Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all

Canoesletters should be getting emailed to you all very shortly. I handed out hardcopies to those present at the HPDO and John should be emailing copies to everyone else soon if he has not already done so. I am now currently looking for contributions for my next edition because a good editor never stops editing. If anyone feels like contributing type something up and email it to me. There is a very good chance it finds it's way into the winter issue there is less to write about in the off season.

 

Thanks

 

Willy

 

Keep building boats

 

Willy, will the Canoesletter be circulated outside the US? Im always keen to read whats happening on the other side of the planet

 

ICU2

 

H,

 

You are on the mailing list! I will be e-mailing them for young Mr. Clark later today as I have the e-mail list as a legacy of being the last newsletter editor.

 

Went for a sail yesterday with SHC & ICYM. Beautiful fall sailing. Air temps around 17 C and the water is not too cold yet. Three DC's, three different designs: GER 78 (Tortured Ply), Uncle Walter (Josie) & Mayhem. The differences in performance between the boats were very small. A light sea breeze filled in, in the afternoon, and we sailed with Velociteks to record the action. I had to leave before we could download the data, but I am hoping that we can do that later & compare the tracks.

 

Best

 

JK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

First weekend I have been able to race since building this ride over a year ago. It was great to line up against boats especially more canoes :).

Mean while in a shed in rural Australia another IC is being built 90% complete the fun task of paint prep and paint left to do. Only 2 weeks until the OZ nationals no time to waste....

DCrazy Ivan,  my latest. Old Sails

Posted Images

Hi everyone,

Canoesletters were sent out today, every IC sailors in North America should have received a copy. John also sent ones to a couple of foreigners he thought would like one. Any one who did not receive a Canoesletter and would like one should email me at wvc6@cornell.edu and I will forward you a copy. I hope you all print it out before you read it but that's just a personal artistic preference.

 

I would like to thank Tim Clark, Hayden Virtue, Dad and everyone else who submitted to the newsletter. I'd also like to send a big shout out to John Kells for cleaning up the formatting, making it compatable, emailing it out, and just generally helping me through the process of producing my first ever canoesletter. Thanks John

 

Thanks everyone

 

Willy

 

PS I believe there is one notable SA buddy not on the mailing list: Phil Stevenson. Phil, if you did not receive a copy send me your contact info and I will forward you one shortly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Willy: Sweet job on it!!! I dissected mine and loved every piece of it. Damn good work on your part and congratulations for finally tying it all together. Nice job to all those that contributed, each piece was definitely informative and I learned much for from reading it. Thanks again.

 

TC

Link to post
Share on other sites
Willy: Sweet job on it!!! I dissected mine and loved every piece of it. Damn good work on your part and congratulations for finally tying it all together. Nice job to all those that contributed, each piece was definitely informative and I learned much for from reading it. Thanks again.

 

TC

 

Ditto, good job Willy time to start writing the next edition :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
We just finished a four day comparison between String Theory and my new IC on San Francisco Bay. Seven good IC sailors gave both boats a try and Doug Kidder lent his Whaler to the cause. Thanks guys!

 

post-16686-1223834847_thumb.jpg

 

 

Winds were 7 -18 kts. Mostly 10-12kts.

 

The goal was to build a boat that is as fast as String Theory but easier to sail. Below the waterline the shapes are very similar. The new boat has a little more flair at the chainplates and a bit more volume forward as the chines are carried further into the bow. Also the chines are a little narrower at the stern. The foredeck is convex and the dance floor is dropped down about 75mm.

 

The convex foredeck clearly shed water better so that seems like the way to go. The lower dance floor got mixed reviews. I don't think there was much question that it made the boat more stable when you're standing on it but some of the guys didn't like not being able to put their foot on the rail without stepping up. Keep in mind these guys are really experienced IC sailors and they can sail pretty much anything, blindfolded. For someone who is not so agile, or has a bad back or knees, or who tacks and gybes under the boom (sounds like me) I think the lower deck will prove to be more comfortable.

 

The sinker stern didn't cause any concern and makes for a killer stern stand.

 

Anyway the result is that the new boat is, as near as we could tell, the same speed all around as String Theory and is indeed easier to sail. The hotshots didn't care about the stability of the lower deck but the new bow shape and raised foredeck definitely made the bow easier to keep up downwind in a breeze. Erich Chase thought the new boat might be too easy to sail and prefered String Theory. His thought was - how often do you sail in over 20kts? This from a heavy air wizard who spent a good part of his IC sailing career in over 20kts so what can I say?

 

Interestingly we couldn't see a speed difference between the Arends main and the Anders main. Except that the Arends, being bigger, was a little faster downwind when it was light. And, maybe because it is flatter or because of the bigger head, was a little harder to keep in the groove. The masts were set up for Ander's main and I could have kicked the spreaders a little more forward for the Arends sail. Still, by cranking the lowers we could make both sails pretty.

 

The gybing board was effective in all wind speeds.

 

Here are links to a couple of videos of the event:

 

 

 

Thanks for the report and vids, How does the new boat compare with ST when she goes through a wave to windward the one sail I had of ST she would hook up on a bigger wave is this less an issue with the new boat.

 

I sailed my new boat for the first time in some waves on the weekend not big, but enough to get water over the deck from time to time. I didn't feel my boat is hooking up when I get water back to the flares like it did on ST that one sail (the ST sail I had the waves were larger in all fairness) however my gut feel is my flares wont be a problem they are somewhat smaller than ST but nowhere near as small as your new boat.

 

One thing which is becoming common is I can do great tacks from Starboard onto port but the other way I'm crap, not sure why at the moment could be the plank getting jammed more on one side as my plank needs some attention its frustrating as heck when I try to do a smooth tack and finished up close to or in the drink.

 

Good to see Erich back on a Canoe how long before he builds? Next would be great to see Anders back at the end of a plank.

 

Thought its time for another update.

 

The new ride is still awesome, just love it. I haven't yet had it out in really good conditions hopefully that happens soon (planning a visit to McCrae). I've slowly been sorting out the tangled mess of lines I've been tripping over through tacks and gybes. I'm starting to get a real good feel for the new boat it needs mods to handling techniques of a Nethercott but its still sails 100% like a canoe. I think the Port to Starboard tacking issue is 100% down to the idoit making the mistake as of late its reversed arrrrr.

 

I've noticed a little slowing of the boat through bigger waves the few times Ive had some to play in however I feel they are waves that would slow the boat no matter the shape of the hull (i.e. with or without flares). At the moment I wouldn't change much except towards the back of the hull the water at times leaves the hull in a weird way need to have a think about what to do about it if anything. The hinged rudder arrangement is sort of good, it needs improvement so laucnhing and retreival is as easy as I intended. I should be building a new plank soon so I can get somewhere near 50kg.

 

Whats happening in the US? its been very quiet or has the "Lab of Luxury" been working over time.

