performs agains the new DNA's at the next event.

The Islamorada event was not a good test. I was too busy tuning and learning the "new" boat than racing it effectively.

I'll check back in after the next event with some time on the water.

-Mike

#5 Mr. Curry

Mr. Curry

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 17 January 2012 - 09:07 PM

Yes, it is going to be a great year tuning and racing up to the WC!!

BC

#6 krash

krash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Location:Lake Lanier, GA

Posted 17 January 2012 - 11:00 PM

My room is already booked at The Islander for the WC!!!

#7 Mr. Curry

Mr. Curry

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 17 January 2012 - 11:48 PM

My room is already booked at The Islander for the WC!!!


DITTO!!

#8 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 19 January 2012 - 02:45 AM

Hi AClass USA 230

I am used to sail bigger cats but I am intrigued by the neat A class and would like to ask you a few questions.
1) How much did you pay to have yr DNA platform delivered to yr back garden?
2) How much for the whole package (mast, boom, main, boom and all the other stuff)?
3) How can I be sure to get from Hall or Fiberfoam one of the latest generation tubes and not a job lot?
Thanks


Basic platform cost was 15K Euro. Add rig and sail you are in it for around $27K USD. The shipping with seven boats in the constainer and the duty and customs costs was around $1,200 USD. So total delivered cost complete will be around $29K USD.

There are a couple of bend tests where you can verify you are getting the latest generatation bend numbers. Both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent with where they are on tubes and/or complete masts. Our latest Hall masts are very close now to the bend numbers of the latest Fiberfoams.

#9 TornadoSail2016

TornadoSail2016

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 994 posts
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 19 January 2012 - 07:29 PM

Basic platform cost was 15K Euro. Add rig and sail you are in it for around $27K USD. The shipping with seven boats in the constainer and the duty and customs costs was around $1,200 USD. So total delivered cost complete will be around $29K USD.

There are a couple of bend tests where you can verify you are getting the latest generatation bend numbers. Both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent with where they are on tubes and/or complete masts. Our latest Hall masts are very close now to the bend numbers of the latest Fiberfoams.


Bob,

It sounds like Hall Spars is now making masts that will prove very competitive at the Worlds in Islamorada this year. For those of you who went to the Worlds this year, it seems a lot of great information was gained and is being put to good use. Do you think that the US sailors will be as competive this time as they were is 2007? Also, what do you know about the A4 the Lars is reported to be working on? Is Pete involved with the redesign? Thanks, Tom

#10 AUS

AUS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 09:14 PM


Hi AClass USA 230

I am used to sail bigger cats but I am intrigued by the neat A class and would like to ask you a few questions.
1) How much did you pay to have yr DNA platform delivered to yr back garden?
2) How much for the whole package (mast, boom, main, boom and all the other stuff)?
3) How can I be sure to get from Hall or Fiberfoam one of the latest generation tubes and not a job lot?
Thanks


Basic platform cost was 15K Euro. Add rig and sail you are in it for around $27K USD. The shipping with seven boats in the constainer and the duty and customs costs was around $1,200 USD. So total delivered cost complete will be around $29K USD.

There are a couple of bend tests where you can verify you are getting the latest generatation bend numbers. Both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent with where they are on tubes and/or complete masts. Our latest Hall masts are very close now to the bend numbers of the latest Fiberfoams.



Beach wheels, covers, all the little need to have extras my total was a little closer to 30,000 USD

#11 NATHERR

NATHERR

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 09:58 PM

Thanks A class USA 230

In other to find quotations for the other A cat designs I spent some time surfing A cat builders' web sites.
Much to my surprise I was able to get only a few:
for the time being Marstrom, Scheurer, Saaberg and many others do not make publicly known their price lists.
Those who don't hide this pivotal info to their potential customers are: DNA, EVO, BIMARE and WINGFOX.
The cheapest boat is the old WINGFOX at 13,300 Euro, then comes BIMARE with the V1R 2012 at 14,900 Euro, the WINGFOX Nano at 16,450 Euro and in the end the EVO HT at 27K USD.
Therefore at the present exchange rate I can get the "basic" WINGFOX shipped to the US for around 19K USD, a V1R for 21K USD and a Nano for 23K USD.
I wonder if the DNA or the EVO HT quotation are worth the extra charge.
What do you think?
With regard to the masts I heard different opinion about the recommended bending numbers ranging from 70/130 to 60/160 mm at the tip.
Which are the "good" ones?

#12 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 20 January 2012 - 05:59 AM

Thanks A class USA 230

In other to find quotations for the other A cat designs I spent some time surfing A cat builders' web sites.
Much to my surprise I was able to get only a few:
for the time being Marstrom, Scheurer, Saaberg and many others do not make publicly known their price lists.
Those who don't hide this pivotal info to their potential customers are: DNA, EVO, BIMARE and WINGFOX.
The cheapest boat is the old WINGFOX at 13,300 Euro, then comes BIMARE with the V1R 2012 at 14,900 Euro, the WINGFOX Nano at 16,450 Euro and in the end the EVO HT at 27K USD.
Therefore at the present exchange rate I can get the "basic" WINGFOX shipped to the US for around 19K USD, a V1R for 21K USD and a Nano for 23K USD.
I wonder if the DNA or the EVO HT quotation are worth the extra charge.
What do you think?

Simple question, which will give you your answer, is whether you want a competitive boat. Although there are those who would argue differently, if you look at the results of the last few major championships, there are only 3 designs which are proven to be competitive - DNA, Nikita and Scheurer. The Saaberg has shown promise, but is far from proven. No other design has shown itself to be able to compete against these boats. Some of them have won, but only when there hasn't been good people in one of the top boats. People can make all the excuses they want and try to extrapolate whatever they want to believe, but if you are after a ready to go, competitive boat, why would you choose a boat that doesn't have a track record? And the only way to get a track record is to line up against good people sailing one of the benchmark designs at a championship or something similar. Don't be fooled by one off performances either.

#13 flojo

flojo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 20 January 2012 - 11:23 AM

Thanks A class USA 230

In other to find quotations for the other A cat designs I spent some time surfing A cat builders' web sites.
Much to my surprise I was able to get only a few:
for the time being Marstrom, Scheurer, Saaberg and many others do not make publicly known their price lists.
Those who don't hide this pivotal info to their potential customers are: DNA, EVO, BIMARE and WINGFOX.
The cheapest boat is the old WINGFOX at 13,300 Euro, then comes BIMARE with the V1R 2012 at 14,900 Euro, the WINGFOX Nano at 16,450 Euro and in the end the EVO HT at 27K USD.
Therefore at the present exchange rate I can get the "basic" WINGFOX shipped to the US for around 19K USD, a V1R for 21K USD and a Nano for 23K USD.
I wonder if the DNA or the EVO HT quotation are worth the extra charge.
What do you think?
With regard to the masts I heard different opinion about the recommended bending numbers ranging from 70/130 to 60/160 mm at the tip.
Which are the "good" ones?

As of the Scheurer G6 you are wrong, see here.

Yes, the page is in German and the prices in Swiss Francs, so I will "translate":
G6 Platform full carbon ex. VAT: $ 19.7K / E 15.3K (plus $ 1.2K / E 0.95K for curved boards)
G6 Complete (Saarberg Mast, Fullbatten Main) ex. VAT: $ 29.6K (plus $ 1.2K for curved boards)

Pretty high you might say. It's because the Swiss Franc is so strong. In May 2010 you would have paid $ 15.8K (plus $ .95K for the curved boards).

But you get a fast and perfectly built boat that lasts and boards that never broke for 10% more than a DNA. Swiss quality isn't cheap ;-)

#14 WetnWild

WetnWild

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Location:Brisvegas
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 20 January 2012 - 01:13 PM


My room is already booked at The Islander for the WC!!!


DITTO!!


+1

#15 ita 16

ita 16

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Cesenatico italy
  • Interests:cat builder
    mast builder
    designer

Posted 20 January 2012 - 01:36 PM

No other design has shown itself to be able to compete against these boats. Some of them have won, but only when there hasn't been good people in one of the top boats. People can make all the excuses they want and try to extrapolate whatever they want to believe, but if you are after a ready to go, competitive boat, why would you choose a boat that doesn't have a track record? And the only way to get a track record is to line up against good people sailing one of the benchmark designs at a championship or something similar. Don't be fooled by one off performances either.
[/quote]


I'm sorry Simon, but I think in this topic you have it all wrong, maybe you have seen what you wanted to see! There have been many national championships and big races where other brands have win frequently against top teams and top brands, and is known throughout the sailing world that large differences in the race to create the best crew. there are no large differences in the boats, there are large differences in the crews. There are no large differences even in production technologies applied in all the brands in class A, if some in the brands do not use pre-preg honeicomb there certainly is a very very valid reason: - no cracks or delamination problems, no problems of water infiltration , no aesthetic problems of surface marking honeicomb, easier and cheaper repairs, etc.. ! in the modern class A, it only works on system boards curves and mast-sail, the platform is moved second place, has become less important, for this reason there is not much to spend so much money in it, but it's more correct spend on boards, mast , sail !! I do not want provoke controversy, so I will stop here, these are my 2 cents on this topic!<BR closure_uid_d0ax68="40137" Kc="null">is also interesting the topic Fojo, problems of breakage. in the brands "cheap" above mentioned is also mine and I assure you that many years of my class A does not break anything.

#16 samc99us

samc99us

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 05:18 PM

Yes it is clear mast, sail and foils are the critical elements, but those foils won't work when your platform is twisting all over the place. The key is the DNA, Nikita and G6 have stiffer platforms than all the competitors-that is information that has been posted and made available following the last WC.

The Bimare V1R is a nice platform, and compared with most U.S boats is pretty stiff, but that was before the DNA's showed up. Does the sailor matter as well? Of course it does, but the best sailors in this class spend the time and money to evaluate many potential platforms, and it is clear what platforms get the job done. Why buy a cheaper boat that you know isn't at the top of the class right now? For me this is a reason I am remaining boat-less in A-Cat and F18 world, I can't afford the top platforms and won't play the game on anything less.

#17 ita 16

ita 16

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Cesenatico italy
  • Interests:cat builder
    mast builder
    designer

Posted 20 January 2012 - 06:25 PM

The only good sailor who used the V1R was Randy Smith and made 10 at World Cup 2010, with only 1 day of testing on this boat. Today, with new curves boards + new sail the boat is perfect. It lacks a top skipper. Many dynamic load is absorbed by the boards and have less volume in the bows (fore) reduces the platform torsion , a Good project of these 2 subjects get the same results with a very rigid platform, the effect is the same in the race, not on the beach. A hull with many volumes and little curve down must be very rigid , especially in the presence of wave . Remember the old mk4 Boyer? With wind and wave was very fast .

#18 the loose cannon

the loose cannon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 20 January 2012 - 07:22 PM

Beach wheels, covers, all the little need to have extras my total was a little closer to 30,000 USD

Wow - I remember buying one of Ben's old boats and going to the worlds for $9k....

Guess I won't be coming back into the class.

#19 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 21 January 2012 - 12:49 AM

I'm sorry Simon, but I think in this topic you have it all wrong, maybe you have seen what you wanted to see! There have been many national championships and big races where other brands have win frequently against top teams and top brands,and is known throughout the sailing world that large differences in the race to create the best crew. there are no large differences in the boats, there are large differences in the crews. There are no large differences even in production technologies applied in all the brands in class A, if some in the brands do not use pre-preg honeicomb there certainly is a very very valid reason: - no cracks or delamination problems, no problems of water infiltration , no aesthetic problems of surface marking honeicomb, easier and cheaper repairs, etc.. ! in the modern class A, it only works on system boards curves and mast-sail, the platform is moved second place, has become less important, for this reason there is not much to spend so much money in it, but it's more correct spend on boards, mast , sail !! I do not want provoke controversy, so I will stop here, these are my 2 cents on this topic!<BR closure_uid_d0ax68="40137" Kc="null">is also interesting the topic Fojo, problems of breakage. in the brands "cheap" above mentioned is also mine and I assure you that many years of my class A does not break anything.

I am sorry but I cannot agree with much of what you say.

I have no stake in this discussion. I sail an older boat which I am trying to make competitive and have no relationship with any manufacturer. I believe I look at the data totally detatched and when i do, the picture is very clear. I agree that some other designs have won national championships and events, but in every case there has been a story. Most often, it is because the person sailing the boat is far better than others in the fleet and that there are no good people sailing the designs I have talked about. Having a DNA, Nikita or Scheurer doesn't change you from a mid fleeter to a winner. It might gain you a few places, say from 30th to 20th, but it won't make you a champion. In other cases, we have seen other designs do OK in a very narrow band of conditions, such as a very light wind regatta. Again, that tells us little. Glen won the 2010 worlds in such circumstances but nobody believes that it proves his ASG3, as sailed there, is a great design. Your case of Randy Smyth is another. If you do not realise that the conditions at Cesinetico meant we learnt nothing about the merits of different designs, you shouldn't be commenting on this sort of thing. FFS, based on Cesinetico, we should all be seriously considering ASG3's and Flyer 1's!

To believe that there are no large differences between the boats is simply wrong. Fairly small differences in shape make a big difference. We have been experimenting with modified Flyer 1 shapes in Oz, with there now being 4 boats with modified back ends. We have learnt that 10mm in the right place can make a bif difference. Take the shape of my own boat. We have found that there is a difference between making the run aft a little less rounded (about 3mm) than the more rounded option. Landy has been playing around with the shape of the Scheurers and has found very minor changes make a significant difference.

And I am only talking about hullshape, which I believe has a much bigger impact than the differences in how the boats are built. Having said that, there are also worthwhile gains in how the boats are built. To some extent, the honeycomb vs foam debate is pointless and to say that there are no large differences between how the boats are built is simply ignorant. If you do not understand the different properties you get when using pre-preg to wet lay up, you shouldn't comment. A well built pre-preg honeycomb boat will not have the problems you are blaming on pre-preg honeycomb. The best A's in terms of build quality are honeycomb. In the same way as you get different quality boats built with wet lay up, so you get different quality with pre-preg.

Having said all that, it doesn't matter how well you build a boat, you won't get an uncompetitive design to perform by building it to a higher standard than everybody else. I would also agree that there si an issue over how long boats really remain competitive, but if you are buying a boat on that basis, you really do have it wrong. At the nationals, I was talking to a friend with a Marstrom, which is as stiff and strong as the day it was built. However, that doesn't make it a winner any more.

I do agree that mast and sails make a big difference, but then again, they will not make a non competitive hull shape win. Curved boards also make a big difference and we have tried a number of different ones in identical boats so as to understand this. There are clearly some which are a lot better than others. However, we have also seen that simply fitting curved boards into boats is not the answer. The hullshape of the boat has to be right. I believe that people are falling into the same trap as I did, believing my curved boards in my Flyer 1 made a difference. Now I know what is needed to make them work, I realise that I was taking small samples of data, moments in time I seemed competitive, and using them to convince myself that curved boards were working on my boat. It wasn't until I really got my boat competitive that i understood the difference. It highlighted to me the need to detach youtself from any personal feelings in order to remain totally objective and it also reminded me how hard that is to do because we all have agendas, be it to prove oneself or justify a buying decision. To do this properly you need to not care what the answer is, just be sure to be totally onbjective. If you are, all the evidence says that at the moment, there are only 3 proven designs, the DNA, Nikita and Scheurer. Others may have protential, but that isn't the same as proven.

#20 ita 16

ita 16

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Cesenatico italy
  • Interests:cat builder
    mast builder
    designer

Posted 21 January 2012 - 02:15 AM

When you have finished editing your flyer will have a boat the same as the Dutch brand, because this was an evolution of the flyer. You have a lot of volume in the aft hull because crews must stay far behind. moving beam aft the crew can stay more forward, this allows to reduce volumes fore and aft. Each boat has its own unique set-up perfect, no numbers are the same for all boats.

#21 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 21 January 2012 - 12:28 PM

When you have finished editing your flyer will have a boat the same as the Dutch brand, because this was an evolution of the flyer. You have a lot of volume in the aft hull because crews must stay far behind. moving beam aft the crew can stay more forward, this allows to reduce volumes fore and aft. Each boat has its own unique set-up perfect, no numbers are the same for all boats.

Sorry, but again I have to disagree. My modified Flyer is nothing like a DNA. To suggest so shows a fundemental lack of understanding of the shapes of the DNA and Nikita/modified Flyer. And the volume at the back has nothing to do with where the crew is in the boat. In fact, now I have more volume in the back, I actually find I am further forward in the boat, because the boards are working properly and giving a lot more lift. The reason why you need the volume is so that when the boards start producing lift, the back of the boat doesn't sink. Without that volume, all you get is the back sinking and dragging. The stern wake is pretty bad to say the least. In this position, the bow doesn't actually lift but instead, the whole attitude of the boat in the water changes. This increases the angle of attack of the boards and increases drag. All told, it's very slow. With the volume in the back, the stern doesn't sink but instead the bow lifts. Because the bow is lifting, I can actually position myself further forward in the boat and find that I am going down the mine less. As has been reported by others on here, the stern wake on my boat has completely smoothed out and is probably the cleanest of all the boats I have seen.

One interesting effect found in boats with good volume in the back is that you can rake the mast back a lot further. This is the "X factor" that really transforms performance. I haven't yet got my head fully round why it works, but when I tried as much rake as I have now on the boat before making it wider, it was slow. Now the same amount of rake makes the boat fly! I suspect that more rake means more weight towards the back, which is why you need the volume.

#22 ita 16

ita 16

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Cesenatico italy
  • Interests:cat builder
    mast builder
    designer

Posted 21 January 2012 - 01:23 PM

Your work is very interesting and give you onor , but that your work is good for your boat better, not a rule or law for all brands of A Cat.

#23 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 21 January 2012 - 10:22 PM

Your work is very interesting and give you onor , but that your work is good for your boat better, not a rule or law for all brands of A Cat.

First, thanks for your kind words but I really don't deserve all the credit. There ahs been a team of people developing ideas about hullshape and I just so happen to be one of the first to do something about it.

I need to point bout that "my" ideas aren't based on what has been learnt with my boat, but they are based on analysis and testing of a wide range of A's. The group in Oz have measured most of the leading designs and compared performance trends in thos eboats with both straight and curved boards. We believe that we can now look at a hullshape and predict how it will perform with curved boards.

Of course, it is possible that a group of people can go down a bit of a blind alley, or miss something. However, we aren't the only people playing these games and it has been interesting to compare notes with others. In particular, Landy has been doing a fair amount with Scheurer to develop hullshape and has found exactly the same things as we found. Landy is very smart and has the added advantage of knowing a lot more than we do about what is going on in Europe, who is performing well and the significance of any particular result. What proved interesting to me is that Landy (and therefore Scheurer) reached exactly the same coinclusions as we did, but totally independently.

Now, I accept hat there can be exceptions to every rule, but to date none of the people I have spoken to have seen any compelling evidence that narrow transom boats work well with curved boards going downwind. We haven't seen it in boat on boat testing and we haven't seen it in the results. We have managed to get narrow transom boats with curved boards to be competitive upwind and there is usually a small window downwind, just after the boiats start to go wild, where it is possible to hang on downhill. However, in every case I am aware of, adding volume to the back of boats with narrow transoms and curved boards has dramatically increased downwind speed. We haqve even got 4 boats with the same front 3.5 metres and slightly different sterns so we can see the differences there. This enabled us to see another trend, that when adding the volume to the back, flattening out the U shape also seems to be benefitial.

All of this is based on boat on boat testing and on accurate measurement and comparison of boats. We have also taken into account actual race results. What I have posted is based on that. It is only by a careful and disciplined approach that you can draw conclusions. I am not saying our findings are definitive, but based on all the evidence to date, our ideas best fit the observations made to date. When I see compelling evidence that contradicts that view, I will be more than happy to change my ideas because i am not married to any one viewpoint, I am just searching for the best answers possible. I should also say that i don't believe that the shape I have reached is the "ideal" shape, because all things are a compromise. I do believe there are some conditions where my style of boat is faster than a DNA and some where the DNA is better. I also suspect that the DNA style of boat carries weight better.

Of course, that might all change because I am under pressure to build some boats to the ideas and shape I am using. If I were to do that, then I would naturally believe that my shape was best and would ignore evidence to the contrary :D

#24 ita 16

ita 16

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Cesenatico italy
  • Interests:cat builder
    mast builder
    designer

Posted 22 January 2012 - 12:14 AM

I share this thought. But many designs are similar, I think you should test other brands Class A (asg3, or preferably a V1R), this is to expand your database. I'd like you to test my class A , maybe I can change your thinking. Perhaps Lake Garda in June? Or , You can find this boat to England.

#25 david r

david r

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts
  • Location:Haleakala

Posted 22 January 2012 - 02:02 AM

Hello,
Simon, based on your reports i have some speculation.
the sterns are starting to work more like a tail of a course racing board now that the curved boards are lifting the boat up a bit. Not only does this lifting need volume in the sterns for stabilization purposes, but this extra aft surface area is a planning surface. this is indicated by your statement about the square edges seeming faster. the aft section of a race board needs sharp edges for release and greater speed, and around 30" of flat rocker. the better you are planning the more you can push down on the stern.

Also mast rake has been known to load up the rudders more causing them to give extra lateral resistance like the dagger boards do. Maybe the curved boards give a little less lateral resistance than straight ones, and using the rudders more for that job is advantageous. mast rake helps in driving a boat hard off the wind in some breeze as well. you are prolly well aware of these basic concepts anyway.
ever since i first read of cats starting to plane off, i thought of making "rails" like a board on the aft section of a cat. here is a quick sketch (with no deck shown-view from aft) of the idea showing the evolution. could be a totally goofy idea, or not.
Attached File  Screen shot 2012-01-21 at 3.21.32 PM.png   12K   32 downloads
it might be possible to temporarily modify the aft section with styro and glass/carbon for testing purposes w/o adding too much weight, to work on your edges.

#26 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,512 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 22 January 2012 - 02:39 AM

considering the much reduced time a cat is going to be planing

over a board

i think anything approaching a square edge like the bottom 2 drawings

will cause too much drag on every other point of sail

let alone need weight that could be better saved elsewhere

#27 sailingkid

sailingkid

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,689 posts
  • Location:Geelong, Vic, Aus
  • Interests:Moths, A-Cats, speed, efficiency

Posted 22 January 2012 - 10:12 AM

The only good sailor who used the V1R was Randy Smith and made 10 at World Cup 2010, with only 1 day of testing on this boat. Today, with new curves boards + new sail the boat is perfect. It lacks a top skipper. Many dynamic load is absorbed by the boards and have less volume in the bows (fore) reduces the platform torsion , a Good project of these 2 subjects get the same results with a very rigid platform, the effect is the same in the race, not on the beach. A hull with many volumes and little curve down must be very rigid , especially in the presence of wave . Remember the old mk4 Boyer? With wind and wave was very fast .

Send me one for free and i'll be your top skipper :P (assuming your that guy who seems to be related to that company, but I'm joking)
Also on the VR1 whats the thinking behind using rope to adjust the rake on the curved centreboards?

But on the mark 4 topic it seems fast in really light air, but I've found it to be kinda slow in wind and waves, how did you make it go quick?

#28 furling

furling

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 755 posts

Posted 22 January 2012 - 12:10 PM

Can anyone tell me is there any point in being able to rake the foils for and aft while on the run? I see some a`s have that ability with the curved foils and some dont.

#29 TracyO

TracyO

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach
  • Interests:High performance multis
    A-cat nut

Posted 22 January 2012 - 04:18 PM

One interesting effect found in boats with good volume in the back is that you can rake the mast back a lot further. This is the "X factor" that really transforms performance. I haven't yet got my head fully round why it works, but when I tried as much rake as I have now on the boat before making it wider, it was slow. Now the same amount of rake makes the boat fly! I suspect that more rake means more weight towards the back, which is why you need the volume.
[/quote]

It would be great if we could get a quantified record of the various degrees of rake that are being used. A digital inclinonmeter in the form of a digital level or smart phone app are readily available. Typically, the transom is perpendicular to the boat's sailing/waterline and can be used as a baseline reference. I know of those running as much as 7 degrees of rake. Swinging the a line from forestay aft only works on identical platforms.