 

ICU2

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed a little slowing of the boat through bigger waves the few times Ive had some to play in however I feel they are waves that would slow the boat no matter the shape of the hull (i.e. with or without flares). At the moment I wouldn't change much except towards the back of the hull the water at times leaves the hull in a weird way need to have a think about what to do about it if anything. The hinged rudder arrangement is sort of good, it needs improvement so laucnhing and retreival is as easy as I intended. I should be building a new plank soon so I can get somewhere near 50kg.

 

Whats happening in the US? its been very quiet or has the "Lab of Luxury" been working over time.

 

ICU2

 

I am just getting ready to bond the two halves of the first boat together. No big drama with the lay up other that a fight with a too big piece of foam in the bow. I cut the second half's foam into more managable size.

 

My IC's create a little rooster tail right behind the stern at the center. I am convinced this is a very good thing. It is a little disconcerting though. None of the other new IC's I have sailed seem to do this. They all just slip along quietly, like a canoe is supposed to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am just getting ready to bond the two halves of the first boat together. No big drama with the lay up other that a fight with a too big piece of foam in the bow. I cut the second half's foam into more managable size.

 

My IC's create a little rooster tail right behind the stern at the center. I am convinced this is a very good thing. It is a little disconcerting though. None of the other new IC's I have sailed seem to do this. They all just slip along quietly, like a canoe is supposed to do.

 

Sounds like I have a similar rooster tail happening it varies in size still working out when it happens relative to conditions trim.... What I think is more weird is at times there is a small tough formed at the stern just in front of the little rooster tail, the bottom of the trough is below the stern its almost like I have my weight to far forward and so the hull is trimmed with the stern in the air however this happens even when Im at the back of the bus, so something else is happening?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My IC's create a little rooster tail right behind the stern at the center. I am convinced this is a very good thing. It is a little disconcerting though. None of the other new IC's I have sailed seem to do this. They all just slip along quietly, like a canoe is supposed to do.

 

Sounds like I have a similar rooster tail happening it varies in size still working out when it happens relative to conditions trim.... What I think is more weird is at times there is a small tough formed at the stern just in front of the little rooster tail, the bottom of the trough is below the stern its almost like I have my weight to far forward and so the hull is trimmed with the stern in the air however this happens even when Im at the back of the bus, so something else is happening?

For whatever my opinion is worth I'd expect that if you were trimmed too far aft rather than too far forward... The watre streams past under natural water level then fills in from each side and meets, throwing up the tail...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My IC's create a little rooster tail right behind the stern at the center. I am convinced this is a very good thing. It is a little disconcerting though. None of the other new IC's I have sailed seem to do this. They all just slip along quietly, like a canoe is supposed to do.

 

Sounds like I have a similar rooster tail happening it varies in size still working out when it happens relative to conditions trim.... What I think is more weird is at times there is a small tough formed at the stern just in front of the little rooster tail, the bottom of the trough is below the stern its almost like I have my weight to far forward and so the hull is trimmed with the stern in the air however this happens even when Im at the back of the bus, so something else is happening?

For whatever my opinion is worth I'd expect that if you were trimmed too far aft rather than too far forward... The watre streams past under natural water level then fills in from each side and meets, throwing up the tail...

 

I hadn't thought of it that way round, I think you may have something. Must take more note in the future, boat speeds, crew weight..... like I mention above still working it out hmmmm something else to think about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My IC's create a little rooster tail right behind the stern at the center. I am convinced this is a very good thing. It is a little disconcerting though. None of the other new IC's I have sailed seem to do this. They all just slip along quietly, like a canoe is supposed to do.

 

Sounds like I have a similar rooster tail happening it varies in size still working out when it happens relative to conditions trim.... What I think is more weird is at times there is a small tough formed at the stern just in front of the little rooster tail, the bottom of the trough is below the stern its almost like I have my weight to far forward and so the hull is trimmed with the stern in the air however this happens even when Im at the back of the bus, so something else is happening?

For whatever my opinion is worth I'd expect that if you were trimmed too far aft rather than too far forward... The watre streams past under natural water level then fills in from each side and meets, throwing up the tail...

 

 

I hadn't thought of it that way round, I think you may have something. Must take more note in the future, boat speeds, crew weight..... like I mention above still working it out hmmmm something else to think about.

 

A lot of the new boats are generating a little roostertail. One of the contributing factors is that while the hulls are 33 kg lighter, the drivers are only getting heavier:) With the narrower hulls, getting enough volume while maintaining reasonably straight runs aft is a challenge. The result is a slightly immersed transom at low speeds. How you shape the chine and the transom aft is part of it, but if the hull is too small for the sailing weight (Boat, Sails & wet skipper), no amount of finessing the shape will eliminate gurgling sounds from coming out the back.

 

It might not be slow, but it does not sound fast.

 

Any thoughts?

 

JK

USA-244

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me, the question might boil down to; is the stern wave dragging, squeezing the tail, or releasing? I used to obssess about this while sailing Lasers (tm!), my Div. 2 boards, and a couple of longer pintails I had. It seemed to matter at really slow speeds more for the transomed boats, a little less for the pintails. But most of the pintails had channels etc. (like the Sailboard Race). My Aquata longboard (which was pretty flat on the bottom-slightly v'd at the stern) had an angled (diamond) tail much like the legal limit tail on the IC. It mattered bigtime, esp. when transitioning to and from a plane, and at low SLRs. Didn't seem to matter as much planing, which seemed kind of odd. Board was considered 'loose'- which is pretty much what the sailboard community thought about this particular tail configuration. Which kind of meant directional and rail to rail stability.

 

But for the transomed boats, it might have been getting the wetted surface of the stern out of the water too. As for the water squeezing the pintails forward, I didn't really understand it- for one thing, I didn't have any square rails in back, mainly tapered and slightly tucked under, or sharp edged. I experimented with getting the water a bit over the tail edge sides (like 1"), thinking that the weight of the water falling back into the water was squeezing the board forward, and that didn't seem, really, to do anything until I was going fast enough to generate a quarter wave that would curl over the edges, which seemed to speed up things a bit. I don't know if it was right, but at the time, I thought it was slow because of WS friction, although thinking back on it, the water was curling more across the stern, so a soft vortex was trying to be left behind left behind. Possibly a lower Reynolds Number event than sliding over ambient water? At any rate, I thought the part of the Vortex might be pushing the hull forward before it's structure collapsed As soon as the stern wave was left behind, I couldn't decide whether is was fast to have a rooster tail, as I was trying to figure out what planing was- If I had my weight back, and there was a release of the stern wave, was that planing (even if just an inch separation), or if I had my weight more forward, and the release was really clean (like no apparent stern wave) was that planing, or smooth forced mode? I tended to err on the side of smooth release (I still do), but boy, talk about having your head in the boat!

 

I think bouyancy is important- seems the more I had at slow speeds the faster I went. The more I had at higher speeds, the harder the board was to control (bouncy bouncy).

 

Are you guys building semi sinkers? B)

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
as I was trying to figure out what planing was- If I had my weight back, and there was a release of the stern wave, was that planing (even if just an inch separation), or if I had my weight more forward, and the release was really clean (like no apparent stern wave) was that planing, or smooth forced mode?

 

I've come to believe - contrary to what I used to think - that what's going on at the release at the transom isn't really much to do with whether the boat is planing or not. Mind you the older I get the less I understand what planing is anyway. When I was 16 I'd have confidently told you whether or not I was planing every time. Thirty five years on I'm damned if I know half the time... Or does that say more about what kind of teenager I was?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these boats are so long narrow and light that they are behaving differently to what most people consider normal for a planing dinghy. When everyone sailed the DCs at McCrae, most commented that String Theory and the Log felt different, more catamaran like, such that they sliced the water rather than rode up over it. Hayden's boat is in the same vein.

They do plane if you stack aft, but they do not normally. So they are not pushing as much water under the boat (not generating a big upward force so can not be pushing water down), but pushing it more around the sides. When this comes back together you get a rooster tail.

This gets complicated by the wide stern / transom canoes. Theory has a distinct separate transom at 45 deg but Hayden has a more rounded transition from the topsides, but probably still too sharp for the water to stay attached. So somewhere here the flow around the sides must turn under the boat around the sharp chines and come out under the transom, another likely source of vortex/rooster tail generation, and probably drag?

But even with the narrower stern the Log has a funny wake too, normally when I have the seat too far forward. I have up to now attributed it to a very small amount of unintended spring in the last half m of the boat, but I may now have to reconsider my ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brain Cell overloads arrrh!!! how am I going to be able to race effectively this weekend when I'll be looking at the back of the boat all weekend, weight forward, weight back, light wind, strong wind...... and then looking at what happens with Josie and the Nethercotts, what have i done to myself.

 

I agree with Phil about how our boats sail cutting through the water far more than a Nethercott and some of the other new IC which tend to sail on/over the water however I "think" I don't need to get to far back to get "on the plane" once the breeze picks up enough to be at the end of the plank, Im still deciding whats fast, then arent we all.

 

As for the stern shape and rooster tail, thats where the brain cell popped, all interesting views. Im swayed towards Phil's thoughts at the moment as where the weirdest flow happens more distinctly with my boat is right at the transom (I had to cut about 15mm off the stern to keep under the 5200mm LOA) which results in an extremely sharp turn for the water..... Another possibility is my cassette isn't fitted/faired true enough to the hull shape and so may be the cause as its at the very back of my hull rather than forward like a "conventional" IC rudder arrangement. Im also wondering if my rudder is sucking some air as it extends a little past the back of the boat by about 15mm, I plan to make a new cassette to get the rudder completely under the boat to see if there is any change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe the wider sterns on our old IC's, and probably every other boat any of us sailed, spread the releasing water flow over a much wider area, where as now this releasing flow is more concentrated. perhaps more water is making it around the hull, due to the fairness of the slimmer bows, and any coming together of flow around the hull is now more accentuated, having less transom width to 'iron it out'?

the new boats are definitely way faster, so maybe the rooster tail is only cute!

Kenny

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Seahorse Issue 343 (September 2008), page 46, Rob Humphries designed Volvo 70 going upwind on it's chine- stern wave has detached a couple of feet, huge mo fo roostertail, and transom stern chine is BURIED. :blink:

 

Is this close to what you were describing? I'd like to assume that the trim of the Volvo 70 is intentional. Anybody know Rob well enough to ask him about it?

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Length/beam on Aquata was 5.76. Length/beam on IC (at min beam) 6.8. Length/beam speedboard (remember those?)~ 9. Trying to remember how stern release looked on my speedboard. Drawing a blank so far.....

 

Are these numbers so far apart that the stern flow regimes would be really different?

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hayden, I'm gonna mess with you some more by suggesting that what you may be seeing is the wake off the rudder.

Once you move the rudder right to the stern, the flow around it shows up much more. This is like the separate wake that an outboard lower unit makes inside the wake of the powerboat and for exactly the same reason.

If it bugs you, you need to either reduce the volume of your rudder blade or move it forward further under the hull.

SHC

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayden, I'm gonna mess with you some more by suggesting that what you may be seeing is the wake off the rudder.

Once you move the rudder right to the stern, the flow around it shows up much more. This is like the separate wake that an outboard lower unit makes inside the wake of the powerboat and for exactly the same reason.

If it bugs you, you need to either reduce the volume of your rudder blade or move it forward further under the hull.

SHC

 

 

"Wake off the rudder". I can believe that. I have a thinner rudder in the works. We will see what difference that makes.

post-16686-1227202210_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I was reading Steve's reply, I was flashing back to Chris' video where the seat was all the way back, and things were ripping. I remember asking what the helm felt like with the seat all the way back. I kind of expected that there would be some lee helm, but the reply was that the boat is so narrow that the directional stability is great enough that the seat position doesn't really matter to helm balance. But as a windsurfer, I know that there has to be some balance change, and I'm wondering if there is enough pressure on the rudder to explain at least part of the roostertail. I suppose you could move the rudder forward to modify the roostertail, but I was getting roostertail on my boards even with the skeg up 1 1/2 feet forward of the stern. I think I've seen roostertail coming of the Serenity's stern, and it doesn't even have a skeg. Smaller chord could be interesting, but if the smaller chord is developing lift won't that still cause some up (or down for that matter) wash downstream, vs a foil not developing any lift at all? I guess I'm agreeing with Steve that if the foil is not developing lift, then chord size and position matters. Maybe helm balance is a direction for more speed?

 

But I see a lot of roostertails coming off a lot of boats, so i've got to wonder how it matters. Or works.

 

Does the roostertail change with helm pressure?

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brain Cell overloads arrrh!!! how am I going to be able to race effectively this weekend when I'll be looking at the back of the boat all weekend, weight forward, weight back, light wind, strong wind...... and then looking at what happens with Josie and the Nethercotts, what have i done to myself.

I smell a band/boat name...

 

BTW, great to be able to follow discussions like what you kids are having here. Very very interesting!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hayden, I'm gonna mess with you some more by suggesting that what you may be seeing is the wake off the rudder.

Once you move the rudder right to the stern, the flow around it shows up much more. This is like the separate wake that an outboard lower unit makes inside the wake of the powerboat and for exactly the same reason.

If it bugs you, you need to either reduce the volume of your rudder blade or move it forward further under the hull.

SHC

 

H,

 

Just to mess with you some more....

Down in McCrae back when my rudder was locking up on you (a much earlier post on this thread), there was a noticeable rectangular "divot" in my wake at the transom. Shimming the rudder cassette to get the bottom of the cassette absolutely flush with the hull solved the rudder locking issue, and cleared up the wake. The projection of the cassette below the hull was less than one mm!

 

Attached are a couple of photos showing a relatively clean wake. Photos were taken by Boat Pix at the HPDO.