#30 Foghorn77

Foghorn77

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,057 posts

Posted 22 January 2012 - 04:48 PM

One interesting effect found in boats with good volume in the back is that you can rake the mast back a lot further. This is the "X factor" that really transforms performance. I haven't yet got my head fully round why it works, but when I tried as much rake as I have now on the boat before making it wider, it was slow. Now the same amount of rake makes the boat fly! I suspect that more rake means more weight towards the back, which is why you need the volume.


It would be great if we could get a quantified record of the various degrees of rake that are being used. A digital inclinonmeter in the form of a digital level or smart phone app are readily available. Typically, the transom is perpendicular to the boat's sailing/waterline and can be used as a baseline reference. I know of those running as much as 7 degrees of rake. Swinging the a line from forestay aft only works on identical platforms.


Wixey Angle gauge. I picked one up last year on the advice of the ever agreeable Ron. Zero out on transom then measure mast.


http://www.google.co...ved=0CHgQ8wIwAA

#31 TracyO

TracyO

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach
  • Interests:High performance multis
    A-cat nut

Posted 22 January 2012 - 05:34 PM

With my present mainsheet system, I two-block up wind at 6* rake. I can gain slightly more room going to all 30mm blocks, after that I would have to raise the mast at its base.

#32 NATHERR

NATHERR

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:29 PM

Sorry about Scheurer, flojo.
I was misled by the wrong link on USACA.INFO.
However are you sure that that price list is still valid?
It refers to the G5 version and it's more than two year old.
Anyway at the end the final bill for the Swiss A cat delivered to the US East Coast is very close to 33K bucks.
All things considered I am more and more allured by the BIMARE products:
yesterday I found that I can get a new 2011 V1R FOB Miami for 19,650 USD!!!

Much to my surprise no reply with regard to the "good" bending numbers.
A cat USA 230 wrote that both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent about them, but it seems that, on the contrary, A cat owners are very reticent!!!

#33 Foghorn77

Foghorn77

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,057 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 12:23 AM

Sorry about Scheurer, flojo.
I was misled by the wrong link on USACA.INFO.
However are you sure that that price list is still valid?
It refers to the G5 version and it's more than two year old.
Anyway at the end the final bill for the Swiss A cat delivered to the US East Coast is very close to 33K bucks.
All things considered I am more and more allured by the BIMARE products:
yesterday I found that I can get a new 2011 V1R FOB Miami for 19,650 USD!!!

Much to my surprise no reply with regard to the "good" bending numbers.
A cat USA 230 wrote that both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent about them, but it seems that, on the contrary, A cat owners are very reticent!!!


If you look back through the recent A cat threads you'll find numbers, but they would be for that person at their weight. Just like before , I would expect you would want stiffer numbers if you're heavier, but I can't say for sure.

#34 samc99us

samc99us

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 01:07 AM

Sorry about Scheurer, flojo.
I was misled by the wrong link on USACA.INFO.
However are you sure that that price list is still valid?
It refers to the G5 version and it's more than two year old.
Anyway at the end the final bill for the Swiss A cat delivered to the US East Coast is very close to 33K bucks.
All things considered I am more and more allured by the BIMARE products:
yesterday I found that I can get a new 2011 V1R FOB Miami for 19,650 USD!!!

Much to my surprise no reply with regard to the "good" bending numbers.
A cat USA 230 wrote that both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent about them, but it seems that, on the contrary, A cat owners are very reticent!!!


Most information is openly available in the boat park, not online. Just how it is.

The V1R is nicely priced for an all-carbon boat but the mast/sail combo is not well known (i.e, what are the bend numbers on Bimare's mast?), and only 1 or 2 top level skippers racing the platform and not doing super well. If you read the designer/builders comments in the forums, he isn't exactly thinking the same as the DNA/Nikita/Scheurer designers, adding to my skepticism of the platform. In short, you may be out $20K for a less competitive platform than say a modified Flyer 1.

#35 Lars Schrøder D13

Lars Schrøder D13

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:I skipped SA for a while because Scott Tempesta and Alan Block are jerks..but its the only forum where a-class is being discussed so...

Posted 23 January 2012 - 03:22 AM

samc99us

Have you ever seen or raced against a V1R? And hasn't the financial crisis made it to you town? Saving +10k sounds pretty good to me! the hype for the new designs is strong at the moment, please keep that in mind.

And there is no hidden secret formula in this class. The winning designs doesn't change anyone into a winner. Getting your downwind skills up to level is far more important than the design..Actually some of the winning designs are pretty bad build, to heavy, and keeps falling apart (at least they did in the start). Bimare does follow what the other Europeans are doing, so their designs of masts, sails and platforms are pretty good and up to date. The V1R is the successor of the XJ that performs well in the Us (as far I can see) and it looks like they've added a bigger transom and some rails.

I you expect to be in top 10 in Florida it might make sense to buy a nikita, scheurer, DNA or vision. Actually at the light wind worlds last year in Cesenatico the Bimare performed very well, so a Bimare might be a even better choice for Florida this autumn..

And I am practicing and racing against DMAs etc, in an old Tool and beats a lot of them....

All the best with the buy NATHERR.

Lars, DEN-13

#36 NZL255

NZL255

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Being out on the water

Posted 23 January 2012 - 05:37 AM

Yep I totally agree Lars. If you can master the art of sailing an A Class fast downwind you will be onto a definate winner! B)

#37 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 23 January 2012 - 08:59 AM

Much to my surprise no reply with regard to the "good" bending numbers.
A cat USA 230 wrote that both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent about them, but it seems that, on the contrary, A cat owners are very reticent!!!


Here are two reference points for you. With the mast secured at the base and hounds and with 20 kg hung from the tip, I get the following for two masts I own:

2009 Fiberfoam Medium - 58 mm fore and aft (major axis), 208 side to side (minor axis)


2012 Hall - 67 mm fore and aft (major axis), 127 mm side to side (minor axis).

We have also done what is called the Landenberger bend test on the new Hall mast design and it was very close to the bend profile of the latest Fiberfoam masts. The test is done with the mast setup with 55 mm of spreader rake. We will be able to match the Fiberfoam bend profile by making small adjustments to the spreader rake. The Landenberger test is a good reference point for different masts and allows you to adjust factors like spreader length and rake to get a mast bend curve profile that matches a particular sail design's luff curve or you can provide the mast bend curve profile at different spreader rakes to your sailmaker so he can determine the best luff curve profile for your sailing weight.

The Hall mast is what I will be using on both my DNA and my modified ASG3 this winter and spring.


Hope this helps.

#38 flojo

flojo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:46 AM

Sorry about Scheurer, flojo.
I was misled by the wrong link on USACA.INFO.
However are you sure that that price list is still valid?
It refers to the G5 version and it's more than two year old.
Anyway at the end the final bill for the Swiss A cat delivered to the US East Coast is very close to 33K bucks.
All things considered I am more and more allured by the BIMARE products:
yesterday I found that I can get a new 2011 V1R FOB Miami for 19,650 USD!!!

The price is still the same for the newest G6 version 2012 (see here): Full carbon/nomex, new centerboards, centerboard rake adjustment, balcony etc. You can even select the longitudinal centerboard position.

The V1R, DNA, Nikita are EUR based, the G6 is CHF based. The strong CHF is the main problem for swiss producers.

#39 AUS

AUS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 03:02 PM

Sorry about Scheurer, flojo.
I was misled by the wrong link on USACA.INFO.
However are you sure that that price list is still valid?
It refers to the G5 version and it's more than two year old.
Anyway at the end the final bill for the Swiss A cat delivered to the US East Coast is very close to 33K bucks.
All things considered I am more and more allured by the BIMARE products:
yesterday I found that I can get a new 2011 V1R FOB Miami for 19,650 USD!!!

Much to my surprise no reply with regard to the "good" bending numbers.
A cat USA 230 wrote that both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent about them, but it seems that, on the contrary, A cat owners are very reticent!!!


NATHERR, You obviously don’t know many A cat sailors personally then!! If you are intending on getting into the class I would suggest that you don’t start by making these type of remarks. The A cat group worldwide are a great group of sailors from all walks of life and besides the few egos ( you find a couple in every class) most are very helpful and willing to assist especially at the top end!! With regards to the bend numbers they are easy find through a variety of threads. The main issue is that there is a certain level of respect to the mast makers and most people are reluctant to posting the information openly online but I am sure there is a handful of people you could PM to get the answer your needing, better still turn up to any of the A cat events around the world have a beer and ask your questions.

#40 AUS

AUS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 03:52 PM

samc99us

Have you ever seen or raced against a V1R? And hasn't the financial crisis made it to you town? Saving +10k sounds pretty good to me! the hype for the new designs is strong at the moment, please keep that in mind.

And there is no hidden secret formula in this class. The winning designs doesn't change anyone into a winner. Getting your downwind skills up to level is far more important than the design..Actually some of the winning designs are pretty bad build, to heavy, and keeps falling apart (at least they did in the start). Bimare does follow what the other Europeans are doing, so their designs of masts, sails and platforms are pretty good and up to date. The V1R is the successor of the XJ that performs well in the Us (as far I can see) and it looks like they've added a bigger transom and some rails.

I you expect to be in top 10 in Florida it might make sense to buy a nikita, scheurer, DNA or vision. Actually at the light wind worlds last year in Cesenatico the Bimare performed very well, so a Bimare might be a even better choice for Florida this autumn..

And I am practicing and racing against DMAs etc, in an old Tool and beats a lot of them....

All the best with the buy NATHERR.

Lars, DEN-13

I Agree with Lars.. While the platform and rig combined is very important to be competitive at the top end you need to be put time into sailing the boats.

Evolution happens in every class, but don’t be fooled that you must have the best and newest to be competitive and enjoy the fleet. There are still plenty of post 2005 designs that are still competitive enough for the average Joe. Yes at this year’s WC most of the boats were new DNA’s Nikitas etc but that is because all of the top guys were sailing these boats. In both the platform and the rig department there were many exceptions… There were a few standard med masts and a few different platforms…. Lars75 was a good example, he finished quite respectfully and a few top 10 finishes, and correct me if I am wrong Lars but you were on a Tool with curved boards and a standard Fiberfoam Med? I am fortunate to have a Nikita and a DNA and have seen the small differences in performance between certain conditions but the small differences are exactly that subtle… I also have a converted ASG3 … call it and ASG3.5 with Nikita boards and a Fiberfoam Med in my garage and I am still not convinced that it is any slower than my other two boats. I believe that a boat that was competitive 5 years ago will still be faster than some of the brand new boats that are now available. At our club there is an XJ with curved boards that is super fast.

My concerns with a lot of these discussions is that the true point of boats like these sometimes gets a little lost with the tec discussion at the top end… If you are not and don’t plan to be racing at the first 20 at a WC There are a lot of boats available at a very respectable price and appropriate for a larger range of people that most would think. Best of all, in most fleets there is always someone to race against. In the US winter events there is acknowledgment for both the top 5 and the again starting at exactly ½ way down the fleet…

#41 AUS

AUS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 04:33 PM

It would be great if we could get a quantified record of the various degrees of rake that are being used. A digital inclinonmeter in the form of a digital level or smart phone app are readily available. Typically, the transom is perpendicular to the boat's sailing/waterline and can be used as a baseline reference. I know of those running as much as 7 degrees of rake. Swinging the a line from forestay aft only works on identical platforms.
[/quote]
TracyO,

Fun time in the keys last week!

I am not sure if you were there but I had been using the I phone app and the digital level off the transom for mast rake and board rake. We came to the conclusion that for the board rake the electronic devices were just not stable and accurate enough and we didn’t feel comfortable in the final accuracies. The mast is ok BC you can live with a .5 deg variance but on the boards when we were trying to calibrate them from 1 – 2.5 deg and have markings of .5 deg increments it just wasn't working. Jim then suggested we use the laser level and measure the offsets and this was far more accurate. I can’t remember the exact numbers but I can check on my boat stuff tonight but I think from a base of 1 deg of rake each 4mm at the head = .5deg. I don’t think that the freeboard difference between boats at the boards will really be different enough to cause any measurable difference. FYI I only really plan on using two settings if that 1.5 and 2deg possibly 2.5 down the road.