 

Best

JK

post-17857-1227278573_thumb.jpg

post-17857-1227278588_thumb.jpg

post-17857-1227278941_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose you could move the rudder forward to modify the roostertail, but I was getting roostertail on my boards even with the skeg up 1 1/2 feet forward of the stern. I think I've seen roostertail coming of the Serenity's stern, and it doesn't even have a skeg.

 

But I see a lot of roostertails coming off a lot of boats, so i've got to wonder how it matters. Or works.

 

Does the roostertail change with helm pressure?

 

Paul

 

I am not well versed in the ways of windsurfers but I think the roostertail could be explained by John's theory of how deep the hull is in the water. Correct me if I am wrong but when a windsurfer is ramped up going fast the stern is pressing down pretty hard (it sure looks that way). Once the water gets out from under the stern I think you see it splashing together forming that patented rooster tail.

 

In regards to the planing issue I have always felt like my boat planes. I don't know if other Josie owners have noticed this but, whenever I have been sailing mediocre breeze and have gotten the chance to bare (bear?) off in a puff I really think I feel my boat jump out of the water. The Josies are built in the Bill Beaver school of thought with max rocker pushed way aft. Thus everything forward of max rocker pushes the boat up out of the water helping it plane. As a result, once Kaito gets going fast I see absolutely no rooster tail because there is so little boat in the water. Conversely the 'Log, which has next to no rocker and thus doesn't get the boost helping plane, sails deeper in the water and we see a rooster tail.

 

The end result of this should be that boats with less rocker like the 'Log will probably be faster at lower displacement levels because the hull is better at actually going through the water. This probably has a lot to do with why Phil is so scary fast down wind. Once the breeze comes up a bit and the Josies jump out of the water their ability to plane should close the gap.

 

This could just be me making excuses for why I am good in heavy air and suck in light air but, it seems to make sense to me. Johns boat has less rocker than mine and I definitely feel like I get closer with every knot the wind increases.

 

thought provoking,

 

Willy

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Johns boat has less rocker than mine and I definitely feel like I get closer with every knot the wind increases.

 

 

 

Mayhem has max rocker of about 100 mm just forward of amidships. The rocker on the Josie hulls looks to be more than 2/3rd the way back. I am not sure that I have less rocker than you do. It is just in a different place. Steve, any thoughts?

 

We will continue our "Debate" about who is faster, when and why, when the water warms.....

 

JK

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Josies are built in the Bill Beaver school of thought with max rocker pushed way aft. Thus everything forward of max rocker pushes the boat up out of the water helping it plane. As a result, once Kaito gets going fast I see absolutely no rooster tail because there is so little boat in the water. Conversely the 'Log, which has next to no rocker and thus doesn't get the boost helping plane, sails deeper in the water and we see a rooster tail.

 

The end result of this should be that boats with less rocker like the 'Log will probably be faster at lower displacement levels because the hull is better at actually going through the water. This probably has a lot to do with why Phil is so scary fast down wind. Once the breeze comes up a bit and the Josies jump out of the water their ability to plane should close the gap.

 

When it comes to the skiff types that I've been associated with conventional wisdom has been that aft rocker is OK at low speed and "safe but slow" at higher speeds. However I'm fairly sure that's not considered true for catamarans.

 

Low rocker -or at leats low prismatic coefiicint, which is usully associated, has traditionally been associated with early planing and good planing speed but a displacement performance hit. The Canoe stern changes things a fair bit though I imagine, but could easily be wrong.

 

I understand, although I don't have the data, that the Bethwaites believe they have established an optimum planing area for the moderately long and thin skiff type hulls they do, presumably related to displacement. They tend to locate max rocker in the mast area I believe.

 

Chris 249 of this vicinity in some of his writings has made me think about the influence of aspect ratio on planing surfaces... being particuarly long and thin Canoes are not that great in this respect.

 

The new canoes are in an interesting border region for all sorts of design issues,and because its so long since they were not one design and because there's nothing else in the same sort of design area the IC is arguable the most interesting and wide open challenge in Sailboat design at the moment... Its got to be decades since there was such an interesting design proposition: I'm half suprised more of the big names haven't taken it up, especially the generation that learned to draw boats in the sand at Brown's Bay. Thay are, after all, of an age where Canoes often appeal... Is this being read in Rose Bay or Third Street? How about it guys? Fancy doing something for personal use for a change?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose you could move the rudder forward to modify the roostertail, but I was getting roostertail on my boards even with the skeg up 1 1/2 feet forward of the stern. I think I've seen roostertail coming of the Serenity's stern, and it doesn't even have a skeg.

 

But I see a lot of roostertails coming off a lot of boats, so i've got to wonder how it matters. Or works.

 

Does the roostertail change with helm pressure?

 

Paul

 

I am not well versed in the ways of windsurfers but I think the roostertail could be explained by John's theory of how deep the hull is in the water. Correct me if I am wrong but when a windsurfer is ramped up going fast the stern is pressing down pretty hard (it sure looks that way). Once the water gets out from under the stern I think you see it splashing together forming that patented rooster tail.

 

In regards to the planing issue I have always felt like my boat planes. I don't know if other Josie owners have noticed this but, whenever I have been sailing mediocre breeze and have gotten the chance to bare (bear?) off in a puff I really think I feel my boat jump out of the water. The Josies are built in the Bill Beaver school of thought with max rocker pushed way aft. Thus everything forward of max rocker pushes the boat up out of the water helping it plane. As a result, once Kaito gets going fast I see absolutely no rooster tail because there is so little boat in the water. Conversely the 'Log, which has next to no rocker and thus doesn't get the boost helping plane, sails deeper in the water and we see a rooster tail.

 

The end result of this should be that boats with less rocker like the 'Log will probably be faster at lower displacement levels because the hull is better at actually going through the water. This probably has a lot to do with why Phil is so scary fast down wind. Once the breeze comes up a bit and the Josies jump out of the water their ability to plane should close the gap.

 

This could just be me making excuses for why I am good in heavy air and suck in light air but, it seems to make sense to me. Johns boat has less rocker than mine and I definitely feel like I get closer with every knot the wind increases.

 

thought provoking,

 

Willy

 

I'm with you on the Josie hulls planing Willy, I never saw any rooster tail either but it definitely had two modes of sailing - what felt like displacing at under about 8 knots of wind and planing above that. When planing the boat was a different beast, livelier and pointing higher. When not planing, it wasn't slow but i definitely didn't have any answers to Haydens speed in the light stuff. Both Alex and I in Josie would had noticeable speed on Hayden when the wind came up (which unfortunately happened very rarely at our nationals).

Anyway, back to the shed to keep building, the spine arrived today, got to glue that together, seat it in the mould then start cladding in foam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

could you prehaps rule out the idea that the rooster tail is generated by the rudder by seeing if it deflects when you move the rudder.

 

could you prehaps rule out the idea that the rooster tail is generated by the rudder by seeing if it deflects when you move the rudder. (steering wise)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose you could move the rudder forward to modify the roostertail, but I was getting roostertail on my boards even with the skeg up 1 1/2 feet forward of the stern. I think I've seen roostertail coming of the Serenity's stern, and it doesn't even have a skeg.

 

But I see a lot of roostertails coming off a lot of boats, so i've got to wonder how it matters. Or works.

 

Does the roostertail change with helm pressure?

 

Paul

 

I am not well versed in the ways of windsurfers but I think the roostertail could be explained by John's theory of how deep the hull is in the water. Correct me if I am wrong but when a windsurfer is ramped up going fast the stern is pressing down pretty hard (it sure looks that way). Once the water gets out from under the stern I think you see it splashing together forming that patented rooster tail.

 

In regards to the planing issue I have always felt like my boat planes. I don't know if other Josie owners have noticed this but, whenever I have been sailing mediocre breeze and have gotten the chance to bare (bear?) off in a puff I really think I feel my boat jump out of the water. The Josies are built in the Bill Beaver school of thought with max rocker pushed way aft. Thus everything forward of max rocker pushes the boat up out of the water helping it plane. As a result, once Kaito gets going fast I see absolutely no rooster tail because there is so little boat in the water. Conversely the 'Log, which has next to no rocker and thus doesn't get the boost helping plane, sails deeper in the water and we see a rooster tail.

 

The end result of this should be that boats with less rocker like the 'Log will probably be faster at lower displacement levels because the hull is better at actually going through the water. This probably has a lot to do with why Phil is so scary fast down wind. Once the breeze comes up a bit and the Josies jump out of the water their ability to plane should close the gap.

 

This could just be me making excuses for why I am good in heavy air and suck in light air but, it seems to make sense to me. Johns boat has less rocker than mine and I definitely feel like I get closer with every knot the wind increases.

 

thought provoking,

 

Willy

 

Willy, I think I agree that John's right- speedboards had a pronounced roostertail until they were going really fast, but I haven't seen any (or much) off of Formula boards, but I've only seen a couple close enough to see kind of clearly, and they were both Star Boards with that little round bump thingie (4"-6" or so?) sticking out from the back of the stern.

 

FWIW, I'm leaning more towards BB's aft rocker approach, which is also a fairly common sled approach out here on the left coast- at least a lot of the long skinny ones.

 

Could it be that you can think about ICs as little sleds? I own a 40' (Perry) cruising sled that has a pretty balanced displacement curve, length/ WL beam 5. It has an open transome, and I can definitely report it has a roostertail once things get to 7K or so.

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
could you prehaps rule out the idea that the rooster tail is generated by the rudder by seeing if it deflects when you move the rudder.

 

could you prehaps rule out the idea that the rooster tail is generated by the rudder by seeing if it deflects when you move the rudder. (steering wise)

 

Or remove the rudder, ballast up the boat and tow it with a power boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want less rocker, you could make the little beasties wider.

 

Kind of a Formula Board vs a Multihull hull sort of thing. Thing.

 

:ph34r:

No this is incorrect for true canoes. You can get the volume by submerging the ends with a low spring boat. What you have said applies with transom or wide stern boats.

 

From experience with skiffs and dinghies over many years the fast ones are straight along the keel aft, and those with aft spring go better in a drift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil: SLRs might you be referencing?

 

I am intrigued, because sleds don't get that high in the SLR department, and Willy implies that when the SLR's got up there, you lost your advantage?

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Alex and I in Josie would had noticeable speed on Hayden when the wind came up (which unfortunately happened very rarely at our nationals).

quote]

 

I dont accept the speed advanage, in the stronger winds I had less of an advantage sure (but then again I can only sail in light airs or so the myth goes). At no stage during the nationals did I feel I lacked speed in any wind strength we had over that weekend. Since the nationals I romp away from Alex as soon as I get out the end of the plank but thats more/all to do with the rig not working properly than hull shape (Im not interested in going further about the rig issue on this forum, lets just say it doesn't work for Alex period). When the wind blows harder I know my boat plans the transition from displacement to planning is very stuble to say the least, I can force the planning by trim of the boat with crew weight for and aft like any dinghy what is exactly the fastest mode for given conditions Im still working that out. Also over the nationals the wind was so over the place that it was impossible to say 100% anyone had a speed advantage over anyone else as huge windshifts created the gains and loss. I do remember in one race capsizing at the top mark you were around the gybe mark when I finally got going again, I also remember sailing a big portion of that race at the end of the plank and also the result of the race. Or should we keep the myth burning, maybe we should have a pole Myth or No Myth?

 

Back to the rooster tail talk, sorry for my rant people....

 

As for me wathing Josie and the Nethercotts this weekend one word discribes the conditions "Carnage" we left early along with pretty much the rest of the fleet, I suffered some damage, nothing compared to Julian I can get back on the water overnight if I really wanted Julian has a demolished centre case so he is in the need for major repairs. Alex was smart he stayed on the bank and watched the mess unfold. So I'll have to wait till next week to stare at my stern (oh dear that doesn't sound good when you say it out loud) and ponder the rooster tail some more during the week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont accept the speed advanage, in the stronger winds I had less of an advantage sure (but then again I can only sail in light airs or so the myth goes). At no stage during the nationals did I feel I lacked speed in any wind strength we had over that weekend. Since the nationals I romp away from Alex as soon as I get out the end of the plank but thats more/all to do with the rig not working properly than hull shape (Im not interested in going further about the rig issue on this forum, lets just say it doesn't work for Alex period). When the wind blows harder I know my boat plans the transition from displacement to planning is very stuble to say the least, I can force the planning by trim of the boat with crew weight for and aft like any dinghy what is exactly the fastest mode for given conditions Im still working that out. Also over the nationals the wind was so over the place that it was impossible to say 100% anyone had a speed advantage over anyone else as huge windshifts created the gains and loss. I do remember in one race capsizing at the top mark you were around the gybe mark when I finally got going again, I also remember sailing a big portion of that race at the end of the plank and also the result of the race. Or should we keep the myth burning, maybe we should have a pole Myth or No Myth?

 

Back to the rooster tail talk, sorry for my rant people....

 

As for me wathing Josie and the Nethercotts this weekend one word discribes the conditions "Carnage" we left early along with pretty much the rest of the fleet, I suffered some damage, nothing compared to Julian I can get back on the water overnight if I really wanted Julian has a demolished centre case so he is in the need for major repairs. Alex was smart he stayed on the bank and watched the mess unfold. So I'll have to wait till next week to stare at my stern (oh dear that doesn't sound good when you say it out loud) and ponder the rooster tail some more during the week.

 

Sweet, the current World Champ is getting rattled (everyone taking note of this for Germany) :P

Sorry, I'd edit that post to read that AUS26 closed the gap on speed to your boat when the wind came up, AUS30 isn't slow - it is disturbingly quick straight out of the box. But the Josie hull was able to challenge you when we were end of seat racing (but this could also be my abysmal light weather sailing skills). Oh, and you can sail the windy stuff, three words confirm that Mannering Park 2007.