#42 Lars Schrøder D13

Lars Schrøder D13

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:I skipped SA for a while because Scott Tempesta and Alan Block are jerks..but its the only forum where a-class is being discussed so...

Posted 23 January 2012 - 06:29 PM


samc99us

Have you ever seen or raced against a V1R? And hasn't the financial crisis made it to you town? Saving +10k sounds pretty good to me! the hype for the new designs is strong at the moment, please keep that in mind.

And there is no hidden secret formula in this class. The winning designs doesn't change anyone into a winner. Getting your downwind skills up to level is far more important than the design..Actually some of the winning designs are pretty bad build, to heavy, and keeps falling apart (at least they did in the start). Bimare does follow what the other Europeans are doing, so their designs of masts, sails and platforms are pretty good and up to date. The V1R is the successor of the XJ that performs well in the Us (as far I can see) and it looks like they've added a bigger transom and some rails.

I you expect to be in top 10 in Florida it might make sense to buy a nikita, scheurer, DNA or vision. Actually at the light wind worlds last year in Cesenatico the Bimare performed very well, so a Bimare might be a even better choice for Florida this autumn..

And I am practicing and racing against DMAs etc, in an old Tool and beats a lot of them....

All the best with the buy NATHERR.

Lars, DEN-13

I Agree with Lars.. While the platform and rig combined is very important to be competitive at the top end you need to be put time into sailing the boats.

Evolution happens in every class, but don’t be fooled that you must have the best and newest to be competitive and enjoy the fleet. There are still plenty of post 2005 designs that are still competitive enough for the average Joe. Yes at this year’s WC most of the boats were new DNA’s Nikitas etc but that is because all of the top guys were sailing these boats. In both the platform and the rig department there were many exceptions… There were a few standard med masts and a few different platforms…. Lars75 was a good example, he finished quite respectfully and a few top 10 finishes, and correct me if I am wrong Lars but you were on a Tool with curved boards and a standard Fiberfoam Med? I am fortunate to have a Nikita and a DNA and have seen the small differences in performance between certain conditions but the small differences are exactly that subtle… I also have a converted ASG3 … call it and ASG3.5 with Nikita boards and a Fiberfoam Med in my garage and I am still not convinced that it is any slower than my other two boats. I believe that a boat that was competitive 5 years ago will still be faster than some of the brand new boats that are now available. At our club there is an XJ with curved boards that is super fast.

My concerns with a lot of these discussions is that the true point of boats like these sometimes gets a little lost with the tec discussion at the top end… If you are not and don’t plan to be racing at the first 20 at a WC There are a lot of boats available at a very respectable price and appropriate for a larger range of people that most would think. Best of all, in most fleets there is always someone to race against. In the US winter events there is acknowledgment for both the top 5 and the again starting at exactly ½ way down the fleet…


Yep, I'm sailing a standard Tool with straight boards, old school medium Fiberfoam with a Glaser Lars1 (because of the name;-). My speed is ok, but I am struggling downwind compared to the frontrunners, the main explanation is my lack of timing and staying in the flow and minor part is the design (I would still be beaten if I swapped boat with Steve Ashby). The newer designs have wider transoms and also the V1R has gone in the direction and it makes good sense because the older designs are dragging their ass going downwind.

There is a DNA at my club and I am normally faster than him downwind in my tool and if we swap boats its the same. So perhaps you get a little advantage by buying a brand new design (and pay 30K $), but still you cannot buy the downwind technique, and that’s where the races are lost for the midfleeters. The Nikitas, DNA and Scheurer are wonderful boats and the safe choice if you have enough money and are fast in the a-class (I would probably buy one if it wasn’t for my wife’s priorities...). The rest of us can start with other designs and then change when we have made it top 10.

The hype for the newer designs are pretty strong at the moment and it gives the class a pretty bad reputation of being very expensive and it’s not fair because you can actually get a cheap competetive boat and enter a wonderful class and sail faster than you can imagine (we raced the contenders last year, they got 5 minutes on us, only sailed 2 rounds to ours 3 and we still beat them easily).

See you all

Lars

#43 NATHERR

NATHERR

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 08:54 PM

Thanks you all for the feedback and a special thanks to Bob for the bending numbers.
Now I am looking at the device used to modify the angle of incidence of curved boards.
I noted that many boatyards (DNA and BIMARE for sure) fit the top of daggerboard trunks with plastic sliders.
Are this device really useful or it's OK to set the boards in a fixed position?
What did those who retrofit curved boards on boats born with straight boards do?

#44 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:39 PM

Thanks you all for the feedback and a special thanks to Bob for the bending numbers.
Now I am looking at the device used to modify the angle of incidence of curved boards.
I noted that many boatyards (DNA and BIMARE for sure) fit the top of daggerboard trunks with plastic sliders.
Are this device really useful or it's OK to set the boards in a fixed position?
What did those who retrofit curved boards on boats born with straight boards do?


When you buy curved boards to put in an older boat, you should get a set of trunks that are oversized from the supplier of the boards. Most people will "pot" (with epoxy and filler) or shim in the exit of the trunk fixing the board exit in place and then leave room to shim or install a slider on the top to change the AOA.

#45 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:48 PM


Much to my surprise no reply with regard to the "good" bending numbers.
A cat USA 230 wrote that both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent about them, but it seems that, on the contrary, A cat owners are very reticent!!!


Here are two reference points for you. With the mast secured at the base and hounds and with 20 kg hung from the tip, I get the following for two masts I own:

2009 Fiberfoam Medium - 58 mm fore and aft (major axis), 208 side to side (minor axis)


2012 Hall - 67 mm fore and aft (major axis), 127 mm side to side (minor axis).

We have also done what is called the Landenberger bend test on the new Hall mast design and it was very close to the bend profile of the latest Fiberfoam masts. The test is done with the mast setup with 55 mm of spreader rake. We will be able to match the Fiberfoam bend profile by making small adjustments to the spreader rake. The Landenberger test is a good reference point for different masts and allows you to adjust factors like spreader length and rake to get a mast bend curve profile that matches a particular sail design's luff curve or you can provide the mast bend curve profile at different spreader rakes to your sailmaker so he can determine the best luff curve profile for your sailing weight.

The Hall mast is what I will be using on both my DNA and my modified ASG3 this winter and spring.


Hope this helps.

This is where it all gets a bit confusing! Down here in Oz, we don't look at the tip bend but instead, place the weight in the middle of the mast. The "fast" Saaberg numbers for that are 65/140 and I believe that the Fibrefoam numbers are similar. Before the nationals, a number of top guys were testing both Saaberg and Fibrefoam but using the same sail, and they weren't having any issues. In fact, Bundy was training with Jack Benson, had identical sails and couldn't really tell the difference between the performance of the 2 makes. Jack went with the Saaberg while Bundy went with the only mast he had, the Fibrefoam. I really don't think there ios anything between the 2 makes.

I have written about this before but so that people do not get confused, the advice of "support the mast at the hounds" needs to be reconsidered as people are playing with various hound positions and this really does screw up the measurements. The consistant place to support (traditional hounds height) is 6270mm from the base. Of course, moving the hounds position does effect the relative bend in use, but there needs to be a consistant way of comparing sections.

Hope that helps.

#46 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:01 PM

Centreboard rake - where to start!! If there is one thing that seems to have no real answer, it is this. The only thing I can be sure of is that a negative figure is bad.

I know a few people who have spent a lot of time with their DNA's trying to find a "sweet spot" for the rake. I don't know of anybody who has measured it in degrees but simply with marks on the deck next the the slider. And I haven't met anybody who claims to have found a difference. Bundy reports that he has tried for 2 years now, and still cannot tell the difference between middle and all the way back. I aksed Stevie after the day he got a 1st and 2nd and he reported something others have said as well - he often ends up with the sliders moving during the races and has different positions on each tack. Asked if he was worried, he replied "no". I was privy to a general discussion on this with a group of other front runners and all seem to report the same thing.

So, what is going on!! I have a theory (when don't I!!). The position of the sailor in the boat, fore and aft, has a bigger effect on the rake of the boards to the water flow than anything set in the case. People are very good at adjusting fore and aft trim of the boat with their body weight, doing so naturally and therefore the differences between the board rakes are automatically dealt with in the course of sailing. If the bow is rising too much, you move forward. If the bow is burying, you move back. the few degrees that the boards can be altered don't change the equation.

#47 Bang Zoom

Bang Zoom

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Location:Canton Ma
  • Interests:Sailing, cycling

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:04 PM



Much to my surprise no reply with regard to the "good" bending numbers.
A cat USA 230 wrote that both Hall and Fiberfoam are pretty transparent about them, but it seems that, on the contrary, A cat owners are very reticent!!!


Here are two reference points for you. With the mast secured at the base and hounds and with 20 kg hung from the tip, I get the following for two masts I own:

2009 Fiberfoam Medium - 58 mm fore and aft (major axis), 208 side to side (minor axis)


2012 Hall - 67 mm fore and aft (major axis), 127 mm side to side (minor axis).

We have also done what is called the Landenberger bend test on the new Hall mast design and it was very close to the bend profile of the latest Fiberfoam masts. The test is done with the mast setup with 55 mm of spreader rake. We will be able to match the Fiberfoam bend profile by making small adjustments to the spreader rake. The Landenberger test is a good reference point for different masts and allows you to adjust factors like spreader length and rake to get a mast bend curve profile that matches a particular sail design's luff curve or you can provide the mast bend curve profile at different spreader rakes to your sailmaker so he can determine the best luff curve profile for your sailing weight.

The Hall mast is what I will be using on both my DNA and my modified ASG3 this winter and spring.


Hope this helps.

This is where it all gets a bit confusing! Down here in Oz, we don't look at the tip bend but instead, place the weight in the middle of the mast. The "fast" Saaberg numbers for that are 65/140 and I believe that the Fibrefoam numbers are similar. Before the nationals, a number of top guys were testing both Saaberg and Fibrefoam but using the same sail, and they weren't having any issues. In fact, Bundy was training with Jack Benson, had identical sails and couldn't really tell the difference between the performance of the 2 makes. Jack went with the Saaberg while Bundy went with the only mast he had, the Fibrefoam. I really don't think there ios anything between the 2 makes.

I have written about this before but so that people do not get confused, the advice of "support the mast at the hounds" needs to be reconsidered as people are playing with various hound positions and this really does screw up the measurements. The consistant place to support (traditional hounds height) is 6270mm from the base. Of course, moving the hounds position does effect the relative bend in use, but there needs to be a consistant way of comparing sections.

Hope that helps.


Hi Simmon, what is the exact procedure for measuring with weight at the middle of the mast? Thanks

#48 AUS

AUS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:26 PM

SimonN that is a great way of explain the relation of the board angle variance to body weight. I still believe though that having the boards fixed at the head and not moving independently is better if only for a psychological reasoning. I have mine calibrated and accurate on the DNA and set at 1.5 deg and my Nikita is at 2deg and fixed and filled at the top.

#49 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:30 PM

OK, final post on matters above. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I figured different topics would be easier to read and reply to if kept seperate.

I cannot fault the argument about time in the boat. Downwind technique is king. I also totally believe that having a boat like a DNA won't turn you into a downhill flyer. However, there is a major flaw in the arguments around this. How do you know how good your downhill technique is if you are in a boat that simply isn't fast enough? I will use 4 cases to try to illustrate this.

First, myself. In every class I have sailed, I have been quick downwind, until I bought an A. I have worked so hard at downhill speed it isn't funny. I was getting seriously pissed off at my inability to make an A go fast downwind. Then I make a change to my hullshape. Instantly, I am quick downhill. It wasn't practice. It wasn't new technique. It was simply getting a boat that was capable of being fast downwind. At the nationals last year, I went around the first mark in the top 15 over 75% of the races and simply went backwards. This year, with no training and only a changed boat, I went around the top mark in the 30's-40's almost every race and pulled my way up through the fleet offwind.

Jack Benson sailed a Flyer 1 last year and struggled in all but the light stuff. He was another who was capable of getting to the front upwind, but was slow downhill. He had the technique. In fact, in 15 knots, I would say his sailing was spectacular but he went nowhere. Now he has a boat that is fast downwind, he is getting great results. He had an average nationals by the standards he set himself, but that wasn't due to speed.

Scott Anderson is another case. With his Flyer 2, he did really well but lacked the edge, particularly downwind where his options were limited to going low. He had never consistantly been up with the likes of Stevie B, yet once on the Nikita, he was really fast. He already had the skills, just needed the boat.

For me, the best example of how lack of boatspeed can mislead views on ability is Ben Moon. Based on his results in the US, nobody would have predicted how he would perform at the worlds. And look at his performance last week in the USA. To me, this is clear evidence of a very talented sailor being held back by his equipment.

There seems to be a conventional wisdom that you don't need the best gear when learning how to sail a new class. I believe that this is generally wrong, unless you are content to be a mid fleeter. If you have any ambition to try to get to the pointy part of the fleet, you need to train against others with equipment eual to what they are using. Anything less gives you false information as you have no idea whether it is you or the boat. Time and again, i fall for this and buy a boat I think will be good enough only to find that when i try a truly competitive boat I am a lot better than I thought I was. In the case of the A, I made an economic decision but I wish I didn't have to make the decision based on that.

#50 ita 16

ita 16

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Cesenatico italy
  • Interests:cat builder
    mast builder
    designer

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:43 PM

Simon, this is correct, for this reason that I have increased width boards (no length). Wide boards feel better angle changes, I would also greatly increase the lift, this season I test very large boards , up to 22 cm. I think this is the future in A class.

#51 WetnWild

WetnWild

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Location:Brisvegas
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 24 January 2012 - 02:09 AM

All good discussion.

The DNA is the go to platform at the moment as shown by results in the top 3 regattas - AUS Nats, Worlds and Euros. The Scheurer and Nikita are knocking on the door. It will be very interesting to see how the DNA's go in the predicted lighter air at the Florida Worlds. If they have a weakness it is to windward in 6 knots and slop. That applies to any fat/flat bottomed design with curved boards. Doesn't seem to be a problem downwind though.
Hopefully the BIM's can lift their game with the newer designs after being out of the top ranks since their heyday of the 80's.

#52 Lars Schrøder D13

Lars Schrøder D13

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:I skipped SA for a while because Scott Tempesta and Alan Block are jerks..but its the only forum where a-class is being discussed so...

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:23 AM

Simon, maybe your right and I'm trying to excuse my lack of money with all kinds aspects about the design of the boat and the driving. Maybe I'll just have to accept I will be a midfleeter in this class.

I've always raced on a tight budget, and it works to a certain degree, but I must also admit that I hav'nt won any worlds yet.

See you all

Lars

#53 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:36 AM

Simon, maybe your right and I'm trying to excuse my lack of money with all kinds aspects about the design of the boat and the driving. Maybe I'll just have to accept I will be a midfleeter in this class.

I've always raced on a tight budget, and it works to a certain degree, but I must also admit that I hav'nt won any worlds yet.

See you all

Lars

Lars

I am in the same position with the money and it can be depressing seeing others spend, spend, spend. The important thing that maybe we all miss during these conversations is that it should all be about fun. That is why I have an old Flyer 1, because that is what i can afford and I would rather have that than not be sailing. If at the same time we can find a way of making our older boats competitive, it becomes even more fun.

#54 WetnWild

WetnWild

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Location:Brisvegas
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:50 AM


Simon, maybe your right and I'm trying to excuse my lack of money with all kinds aspects about the design of the boat and the driving. Maybe I'll just have to accept I will be a midfleeter in this class.

I've always raced on a tight budget, and it works to a certain degree, but I must also admit that I hav'nt won any worlds yet.

See you all

Lars

Lars

I am in the same position with the money and it can be depressing seeing others spend, spend, spend. The important thing that maybe we all miss during these conversations is that it should all be about fun. That is why I have an old Flyer 1, because that is what i can afford and I would rather have that than not be sailing. If at the same time we can find a way of making our older boats competitive, it becomes even more fun.

This is in the true spirit and tradition of the A's being a development class and one where in the past, the keen sailors built a new boat each winter and tried new things. The more recent "factory" type boats and more professional development is all good, but mucking around with ideas and trying things from grass roots sailors is great. Keep going!

#55 Lars Schrøder D13

Lars Schrøder D13

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:I skipped SA for a while because Scott Tempesta and Alan Block are jerks..but its the only forum where a-class is being discussed so...

Posted 24 January 2012 - 07:50 AM


Simon, maybe your right and I'm trying to excuse my lack of money with all kinds aspects about the design of the boat and the driving. Maybe I'll just have to accept I will be a midfleeter in this class.

I've always raced on a tight budget, and it works to a certain degree, but I must also admit that I hav'nt won any worlds yet.

See you all

Lars

Lars

I am in the same position with the money and it can be depressing seeing others spend, spend, spend. The important thing that maybe we all miss during these conversations is that it should all be about fun. That is why I have an old Flyer 1, because that is what i can afford and I would rather have that than not be sailing. If at the same time we can find a way of making our older boats competitive, it becomes even more fun.


I agree - the a-class is a good fun boat with a great spirit amongst the competitor and close fast racing. And because of that its sad if peoble are scared away because they think they need the latest uberonuim epodriven boat to have fun.. Ill give it a go and see how far I can get with my current boat, to prove thats its not all a matter of equipment (its actually also a devaluation of the good sailors, because some thinks its just because of their boat).

See you

Lars

#56 ita 16

ita 16

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Cesenatico italy
  • Interests:cat builder
    mast builder
    designer

Posted 24 January 2012 - 07:53 AM

+ 1, I do since I was born, continued research is a drug, but admit to being a little tired and wanted to go on holiday for 1 year min.

#57 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:26 PM

Centreboard rake - where to start!! If there is one thing that seems to have no real answer, it is this. The only thing I can be sure of is that a negative figure is bad.

I know a few people who have spent a lot of time with their DNA's trying to find a "sweet spot" for the rake. I don't know of anybody who has measured it in degrees but simply with marks on the deck next the the slider. And I haven't met anybody who claims to have found a difference. Bundy reports that he has tried for 2 years now, and still cannot tell the difference between middle and all the way back. I aksed Stevie after the day he got a 1st and 2nd and he reported something others have said as well - he often ends up with the sliders moving during the races and has different positions on each tack. Asked if he was worried, he replied "no". I was privy to a general discussion on this with a group of other front runners and all seem to report the same thing.

So, what is going on!! I have a theory (when don't I!!). The position of the sailor in the boat, fore and aft, has a bigger effect on the rake of the boards to the water flow than anything set in the case. People are very good at adjusting fore and aft trim of the boat with their body weight, doing so naturally and therefore the differences between the board rakes are automatically dealt with in the course of sailing. If the bow is rising too much, you move forward. If the bow is burying, you move back. the few degrees that the boards can be altered don't change the equation.


On the modified ASG3, I sailed the 2011 winter/spring circuit with my Hall/Cogan daggerboards pretty much neutral, maybe one degree max of positive AOA max. In the majority of races in that racing circuit, I was competitive downwind. Over the late spring and summer, I changed the AOA to 2 degrees positive. It took me all summer to come to the conclusion that this was the wrong direction for this boat. The additional lift created too much drag and did seem to make the back end of the boat squat. In the racing I have done this past fall and winter with the AOA back around 1 degree, the boat is much better downwind and I believe it is a matter of weight distribution to get the most out of the curved foils while minimizing drag. Curved daggerboards are certainly making optimization of A-Cat downwind technique both fun and frustrating at the same time but the mutual conclusions make sense and seem corroborated since I was told that the top finishers at the WC this year were sailing with 1-1.5 degree AOA on their curved daggerboards.

So close to getting the DNA on the water, waiting on standing rigging and mainsheet parts and Glaser is building a new sail. Hope to have the rig up this weekend to at least get most of the rigging finalized.

#58 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:01 PM

SimonN that is a great way of explain the relation of the board angle variance to body weight. I still believe though that having the boards fixed at the head and not moving independently is better if only for a psychological reasoning. I have mine calibrated and accurate on the DNA and set at 1.5 deg and my Nikita is at 2deg and fixed and filled at the top.

I am beginning to think you are right about having the heads fixed because it is one less thing to worry about. It is too easy to get distracted for a moment trying to get both heads in the same position! I am interested that you use different settings on your DNA and Nikita. Despite a lot of myths, having now had the 2 foils next to each other, they are so similar it is almost unbelievable. The real difference is the extra area in the tip of the Nikita, which I would have thought would have led to less rake, if you believe that it makes any difference! The similarities are such that Chris Cairns sailed the nationals with one Nikita and one DNA board. His boat has Nikita cases and he said that the DNA board fitted those cases better than the Nikita one :o Chris was unable to detect any difference between performance on either tack.

As said above, what I do believe is that while the AOA isn't critical, having the right boards is absolutely critical. I don't think it is a coincidence that the 2 boats I like most at the moment have such similar foils.

#59 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:10 PM

since I was told that the top finishers at the WC this year were sailing with 1-1.5 degree AOA on their curved daggerboards.

I am interested in how you got this figure, because I know that Steve and Jack never measured this. About 4 weeks before this years nationals, Stevie was convinced that Jack's platform was faster than his and was looking for differences. I asked him if he had measured the rake and toe in of the boards and he had never done so. It seems that Jack hadn't either.

It could be that somebody knew where Steve had his slider and measured the angle off another boat, but even then I find it strange because I believe that Steve generally sails with the slider in a different place to most. Unless it moves during the race, he usually has the slider set in the middle of its range. Most of the others I have trained with tend towards having the slider fully back and moving it forward about 10mm when it is seriously breezy.

#60 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 25 January 2012 - 04:36 PM


since I was told that the top finishers at the WC this year were sailing with 1-1.5 degree AOA on their curved daggerboards.

I am interested in how you got this figure, because I know that Steve and Jack never measured this. About 4 weeks before this years nationals, Stevie was convinced that Jack's platform was faster than his and was looking for differences. I asked him if he had measured the rake and toe in of the boards and he had never done so. It seems that Jack hadn't either.

It could be that somebody knew where Steve had his slider and measured the angle off another boat, but even then I find it strange because I believe that Steve generally sails with the slider in a different place to most. Unless it moves during the race, he usually has the slider set in the middle of its range. Most of the others I have trained with tend towards having the slider fully back and moving it forward about 10mm when it is seriously breezy.


I got this info from the US sailors at Aarhus and I believe it is accurate since they were trying to sort out their platforms and rigs that were being sailed for the first time at this event. It's interesting that on the top slider on the DNA, the adjustment at the top from neutral to around 2 degrees of AOA is only 14-15 mm. A little goes a long way.

#61 AUS

AUS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 05:55 PM


SimonN that is a great way of explain the relation of the board angle variance to body weight. I still believe though that having the boards fixed at the head and not moving independently is better if only for a psychological reasoning. I have mine calibrated and accurate on the DNA and set at 1.5 deg and my Nikita is at 2deg and fixed and filled at the top.

I am beginning to think you are right about having the heads fixed because it is one less thing to worry about. It is too easy to get distracted for a moment trying to get both heads in the same position! I am interested that you use different settings on your DNA and Nikita. Despite a lot of myths, having now had the 2 foils next to each other, they are so similar it is almost unbelievable. The real difference is the extra area in the tip of the Nikita, which I would have thought would have led to less rake, if you believe that it makes any difference! The similarities are such that Chris Cairns sailed the nationals with one Nikita and one DNA board. His boat has Nikita cases and he said that the DNA board fitted those cases better than the Nikita one :o Chris was unable to detect any difference between performance on either tack.

As said above, what I do believe is that while the AOA isn't critical, having the right boards is absolutely critical. I don't think it is a coincidence that the 2 boats I like most at the moment have such similar foils.


Simon, I didn’t at all mean to get to tec on this measurement. Sailed the Nikita as it was when Nils dropped it off to me 2 days before the worlds, seemed to go ok. I didn’t even get to measure it, someone else did. The DNA I did the same and just sailed with factory settings (slider 1” to the back of the trunk) we had a day of no sailing so we measured a few boats between pool hot tub and beer with the laser level.. it to be just over 2deg so moved it to 1.5 and can’t tell the difference (I expected as much) Just wanted to make sure I had accurate calibrations for the get go.

#62 samc99us

samc99us

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 06:03 PM

OK, final post on matters above. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I figured different topics would be easier to read and reply to if kept seperate.