 

Back to topic: I spent a fair bit of time looking at your stern (there is nothing weird about this people, he was sailing very quick) and it wasn't obvious from where I was that the wake was doing anything too unusual - iit appeared to slip along as neatly as Phils boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IC

 

the flatpack looks great, you mentioned you are waiting for foam, what will you put over the foam epoxy, how will you lay it up? What sort of cost will the kit be ?

 

We have the foam, we're using Divinycell H80. You need to PM Geoff (Hurricane H) for the price of the kit but we are looking to have the boat on the water for a reasonable price (I'll be more definite on this when it is built).

 

Foam will be cut and wired to the stringers, then a light filler/epoxy mix over the top and faired until the boat is true. Then 190g/sqm carbon laid as the outer skin. Pics on the blog when it happens (though remember, this is my first build, so some decisions have been made for simplicity and ease of building that a more experienced builder might not do).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Alex and I in Josie would had noticeable speed on Hayden when the wind came up (which unfortunately happened very rarely at our nationals).

quote]

 

I dont accept the speed advanage, in the stronger winds I had less of an advantage sure (but then again I can only sail in light airs or so the myth goes). At no stage during the nationals did I feel I lacked speed in any wind strength we had over that weekend. Since the nationals I romp away from Alex as soon as I get out the end of the plank but thats more/all to do with the rig not working properly than hull shape (Im not interested in going further about the rig issue on this forum, lets just say it doesn't work for Alex period).

 

Hayden,

 

This is just a tease. Discussing the rig of an IC is one of the last unexplored frontiers in this thread.

 

Here in North America we are all using square top main's from both of our sailmakers (KI and Racer X), and to date all of our boats are sloop rigged. Our masts all come from Ted Van Dusen's Composite Engineering, just down the road in Concord, MA. There is some variation in mast, but it is more due to the age of the mast, and what material Ted is currently using at the time of manufacture. All of Ted's mast are braided over tapered mandrel, and cooked in an autoclave. Since about 2004 these mast have used high modulus carbon in the layup. The bare tubes weigh about 4 KG, and the HM mast have almost half as much deflection as the older IM7 Mast when supported at the hounds while hanging 30kg off the mast head. In a word, these masts are STIFF!

 

Initially Steve Clark was wrestling with supporting the mast on the narrower should base of Wonk. That mast has IM7 carbon. Modifications (that have been made public) to improve the support of the mast includes:

 

Adjusting the lower shrouds

raising the spreaders (twice)

Adding a parrot perch to the forestay

 

With the HM mast, Steve was able to simplify the rig, and omit the parrot perch on Josie.

 

On Mayhem, considerable time and effort has gone into fine tuning the rig since returning from McCrae. USA-244 does not step the mast on the foredeck. I have found that I really need to restrict the bend of the mast at the partners to counteract the mast bend due to vang loads. The lowers were loosened to allow me to have enough tension on the uppers, as the lowers and uppers are tensioned together with a single line. Getting the balance right between the lowers & the uppers has been a PITA! The other change has been to shorten and sweep back my spreaders. Currently, my spreaders are swept so that there is no forward deflection of shroud. Winter modifications will likely involve moving the mast step from the hog in front of the daggerboard case to the foredeck, and placing the gooseneck at the mast step. Re-building the boat is just more fun than calling the sailmaker for a re-cut of the luff curve!

 

So what is going on with Rigs down under?

 

Christian, can you tell us about the difference in the replacement rig that you put on Josie? Did you sell Alex the original Van Dusen mast with the boat?

 

What is working, and what is not?

Give it up!

 

Best

 

John K.

USA-244 "Mayhem"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Alex and I in Josie would had noticeable speed on Hayden when the wind came up (which unfortunately happened very rarely at our nationals).

quote]

 

I dont accept the speed advanage, in the stronger winds I had less of an advantage sure (but then again I can only sail in light airs or so the myth goes). At no stage during the nationals did I feel I lacked speed in any wind strength we had over that weekend. Since the nationals I romp away from Alex as soon as I get out the end of the plank but thats more/all to do with the rig not working properly than hull shape (Im not interested in going further about the rig issue on this forum, lets just say it doesn't work for Alex period).

 

Hayden,

 

This is just a tease. Discussing the rig of an IC is one of the last unexplored frontiers in this thread.

 

Here in North America we are all using square top main's from both of our sailmakers (KI and Racer X), and to date all of our boats are sloop rigged. Our masts all come from Ted Van Dusen's Composite Engineering, just down the road in Concord, MA. There is some variation in mast, but it is more due to the age of the mast, and what material Ted is currently using at the time of manufacture. All of Ted's mast are braided over tapered mandrel, and cooked in an autoclave. Since about 2004 these mast have used high modulus carbon in the layup. The bare tubes weigh about 4 KG, and the HM mast have almost half as much deflection as the older IM7 Mast when supported at the hounds while hanging 30kg off the mast head. In a word, these masts are STIFF!

 

Initially Steve Clark was wrestling with supporting the mast on the narrower should base of Wonk. That mast has IM7 carbon. Modifications (that have been made public) to improve the support of the mast includes:

 

Adjusting the lower shrouds

raising the spreaders (twice)

Adding a parrot perch to the forestay

 

With the HM mast, Steve was able to simplify the rig, and omit the parrot perch on Josie.

 

On Mayhem, considerable time and effort has gone into fine tuning the rig since returning from McCrae. USA-244 does not step the mast on the foredeck. I have found that I really need to restrict the bend of the mast at the partners to counteract the mast bend due to vang loads. The lowers were loosened to allow me to have enough tension on the uppers, as the lowers and uppers are tensioned together with a single line. Getting the balance right between the lowers & the uppers has been a PITA! The other change has been to shorten and sweep back my spreaders. Currently, my spreaders are swept so that there is no forward deflection of shroud. Winter modifications will likely involve moving the mast step from the hog in front of the daggerboard case to the foredeck, and placing the gooseneck at the mast step. Re-building the boat is just more fun than calling the sailmaker for a re-cut of the luff curve!

 

So what is going on with Rigs down under?

 

Christian, can you tell us about the difference in the replacement rig that you put on Josie? Did you sell Alex the original Van Dusen mast with the boat?

 

What is working, and what is not?

Give it up!

 

Best

 

John K.

USA-244 "Mayhem"

 

On AUS26 (formerly Josie, and probably forever referred to as Josie) I put a C-Tech mast (like Tim Wilson used at the Worlds) on and a set of Irwin Sails (very similar to the sails that Hayden used at the Worlds). A softer rig felt much more controllable than the Van Dusen did for me. I kept the mast rigged the same as the Van Dusen, except that I used a set of fixed carbon spreaders in place of the original moving ones. This is the set up that I sold to Alex, unfortunately the word is Alex is finding it a bit underpowered - so we'll have to see how we can help him out there.

I am going to use pretty much the exact same rig on the new boat (which will be AUS31), with the exception of using a mast stump sleeve instead of the foredeck stepped mast on Josie.