I cannot fault the argument about time in the boat. Downwind technique is king. I also totally believe that having a boat like a DNA won't turn you into a downhill flyer. However, there is a major flaw in the arguments around this. How do you know how good your downhill technique is if you are in a boat that simply isn't fast enough? I will use 4 cases to try to illustrate this.

First, myself. In every class I have sailed, I have been quick downwind, until I bought an A. I have worked so hard at downhill speed it isn't funny. I was getting seriously pissed off at my inability to make an A go fast downwind. Then I make a change to my hullshape. Instantly, I am quick downhill. It wasn't practice. It wasn't new technique. It was simply getting a boat that was capable of being fast downwind. At the nationals last year, I went around the first mark in the top 15 over 75% of the races and simply went backwards. This year, with no training and only a changed boat, I went around the top mark in the 30's-40's almost every race and pulled my way up through the fleet offwind.

Jack Benson sailed a Flyer 1 last year and struggled in all but the light stuff. He was another who was capable of getting to the front upwind, but was slow downhill. He had the technique. In fact, in 15 knots, I would say his sailing was spectacular but he went nowhere. Now he has a boat that is fast downwind, he is getting great results. He had an average nationals by the standards he set himself, but that wasn't due to speed.

Scott Anderson is another case. With his Flyer 2, he did really well but lacked the edge, particularly downwind where his options were limited to going low. He had never consistantly been up with the likes of Stevie B, yet once on the Nikita, he was really fast. He already had the skills, just needed the boat.

For me, the best example of how lack of boatspeed can mislead views on ability is Ben Moon. Based on his results in the US, nobody would have predicted how he would perform at the worlds. And look at his performance last week in the USA. To me, this is clear evidence of a very talented sailor being held back by his equipment.

There seems to be a conventional wisdom that you don't need the best gear when learning how to sail a new class. I believe that this is generally wrong, unless you are content to be a mid fleeter. If you have any ambition to try to get to the pointy part of the fleet, you need to train against others with equipment eual to what they are using. Anything less gives you false information as you have no idea whether it is you or the boat. Time and again, i fall for this and buy a boat I think will be good enough only to find that when i try a truly competitive boat I am a lot better than I thought I was. In the case of the A, I made an economic decision but I wish I didn't have to make the decision based on that.


Simon,

Thank you for clarifying the point I was trying to make with real-life examples.

Lars,

Yes the economy has hit my area, not nearly as bad as most as most jobs where I work are funded directly or indirectly by the government. Either way, I too run this debate in my head. The local A fleet doesn't have a DNA, there is one boat with curved boards (a Tool I believe), so I would likely be competitive locally with a Flyer 1 for 1/3rd the price of a new DNA (and I can't afford a DNA either). At the moment I'm considering an ancient (in A class terms) Boyer III, its in good shape and the price is decent, better to be on the water in the fleet than not! I'm also a bit tired of my Hobie 14, not a lot of skills transfer to the F16/18 and N20 from that platform, other than keeping the boat upright when its nasty!

-Sam

#63 Lars Schrøder D13

Lars Schrøder D13

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:I skipped SA for a while because Scott Tempesta and Alan Block are jerks..but its the only forum where a-class is being discussed so...

Posted 25 January 2012 - 07:13 PM


OK, final post on matters above. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I figured different topics would be easier to read and reply to if kept seperate.

I cannot fault the argument about time in the boat. Downwind technique is king. I also totally believe that having a boat like a DNA won't turn you into a downhill flyer. However, there is a major flaw in the arguments around this. How do you know how good your downhill technique is if you are in a boat that simply isn't fast enough? I will use 4 cases to try to illustrate this.

First, myself. In every class I have sailed, I have been quick downwind, until I bought an A. I have worked so hard at downhill speed it isn't funny. I was getting seriously pissed off at my inability to make an A go fast downwind. Then I make a change to my hullshape. Instantly, I am quick downhill. It wasn't practice. It wasn't new technique. It was simply getting a boat that was capable of being fast downwind. At the nationals last year, I went around the first mark in the top 15 over 75% of the races and simply went backwards. This year, with no training and only a changed boat, I went around the top mark in the 30's-40's almost every race and pulled my way up through the fleet offwind.

Jack Benson sailed a Flyer 1 last year and struggled in all but the light stuff. He was another who was capable of getting to the front upwind, but was slow downhill. He had the technique. In fact, in 15 knots, I would say his sailing was spectacular but he went nowhere. Now he has a boat that is fast downwind, he is getting great results. He had an average nationals by the standards he set himself, but that wasn't due to speed.

Scott Anderson is another case. With his Flyer 2, he did really well but lacked the edge, particularly downwind where his options were limited to going low. He had never consistantly been up with the likes of Stevie B, yet once on the Nikita, he was really fast. He already had the skills, just needed the boat.

For me, the best example of how lack of boatspeed can mislead views on ability is Ben Moon. Based on his results in the US, nobody would have predicted how he would perform at the worlds. And look at his performance last week in the USA. To me, this is clear evidence of a very talented sailor being held back by his equipment.

There seems to be a conventional wisdom that you don't need the best gear when learning how to sail a new class. I believe that this is generally wrong, unless you are content to be a mid fleeter. If you have any ambition to try to get to the pointy part of the fleet, you need to train against others with equipment eual to what they are using. Anything less gives you false information as you have no idea whether it is you or the boat. Time and again, i fall for this and buy a boat I think will be good enough only to find that when i try a truly competitive boat I am a lot better than I thought I was. In the case of the A, I made an economic decision but I wish I didn't have to make the decision based on that.


Simon,

Thank you for clarifying the point I was trying to make with real-life examples.

Lars,

Yes the economy has hit my area, not nearly as bad as most as most jobs where I work are funded directly or indirectly by the government. Either way, I too run this debate in my head. The local A fleet doesn't have a DNA, there is one boat with curved boards (a Tool I believe), so I would likely be competitive locally with a Flyer 1 for 1/3rd the price of a new DNA (and I can't afford a DNA either). At the moment I'm considering an ancient (in A class terms) Boyer III, its in good shape and the price is decent, better to be on the water in the fleet than not! I'm also a bit tired of my Hobie 14, not a lot of skills transfer to the F16/18 and N20 from that platform, other than keeping the boat upright when its nasty!

-Sam


Yeah join in, it’s a wonderful boat and a wonderful class.

I don’t know a boyer III, but to me it looks like part of the equation for the newer designs is the higher volume in different parts of the hull, so adding that to an older design could maybe lift their game as well (it sounds like Simon and the other Australians are happy with their modifications). The curved boards must be second round - following the discussions on this forum is pretty confusing and you do get lift from straight canted boards as well, so it’s not that bad. And the best modification is always more time on water and a new sail.

Lars

#64 Catfan

Catfan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 08:46 AM

[quote name='NATHERR' timestamp='1327267751' post='3556459']

All things considered I am more and more allured by the BIMARE products:
yesterday I found that I can get a new 2011 V1R FOB Miami for 19,650 USD!!!

NATHERR
I suggest you to spend USD 1,600 more and get the new V1-R 2012.
The first is near completion (finished in all details) at BIMARE.
See BIMARE web site.
I was told that the outcome of the first sailing tests is promising:
the new design (it differs so much from the 2011 version that it has to be regarded as a new boat) is not only faster but also easier to make go fast.

#65 TornadoSail2016

TornadoSail2016

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 994 posts
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 26 January 2012 - 08:47 PM

I do not know the differences between the Boyer MIII and the MKIV that I own. One of the issues that I have with the MKIV is the extreme freeboard the MKIV has in the bows. I have not modified the boat, but have considered doing so by removing some of the freeboard in the bow. I believe that this would reduce the windage and make it easier to tack. After reading through SimonN's posts about the mods to his hulls it makes me think that doing the same on the MKIV might improve it's performance as well. I do not though know if this is really something needed unless I also put in curved foils. This seems like quite a lot to do for a platform that probably will not become much better after recieving these mods. It is probably better to sell it as an entry level boat and move on to something newer. Does anyone have any thoughts about modifying a MKIV and if it is worth trying to do it? Thanks, Tom

#66 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 26 January 2012 - 09:06 PM

I do not know the differences between the Boyer MIII and the MKIV that I own. One of the issues that I have with the MKIV is the extreme freeboard the MKIV has in the bows. I have not modified the boat, but have considered doing so by removing some of the freeboard in the bow. I believe that this would reduce the windage and make it easier to tack. After reading through SimonN's posts about the mods to his hulls it makes me think that doing the same on the MKIV might improve it's performance as well. I do not though know if this is really something needed unless I also put in curved foils. This seems like quite a lot to do for a platform that probably will not become much better after recieving these mods. It is probably better to sell it as an entry level boat and move on to something newer. Does anyone have any thoughts about modifying a MKIV and if it is worth trying to do it? Thanks, Tom


You would be better off selling the Mk IV as is, it is a great boat for entry into the class.

#67 Dyneema_forever

Dyneema_forever

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Berlin
  • Interests:Sailing and red dyneema, grey is cool too actually

Posted 27 January 2012 - 06:45 PM

Anyone know of good rake setting for a bog-standard ASG-3?

Also 40mm blocks for a main system on an A-Class, thats fine right?

A friend of mine also just got new DNA boards for his Flyer-2, he is curious of peoples opinions, can anyone comment, maybe SimonN or someone with experience modding straight board boats?

#68 WetnWild

WetnWild

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Location:Brisvegas
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 29 January 2012 - 09:48 AM


I do not know the differences between the Boyer MIII and the MKIV that I own. One of the issues that I have with the MKIV is the extreme freeboard the MKIV has in the bows. I have not modified the boat, but have considered doing so by removing some of the freeboard in the bow. I believe that this would reduce the windage and make it easier to tack. After reading through SimonN's posts about the mods to his hulls it makes me think that doing the same on the MKIV might improve it's performance as well. I do not though know if this is really something needed unless I also put in curved foils. This seems like quite a lot to do for a platform that probably will not become much better after recieving these mods. It is probably better to sell it as an entry level boat and move on to something newer. Does anyone have any thoughts about modifying a MKIV and if it is worth trying to do it? Thanks, Tom


You would be better off selling the Mk IV as is, it is a great boat for entry into the class.


Agree with Bob and I'll try and explain why.
The MkIII was built essentially the same shape as the stitch and glue boats Jim and Greg had been building in the early 80's. That is with quite a "V" under water hull shape and a lot of freeboard in the bow without much volume down low. The Taipan is a Mk III A with two feet cut off and a much wider keel from main beam back. Not really and effective shape for high profile curved boards. The MkIV was the next development with a little more rounding in the keel but essentially still very much v shape. Neither of these shapes would benefit much from fatter transoms and curved boards IMO. The curved board functionality would be hindered by the bite provided by the V shaped hull.
In the 90's along came the Bunkenberg/Egner flyer with it's so called wave piercing hull shape. It had much more volume along the keel and relied less on the V shape for bite in the water and more on the foils. Much less bow freeboard was needed as the volume down low worked much earlier in a bow down situation. This reliance on the foils led to higher profile boards and ultimately to curved foils working well. The Flyer 1, MkV and Flyer II shapes lend themselves to fatter transoms to take advantage of the newer downwind techniques.
The MkIV is still a great responsive club A at entry level. I certainly still recommend it to people wanting to try an A and see if the class is for them.

#69 Catnewbie

Catnewbie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Interests:High Tech Catamarans

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:13 AM

With a Boyer MK IV, Glenn Ashby won his first title in 96 in Spain

Conditions were quite tonic with 18knts to 25knts wind on the water and 3 to 5 feets waves and chop

He managed to finish a race with 8 mn advance vs the second, and in such conditions, 8 mn was nearly
2km.

After the race Michel-Angelo Petrucci comments was : "Why 8 minutes, when 30 seconds is enought to win"

At this time Nils Bunkerburg was sailing a Bimare, Tornado Gold medal Fernando Leon too, he was given a Bim for this world.

Very few Goodall boats for this fleet while Bimare accounted for at least 50% of the fleet.

Ashby, Anderson, Philpott were all sailing Boyer/Goodall and finished in the top 5.

These old Boyer/Goodall shapes are probably more forgiving in the chop than the modern bimare design.

It was great boats with high construction standards, I am not sure, but I believe that in 96 Jim Boyer moved
from vinylester to epoxy, a guarantee of long lasting hulls.

You just might be stuck in the light air, but usually in these conditions it is better to have a pint of guiness at the club house.

Regards to all

W

#70 ita 16

ita 16

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Cesenatico italy
  • Interests:cat builder
    mast builder
    designer

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:01 PM

yes, I remember well this championship, really extreme, Glen was a monster machine, but can not remember if my father had said those words! other times, very beautiful, Boyer boat was designed for Australian weather conditions, Bimare boat was designed for European weather conditions, it is also for this reason that I designed the V1R with less volume forward, this in contrast with all current models A. I think it is right if you want to do races in the sea wave, not only in flat water !!!!!

#71 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:12 PM

The MkIV is still a great responsive club A at entry level. I certainly still recommend it to people wanting to try an A and see if the class is for them.


We probably all remember the first girl we kissed as a teenager. My first A-Class was a Mk IV and my first sail on that boat will always be one of my best memories of sailing in this class.

#72 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:39 PM

yes, I remember well this championship, really extreme, Glen was a monster machine, but can not remember if my father had said those words! other times, very beautiful, Boyer boat was designed for Australian weather conditions, Bimare boat was designed for European weather conditions, it is also for this reason that I designed the V1R with less volume forward, this in contrast with all current models A. I think it is right if you want to do races in the sea wave, not only in flat water !!!!!


You know, another designer who (IMO) never gets enough credit is Pete Melvin. Probably the loveliest A-Cat ever designed was the Melvin designed, Larry Tuttle built Waterat which Pete won the 1997 World Championship with. I would not be in the class for another four years so I really wanted a Waterat before getting a great deal on a brand new Mk IV in 2001. Then Pete came out with the A2 in 2003 and proved it out by winning the 2005 WC. The boat needed a tweak in 2006 moving the rear beam aft 150 mm to become the A3 and again it proved itself at the 2007 WC when Lars Guck and Pete Melvin pushed Glen really, really hard for the win. I owned an A2 that I turned into an A3 from 2005 to 2009, really sweet boat. Expect to see at least 3-4 A4's which is Pete's evolution of the A3 in Islamorada this fall. Do not underestimate their expected performance!

I did my first sail on my new DNA yesterday and the boat felt very, very good. Conditions were 6-9 knots with small chop. I was using the latest Hall flexi mast but with a standard Glaser Lars1 (waiting on a new Glaser DenBen for this rig). The sail set well on the mast since I did not have to pull on a lot of downnhaul. The boat in comparison to my modified ASG3.5 felt lighter on the helm which I expected since the additional volume makes the boat float a bit higher in the water similar to a EVOHT and the Marstrom MkV. What I was really pleased about was the flatter bottom section profile did not feel draggy at all and I really did not feel like I had to sit forward to clear the transoms downwind even though the boat did feel a bit better when I sat just in front of the front beam downwind. I expect my ASG3.5 might be the easier boat to sail upwind in breeze and chop with the smaller bows but the DNA will be the easier boat downwind in breeze. Easier is usually faster in this class but in both cases I expect the differences are incremental.

#73 ita 16

ita 16

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Cesenatico italy
  • Interests:cat builder
    mast builder
    designer

Posted 30 January 2012 - 12:54 PM

I always liked the waterat . I prefer that Melvin update this boat.

#74 TornadoSail2016

TornadoSail2016

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 994 posts
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 31 January 2012 - 02:15 AM

You know, another designer who (IMO) never gets enough credit is Pete Melvin. Probably the loveliest A-Cat ever designed was the Melvin designed, Larry Tuttle built Waterat which Pete won the 1997 World Championship with. I would not be in the class for another four years so I really wanted a Waterat before getting a great deal on a brand new Mk IV in 2001. Then Pete came out with the A2 in 2003 and proved it out by winning the 2005 WC. The boat needed a tweak in 2006 moving the rear beam aft 150 mm to become the A3 and again it proved itself at the 2007 WC when Lars Guck and Pete Melvin pushed Glen really, really hard for the win. I owned an A2 that I turned into an A3 from 2005 to 2009, really sweet boat. Expect to see at least 3-4 A4's which is Pete's evolution of the A3 in Islamorada this fall. Do not underestimate their expected performance!

I had a Waterat for a few weeks and got an offer for the boat that was much more than I paid for it. I used the proceeds to purchase the MKIV from Fred Smith. I do love the boat and since my schedule has not allowed me to race in Bristol as I had planned to do, it is probably fine for me at the moment. I think I asked you this question in another thread, but missed the answer. I know Lars is currently building the A3 and visited him during one of the builds. He does do a great job. So 1) Is he the one that will be building the A4? and 2) Is pete involved with the redesign of the hulls? Yes, Pete does deserve the credit for what he has done in the class both as a designer and as a world class sailor. He also deserves a lot of credit for what he has done in multihull design in general. Thanks for your earlier responses. Tom




#75 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 31 January 2012 - 03:59 PM



You know, another designer who (IMO) never gets enough credit is Pete Melvin. Probably the loveliest A-Cat ever designed was the Melvin designed, Larry Tuttle built Waterat which Pete won the 1997 World Championship with. I would not be in the class for another four years so I really wanted a Waterat before getting a great deal on a brand new Mk IV in 2001. Then Pete came out with the A2 in 2003 and proved it out by winning the 2005 WC. The boat needed a tweak in 2006 moving the rear beam aft 150 mm to become the A3 and again it proved itself at the 2007 WC when Lars Guck and Pete Melvin pushed Glen really, really hard for the win. I owned an A2 that I turned into an A3 from 2005 to 2009, really sweet boat. Expect to see at least 3-4 A4's which is Pete's evolution of the A3 in Islamorada this fall. Do not underestimate their expected performance!

I had a Waterat for a few weeks and got an offer for the boat that was much more than I paid for it. I used the proceeds to purchase the MKIV from Fred Smith. I do love the boat and since my schedule has not allowed me to race in Bristol as I had planned to do, it is probably fine for me at the moment. I think I asked you this question in another thread, but missed the answer. I know Lars is currently building the A3 and visited him during one of the builds. He does do a great job. So 1) Is he the one that will be building the A4? and 2) Is pete involved with the redesign of the hulls? Yes, Pete does deserve the credit for what he has done in the class both as a designer and as a world class sailor. He also deserves a lot of credit for what he has done in multihull design in general. Thanks for your earlier responses. Tom


Pete has already done a modification to the A3 last year where I believe they grafted a higher volume aft section on to his own A3 and tested the boat with curved blades against sailors like Matt Struble who was (at the time) sailing his EVOHT with curved blades. While I do not know the specifics, the word I got was the results were promising. I have also heard that Pete has been doing A-Class sailing in New Zealand while working with TNZ on their AC campaign and his ideas continue to evolve as he tests his ideas against some DNA's that are sailing there. Lars Guck and Pete have a good working relationship and I believe Lars is working with Pete on refining the design and build of this evolution. I'd expect we might see the result this collaboration this spring or summer.

#76 flojo

flojo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 31 January 2012 - 04:30 PM




You know, another designer who (IMO) never gets enough credit is Pete Melvin. Probably the loveliest A-Cat ever designed was the Melvin designed, Larry Tuttle built Waterat which Pete won the 1997 World Championship with. I would not be in the class for another four years so I really wanted a Waterat before getting a great deal on a brand new Mk IV in 2001. Then Pete came out with the A2 in 2003 and proved it out by winning the 2005 WC. The boat needed a tweak in 2006 moving the rear beam aft 150 mm to become the A3 and again it proved itself at the 2007 WC when Lars Guck and Pete Melvin pushed Glen really, really hard for the win. I owned an A2 that I turned into an A3 from 2005 to 2009, really sweet boat. Expect to see at least 3-4 A4's which is Pete's evolution of the A3 in Islamorada this fall. Do not underestimate their expected performance!

I had a Waterat for a few weeks and got an offer for the boat that was much more than I paid for it. I used the proceeds to purchase the MKIV from Fred Smith. I do love the boat and since my schedule has not allowed me to race in Bristol as I had planned to do, it is probably fine for me at the moment. I think I asked you this question in another thread, but missed the answer. I know Lars is currently building the A3 and visited him during one of the builds. He does do a great job. So 1) Is he the one that will be building the A4? and 2) Is pete involved with the redesign of the hulls? Yes, Pete does deserve the credit for what he has done in the class both as a designer and as a world class sailor. He also deserves a lot of credit for what he has done in multihull design in general. Thanks for your earlier responses. Tom


Pete has already done a modification to the A3 last year where I believe they grafted a higher volume aft section on to his own A3 and tested the boat with curved blades against sailors like Matt Struble who was (at the time) sailing his EVOHT with curved blades. While I do not know the specifics, the word I got was the results were promising. I have also heard that Pete has been doing A-Class sailing in New Zealand while working with TNZ on their AC campaign and his ideas continue to evolve as he tests his ideas against some DNA's that are sailing there. Lars Guck and Pete have a good working relationship and I believe Lars is working with Pete on refining the design and build of this evolution. I'd expect we might see the result this collaboration this spring or summer.

Pete won the NZ nationals in front of Luc Du Bois on Scheurer G6. I think these boats are very similar, not only in design. BTW: Mike Drummond showed his new design, too.

#77 NZL255

NZL255

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Being out on the water

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:49 PM

Yes it came all down to the last two races for the gold medal between Pete & Luc - it was fantastic to watch the two of them battle it out! Mike Drummond launched his new boat at the regatta. He spent the first day of racing sorting out some new systems. Once he got out on the race course he was very quick. There are some photos of his new boat on the New Zealand A-Class site. Regarding Pete Melvin he is a top bloke and is more than happy to help others with their A Cats. :-)

#78 Dyneema_forever

Dyneema_forever

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Berlin
  • Interests:Sailing and red dyneema, grey is cool too actually

Posted 31 January 2012 - 07:24 PM

https://picasaweb.go...179352337171762

Any word on how his (Drummond) J-boards were?

#79 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 31 January 2012 - 08:09 PM

If I owned that boat I'd have to paint if white and put a hobie sticker on the side just for my own amusement.

#80 NZL255

NZL255

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Being out on the water

Posted 31 January 2012 - 09:33 PM

I heard the J boards are a great success, Mike is very happy with the boats performance.

#81 TornadoSail2016

TornadoSail2016

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 994 posts
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 01 February 2012 - 04:04 AM

https://picasaweb.go...179352337171762

Any word on how his (Drummond) J-boards were?


Very interesting looking boat, but my first thoughts looking at the way the tramp is elevated from the hulls was to think of a Hobie 16. I do not mean anything else about the boat reminds me of this, only the tramp. I do not know why I have not seen this tried before in the A-Class. It seems that it easily ends rear beam slap and other such issues. Bob, thanks for the information, I will go down and visit Lars in a few weeks and maybe he will share some information. Way to Go Pete!

#82 dacarls

dacarls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Location:FL

Posted 01 February 2012 - 04:51 AM

On the modified ASG3, I sailed the 2011 winter/spring circuit with my Hall/Cogan daggerboards pretty much neutral, maybe one degree max of positive AOA max. In the majority of races in that racing circuit, I was competitive downwind. Over the late spring and summer, I changed the AOA to 2 degrees positive. It took me all summer to come to the conclusion that this was the wrong direction for this boat. The additional lift created too much drag and did seem to make the back end of the boat squat. In the racing I have done this past fall and winter with the AOA back around 1 degree, the boat is much better downwind and I believe it is a matter of weight distribution to get the most out of the curved foils while minimizing drag. Curved daggerboards are certainly making optimization of A-Cat downwind technique both fun and frustrating at the same time but the mutual conclusions make sense and seem corroborated since I was told that the top finishers at the WC this year were sailing with 1-1.5 degree AOA on their curved daggerboards.

I was hoping to see a note here about curved board toe-in on the DNA. Toe-in has not been mentioned yet anywhere in this thread. Is there anything close to a consensus for symmetrical curved boards, as it varies from zero to 0.7 degrees?
Thanks for a comment or reference.