Pete (now owner of AUS9) is building AUS32 off of the same mould but at over the .1 of a tonne he is getting a HM C-Tech Mast made up to better suit him.

 

So sails and mast wise there really aren't to many differences to what I had worked out on Nethercotts. Haydens is exactly the same as he is still using the AUS20 rig.

 

Foils wise i am still going to use NACA0011 foils, mainly as they fit the other local Nethercotts so we start building up the ability to easily pass on old stuff (a little bit of standardisation is good). We've gone for a swing up transom slotted rudder (mainly for beach launch and recovery).

 

Phil has tweaked with his rig a fair bit and has had the log going faster, but he is back playing Moths now and no-one has bought his very quick 'log' yet as far as i know.

 

Other rig developments were on AUS19 (a former pyranha hulled nethercott) which sports a model boat style boomed jib. And it works as it was first Nethercott home at the Nationals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Alex and I in Josie would had noticeable speed on Hayden when the wind came up (which unfortunately happened very rarely at our nationals).

quote]

 

I dont accept the speed advanage, in the stronger winds I had less of an advantage sure (but then again I can only sail in light airs or so the myth goes). At no stage during the nationals did I feel I lacked speed in any wind strength we had over that weekend. Since the nationals I romp away from Alex as soon as I get out the end of the plank but thats more/all to do with the rig not working properly than hull shape (Im not interested in going further about the rig issue on this forum, lets just say it doesn't work for Alex period).

 

Hayden,

 

This is just a tease. Discussing the rig of an IC is one of the last unexplored frontiers in this thread.

 

Here in North America we are all using square top main's from both of our sailmakers (KI and Racer X), and to date all of our boats are sloop rigged. Our masts all come from Ted Van Dusen's Composite Engineering, just down the road in Concord, MA. There is some variation in mast, but it is more due to the age of the mast, and what material Ted is currently using at the time of manufacture. All of Ted's mast are braided over tapered mandrel, and cooked in an autoclave. Since about 2004 these mast have used high modulus carbon in the layup. The bare tubes weigh about 4 KG, and the HM mast have almost half as much deflection as the older IM7 Mast when supported at the hounds while hanging 30kg off the mast head. In a word, these masts are STIFF!

 

Initially Steve Clark was wrestling with supporting the mast on the narrower should base of Wonk. That mast has IM7 carbon. Modifications (that have been made public) to improve the support of the mast includes:

 

Adjusting the lower shrouds

raising the spreaders (twice)

Adding a parrot perch to the forestay

 

With the HM mast, Steve was able to simplify the rig, and omit the parrot perch on Josie.

 

On Mayhem, considerable time and effort has gone into fine tuning the rig since returning from McCrae. USA-244 does not step the mast on the foredeck. I have found that I really need to restrict the bend of the mast at the partners to counteract the mast bend due to vang loads. The lowers were loosened to allow me to have enough tension on the uppers, as the lowers and uppers are tensioned together with a single line. Getting the balance right between the lowers & the uppers has been a PITA! The other change has been to shorten and sweep back my spreaders. Currently, my spreaders are swept so that there is no forward deflection of shroud. Winter modifications will likely involve moving the mast step from the hog in front of the daggerboard case to the foredeck, and placing the gooseneck at the mast step. Re-building the boat is just more fun than calling the sailmaker for a re-cut of the luff curve!

 

So what is going on with Rigs down under?

 

Christian, can you tell us about the difference in the replacement rig that you put on Josie? Did you sell Alex the original Van Dusen mast with the boat?

 

What is working, and what is not?

Give it up!

 

Best

 

John K.

USA-244 "Mayhem"

 

John,

 

I think there is still development in the rigs/sails, where I will go/try in the future I have no idea at the moment I havent even thought about what next, I'll talk with Lindsay further and see what possible direction we could go down as its his brain power and workmanship with my feedback that produced the sails and rig I used at the last Worlds. I feel that I have quite a bit more to get from the rig and sails I have at the moment without Lindsay changing a thing (Im still learning).

 

Whats working? Well Im still extremely happy with the rig I have Steve has supplied some data which I want to do the same defelection test with my mast so we have a real comparison as everyone I know of so far measures deflection in a different manner. My gut feeling from e-mails with Steve and Chris is there is very little difference in the stiffness between my mast and the US masts but intend to confirm this in the near future.

 

Whats not? at the moment Alex sailing Josie cannot get at the end of the seat in winds when Im starting to dump some main. we measured his rig the other day I new it was soft but my eye almost fell out of their sockets when we measure the bend the same way Lindsay measures my mast to make my sails, put it this way I had to get a longer ruler. We are going to add some uni's to Alex's mast shortly which should get him at the end of the seat.

 

This rig in questions may work ok for Christian but as Alex is much heavier than Christian (over 15kg dry) and so in turn needs a rig that will support his wieght.

 

My rig's have all been supported by a gate at the partners (pretty simple set up really) in all directions of load my spreaders have stayed at the same height because it has worked so why fix something that aint broke I say, they have shortened by a small amount with the new boat. I expected to shortern a rake them back like you have done but from spending a day measuring and adjusting....... I found little reason to change far from what I had on Twist of Fate. Also its working ok so far, I dont think its perfect (although an Olympic 49er coach recently said he thought it was) Im getting a little more bend in the mast than before but Im not convinced the effect on the sail is that bad but I will try a few things in coming weeks.

 

Whats going on with down under rigs? hmm interesting Im still using my tried and proven (at least with a Nethercott) rig that Im very happy with until something very fecking brilliant comes along then I'll keep using what I have. Much of the rest of the downunder fleet are using very to extremely soft rigs IMHO Seth's rig is and has been the only 100% successfull super soft rig. I say super soft as when I started sailing canoes all the rigs where like telegraph poles Lindsay designed me a mast which was at the time far softer then the standard IC rig in Australia since then in 99 Seth had the mast he still uses (i beleive it is the same mast but I could be wrong) it worked shit hot out of the box he did really well at the 99 worlds with it, I got what was suposedly the same mast he was using it didn't work for me I beleive Tim tried the same and finished up adding some carbon to it and has moved to a C-tech. Christians mast from what I understand and going by the luff curve cut into the sails I've measure is much softer than the C-tech mast Tim had at the Worlds.

 

My thoughts are to go back to what Chris posted some time ago (on one of the "canoe" threads/forums maybe in this ever growing informative thread :rolleyes: ) some what modestly about how rigs work, I think there is alot in what he says. Im no expert but I do tend to agree with everything he said about rigs he is one very smart cookie every time I e-mail him with a question I learn soooo much but then that can be said from many of the Canoe sailors I've come to meet over the years. Great boats supported by greater people.

 

So how's that enough info or have I screwed with your head as much as mine as been screwed around by rooster tails...

 

H.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hayden sets a pretty high standard for the Aust IC fleet. In Oct Christian got closer more often than me but I did beat them both once, and Christain did not win race, so I had a consolation prize. Its predictable that the rig built for Christian's fly weight did not suit Alex, but I think Christian sold the US mast separately so Alex has to find other solutions.