#83 Lost in Translation

Lost in Translation

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 887 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 01 February 2012 - 04:52 AM

Mike Drummonds' boat also appears to have quite a bit of rocker and reminds me a little of a Cirrus F18 with an eating disorder. I mean no offense by this as the Cirrus seems to be a great performer. A lot of creativity is coming out.

#84 flojo

flojo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:30 AM

I heard the J boards are a great success, Mike is very happy with the boats performance.

And I herad that Mike could face class rule problems with those J boards. Or, precisely, with the combination of J board and V shaped trunk.

#85 flojo

flojo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:37 AM

Mike Drummonds' boat also appears to have quite a bit of rocker and reminds me a little of a Cirrus F18 with an eating disorder. I mean no offense by this as the Cirrus seems to be a great performer. A lot of creativity is coming out.

I think the hulls are flatter than others (like DNA or Scheurer G6).

#86 NZL255

NZL255

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Being out on the water

Posted 01 February 2012 - 08:19 PM

Flojo there is nothing illegal with the j boards that mike has put into his boat. He has done something new and different and is well in the A-Class rules!

#87 Lost in Translation

Lost in Translation

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 887 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:23 PM

So the J boards fully retract into the hulls via the V trunk? Seems ideal if not too complicated.

#88 sailingkid

sailingkid

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,689 posts
  • Location:Geelong, Vic, Aus
  • Interests:Moths, A-Cats, speed, efficiency

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:33 PM

Can someone post a link to a picture of the J-boards? Im having a hard time figuring out what they look like :blink:

#89 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:50 PM

Sailing kid. Have you done your homework yet and asked the boss about any structural differences between the MKV and the AusFlyer?

#90 NZL255

NZL255

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Being out on the water

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:53 PM

The case is simple to make - inboard side is flat outboard side curved to the radius of the board. Only downside you carry a little bit of water in the case.



#91 Foghorn77

Foghorn77

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,057 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:31 PM


I heard the J boards are a great success, Mike is very happy with the boats performance.

And I herad that Mike could face class rule problems with those J boards. Or, precisely, with the combination of J board and V shaped trunk.


It's got to go in from the top and can't be wider than the box rule limit at any position. What would be the problem?

#92 NZL255

NZL255

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Being out on the water

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:27 AM

Exactly! The go in from the top and do not exceed the box rule. No problem at all!!!!



#93 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,512 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:29 AM

a J board that goes in from the top

gonna need pics to get my head around that...

#94 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 February 2012 - 07:30 AM



I heard the J boards are a great success, Mike is very happy with the boats performance.

And I herad that Mike could face class rule problems with those J boards. Or, precisely, with the combination of J board and V shaped trunk.


It's got to go in from the top and can't be wider than the box rule limit at any position. What would be the problem?

It's not quite as simple as that! I should point out that I haven't seen the boards or the boat, so I am talking blind, but there are some potential pitfalls.

I assume that the top of the case has a slider or other such device to hold the top of the board and to allow the position to be altered. Based on past rulings by ISAF, I wuld expect that the boards be able to be raised and lowered with the slider in any position it is able to take up. The same applies with regard to the overall width. It needs to be tested with the slider and the board in every combination of positions they can be moved to. It is no good having to have the slider in one position to get the board in and then being able to move that slider to another position.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with Mike's boat, but just pointing out it isn't as straight forward as some might think.

Added later: Just seen pics of Mike's boat and I can see no issues, although I wouldn't say his boards were really what I would call a J board, more like a board with variable curve and a bit more at the bottom

#95 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 07:41 AM

On a slightly different note:
If you own one of the new DNA's do not get hit by a 14' maricat.
3' of carbon/nomex was cut off the front of a DNA after a windward/leeward incident (DNA starboard working, mari starboard running) at last weekends Mannering Park cat regatta.
Fortunately the owner of the DNA (not steering at the time) should have easy access to some serious boat building talent in San Francisco to renose the "A".
Apparently the boat is very, very fast on port tack in 15+knts with 60 litres of water in the port hull.
Not so quick when the bowless hull touches down.

#96 Dyneema_forever

Dyneema_forever

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Berlin
  • Interests:Sailing and red dyneema, grey is cool too actually

Posted 02 February 2012 - 09:59 AM




I heard the J boards are a great success, Mike is very happy with the boats performance.

And I herad that Mike could face class rule problems with those J boards. Or, precisely, with the combination of J board and V shaped trunk.


It's got to go in from the top and can't be wider than the box rule limit at any position. What would be the problem?

It's not quite as simple as that! I should point out that I haven't seen the boards or the boat, so I am talking blind, but there are some potential pitfalls.

I assume that the top of the case has a slider or other such device to hold the top of the board and to allow the position to be altered. Based on past rulings by ISAF, I wuld expect that the boards be able to be raised and lowered with the slider in any position it is able to take up. The same applies with regard to the overall width. It needs to be tested with the slider and the board in every combination of positions they can be moved to. It is no good having to have the slider in one position to get the board in and then being able to move that slider to another position.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with Mike's boat, but just pointing out it isn't as straight forward as some might think.

Added later: Just seen pics of Mike's boat and I can see no issues, although I wouldn't say his boards were really what I would call a J board, more like a board with variable curve and a bit more at the bottom


https://picasaweb.go...179352337171762


look very J'd to me, behind the boat on the ground...
The smaller freeboard should make getting them in and out a bit easier.

Looks Fast!



#97 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,027 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 02 February 2012 - 10:54 AM





I heard the J boards are a great success, Mike is very happy with the boats performance.

And I herad that Mike could face class rule problems with those J boards. Or, precisely, with the combination of J board and V shaped trunk.


It's got to go in from the top and can't be wider than the box rule limit at any position. What would be the problem?

It's not quite as simple as that! I should point out that I haven't seen the boards or the boat, so I am talking blind, but there are some potential pitfalls.

I assume that the top of the case has a slider or other such device to hold the top of the board and to allow the position to be altered. Based on past rulings by ISAF, I wuld expect that the boards be able to be raised and lowered with the slider in any position it is able to take up. The same applies with regard to the overall width. It needs to be tested with the slider and the board in every combination of positions they can be moved to. It is no good having to have the slider in one position to get the board in and then being able to move that slider to another position.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with Mike's boat, but just pointing out it isn't as straight forward as some might think.

Added later: Just seen pics of Mike's boat and I can see no issues, although I wouldn't say his boards were really what I would call a J board, more like a board with variable curve and a bit more at the bottom


https://picasaweb.go...179352337171762


look very J'd to me, behind the boat on the ground...
The smaller freeboard should make getting them in and out a bit easier.

Looks Fast!

I had assumed that the reason for the long, straight part is to allow it to stick up high enough to be above the tramp. Therefore, only the curved bit is in the boat and as such, I see it as a curved board with a straight extension above the hull. I might have it wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

#98 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 04 February 2012 - 01:12 PM

2nd sail last night on new DNA - wind E to ESE at 12-15 knots, medium size chop.

Boat setup: Diamonds 34 (Loos silver gauge), spreader rake 50 mm, mast rake close to end of transom (approx DNA recommended medium air setting)
Mast - Hall flexi (67/127)
Sail - standard 2011 Glaser Lars1

It was a lovely evening to sail, air temp around 68 F, water temp around 60 F

Upwind impressions - I used a Velocitek Speed Puck to gauge boatspeed and replay tacking and jibing angles after getting back to the beach. The helm was very balanced and I was curious if the boat would sail into the chop with the sense of more pitching with the bigger volume hulls compared to my other boat (my modified ASG3). The boat does have a more on top of the water feel to it but did not seem to pitch too bad at all especially on port tack which was nearly dead on to the chop. On the first upwind, my boatspeed was staying at 10.5 to +11 knots with a couple of tacks right at a 90 degree tacking angle. On the second upwind and subsequent upwind runs, I pulled the daggerboards up about 4", a bit more downhaul, and a bit more rotation aft and my boatspeed stayed consistently in the 11 to +12 knot range but my tacking angle opened up to around 95 degrees. Needed another boat to determine which VMG mode was working better. The helm feel is nicer than the ASG3, the boat is easier to steer in chop but I was not surprised because of the way the boat appears to float higher in the water. The boat tacks fast, sometimes I really had to scramble to get across. I thought the standard Lars1 would blade out too much upwind on this mast but it actually looked pretty good. It does seem that the extra side to side stiffness of the mast in the minor axis allows you to pull rotation more aft just a touch which could help the boats top end. A softer mast would have issues with the mast tip bending too much to leeward.


Downwind impressions - First impression is the boat is easier to sail than the ASG3 because the fuller bows get up and over the chop better. There was plenty of wind to fly a hull downwind and my best boatspeed runs were keeping the boat at +16 knots. I did do one run where I got on the wire downwind but 80% of the time I sailed from the weather hull/tramp. After getting in and comparing my speed data to other data from previous training sessions on the ASG3, the average speeds for 100-200-500-1000 meter runs between the two boats are very, very close. Three things stand out for me about the DNA downwind. It felt easier to sail, the jibing angles seemed a touch deeper, and my best top end was the highest I had ever achieved for 12-15 knot conditions but only by .1 knots (18.14 knots versus 18.04 knots on the ASG3).

This is preliminary but I think what makes this boat good is the package seems very balanced making it easier to sail the boat to its fullest potential on a more consistent basis. Put sailors like Ashby, Bundock, Landy, and others on it and it seems like a quantum leap when the next tier of sailors are on the previous generation of boats. I expect that US sailors with the EVOHT would find the DNA to feel very familiar to them. The two boats look very similar in volume and rocker except the EVOHT does not have as much flat in the bottom section profile.

#99 knobblyoldjimbo

knobblyoldjimbo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Location:effinque (FNQ) AUS

Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:26 PM

On a slightly different note:
If you own one of the new DNA's do not get hit by a 14' maricat.
3' of carbon/nomex was cut off the front of a DNA after a windward/leeward incident (DNA starboard working, mari starboard running) at last weekends Mannering Park cat regatta.
Fortunately the owner of the DNA (not steering at the time) should have easy access to some serious boat building talent in San Francisco to renose the "A".
Apparently the boat is very, very fast on port tack in 15+knts with 60 litres of water in the port hull.
Not so quick when the bowless hull touches down.



Interesting one that, at Manno you didn't hear the A's coming, just a gentle slap slap and then whoosh! One or two were out of tune so you could hear the foils howling which helped.

Whatever the right or wrong, if you are in any vessel that has the sort of speed that the A's did then you MUST keep your eyes out for other, slower craft. Maricats aren't slow and that one was a sloop so it would be tacking downwind but at nothing like the speed of the A coming up. In that situation deciding where to steer almost becomes a lottery because the speed differential is so hard to judge. Mari's weigh 90kgs in race trim plus another 90ish for the helm and . . . Lucky it wasn't one of the yachts that were also out on the water!

KO

#100 AClass USA 230

AClass USA 230

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Location:Louisiana

Posted 06 February 2012 - 01:29 PM

Another afternoon of DNA sailing in predominately 10-16 knots of a puffy offshore northerly following a cold front on Lake Pontchartrain. Notable moments included a "liftoff". I was sailing downwind in about 12-13 knots of breeze with the boatspeed in the 14-16 knot range. Sailed into a pressure band and the breeze built to 16-18 knots. With both daggerboards fully down and the boatspeed climbing past 17 knots, things got sketchy as the boat started to sail on her foils (I was probably sailing a touch hotter than normal). I eased the mainsheet and dropped her back down. I'd guess at around 15 knots, you need to have some board pulled up (I've been sailing with the boards setup with around 1.5 degrees of AOA).

Upwind, consistently sailing at 11-12 knots boatspeed but the boat seems happier with tacking angles around 95 degrees while my ASG3 seemed to consistently have around 90 degree tacking angles. I need another boat to gauge VMG. Downwind in hull flying conditions, my average jibing angles are working out to around 102 degrees (average of 19 jibes) which is about 5 degrees better than my average I could achieve with the ASG3 in the same conditions (sailing about the same boatspeed as the ASG3 downwind in the same wind range). So right now, it seems like I have better height with the ASG3 upwind and better depth downwind with the DNA.

I am getting this data by downloading my sailing sessions from a Velocitek Speedpuck and replaying the session using Velocitek's Speedplay software, specifically the GPS Action Replay software bundled with that package.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users