WRT to mono rig. I think there is still huge potential, My sail on Hollow Log was made for no stays so when they were added they had to be loose enough to allow heaps of mast bend to match the sail before tightening and limiting excess bend. Not great. It only worked when there was enough wind to bend the mast to tighten the forestay. My sail is also 0.6m small and has had a few repairs where bodies (me and Mikey) have fallen through it. It is repaired and durable but could be faster.

Aspect ratio is a problem with mono rig. The mast height limit is close to the moth limit, so 10.6 sqm is heaps wider than 8.0sqm. I think a lowered gooseneck, GNAV or wishbone might help but all could compound into other issues. I am hoping a new owner will continue development with my assistance if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Hayden sets a pretty high standard for the Aust IC fleet. In Oct Christian got closer more often than me but I did beat them both once, and Christain did not win race, so I had a consolation prize. Its predictable that the rig built for Christian's fly weight did not suit Alex, but I think Christian sold the US mast separately so Alex has to find other solutions.

WRT to mono rig. I think there is still huge potential, My sail on Hollow Log was made for no stays so when they were added they had to be loose enough to allow heaps of mast bend to match the sail before tightening and limiting excess bend. Not great. It only worked when there was enough wind to bend the mast to tighten the forestay. My sail is also 0.6m small and has had a few repairs where bodies (me and Mikey) have fallen through it. It is repaired and durable but could be faster.

Aspect ratio is a problem with mono rig. The mast height limit is close to the moth limit, so 10.6 sqm is heaps wider than 8.0sqm. I think a lowered gooseneck, GNAV or wishbone might help but all could compound into other issues. I am hoping a new owner will continue development with my assistance if needed.

 

I have to admit I was absent minded with my last post, Phil's rig with the extra wires... is much improved but if it was done again with what he has learnt Im positive would be even faster than it is now, faster/slower than a sloop thats the million dollar question. I would hate to see the "log" moth balled Phil when can you come and play with the rest of the IC's again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hayden, Christian & Phil,

 

Thanks for the update. That would explain your comments about Alex! .

I saw Axaman lurking. What rig developments are occurring in the UK. Alan, Jim C? Besides Alan, are there any other boats under development? Is anyone else looking to further develop a Uni-Rig? The Germans have two new boats coming from the US sometime in the near future, and Chris Maas is building a female mould of his second generation design with three boats spoken for. String Theory is for sail, and could be shipped to either Europe or Down Under, although, I would love to see it remain in the States.

 

Just for fun, I have taken a pass at a second generation design that is a refinement of Mayhem, but it will be a little while before I can build again.

 

John K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan, are there any other boats under development? Is anyone else looking to further develop a Uni-Rig?

I'm likely to get a boat from Bloodaxe sometimenot too far away... I'm very uncertain on shapes, but as every time I've not taken Andy P's advice on shape in the past I've regretted it it might be safest just going for an Axeman mk2! I'm currently mulling over a moderately radical idea to deal with some issues I see with mast design and setup, but I don't know if I've got the courage of my convictions... Every time I say to myself, right, lets order the radical stick I wimp out, but the same happens every time I say to myself, OK, lets order a more conventional stick.

Going to have to make up my mind soon though, the current sails are getting very tired indeed. and no point in ordering new sails for a mast that I reckon is definitely wrong!. But as I'm not a race winning helmsman, what I do is pretty much irrelevant because it won't be sailed well enough to trouble the front fleet guys regularly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to stop lurking, get posting, get building and get sailing again I guess.

UK weather has been poor for sailing this year, too much breeze, or none at all. ( so I've been doing other things instead of being a sailing nut ).

But now at the end of the season, I feel the need to do some creative stuff again, and hopefully make my sailing more fun for next year.

Sometimes my boat the Tin Teardrop is really fast and I love it ( when it's upwind bias course, 12kts breeze, flat water ) But when it's a bit windy, or lots of tacking, I HATE IT!

Anyway back on topicish - rooster tails

My axeman 3 moth was very narrow ( 240mm max beam ), low volume, low rocker, with a tall narrow immersed transom, and this kicked up a huge rooster tail at speed, but was a bit slow in breeze, and also in light stuff with a lot of gurgling at the transom.

some pics :

post-2679-1227458132_thumb.jpg post-2679-1227458156_thumb.jpg

post-2679-1227458167_thumb.jpg

 

The hull was modded to make a true pintail ( by cutting off the first 6" of bow, and adding 6" to the stern and making it pointy )

post-2679-1227458301_thumb.jpg post-2679-1227458288_thumb.jpg

 

This made the boat much faster, and the rooster tail disappeared. In light wind the transom was still immersed by a few inches, but the flow was smooth. At speed the rooster tail was gone, and the boat was faster.

 

TT was the same idea, low volume, low rocker and pintail stern, and to a certain extent it works well. The water is split by the narrow bow, passes along the hull without much spray, and gently returns at the stern. In light winds, the wake is very small, similar to rowing sculls.

At high speed the water does curl over the chines aft, with a bit of spray at the rudder which is hung right off the back.

 

post-2679-1227458795_thumb.jpg

post-2679-1227458834_thumb.jpg

 

Upwind the boat is very fast, at speeds 10-12kts, so the hull must be low drag. However it also seems a bit slow on a dead run compared to Ncotts, but this is at lower boatspeed of 4-5 kts. Rig or hull? You might think the una rig would be slow upwind and faster downwind, but it seems the other way round. But reaching is superfast!

 

More on rigs soon!

 

And some info the next development - chop the boat or start a new mould ? can't decide yet.

 

Some interest in the Uk for new boats - but not much :(

 

 

Flatpack - done that on the Axe3 moth - ply panels, carbon ud at ±45°, bent and joined at the chines jigless construction.

post-2679-1227458921_thumb.jpg

post-2679-1227458952_thumb.jpg

 

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites
post-2679-1227458167_thumb.jpg

 

post-2679-1227458834_thumb.jpg

 

Upwind the boat is very fast, at speeds 10-12kts, so the hull must be low drag. However it also seems a bit slow on a dead run compared to Ncotts, but this is at lower boatspeed of 4-5 kts. Rig or hull? You might think the una rig would be slow upwind and faster downwind, but it seems the other way round. But reaching is superfast!

 

post-2679-1227458952_thumb.jpg

 

 

Andy

 

That is an amazing rooster tail on the pre-mod Axeman 3. It's like you have a plastic bag or a fish or something caught on your rudder

 

It does seem like TT would have the advantage over the sloops on a run with effectively 2m more sail area.

It would be interesting to know how Tin Teardrop compares to Monkey and Scarlet O'Hara since those are boats a lot of us have sailed against.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It does seem like TT would have the advantage over the sloops on a run with effectively 2m more sail area.

It would be interesting to know how Tin Teardrop compares to Monkey and Scarlet O'Hara since those are boats a lot of us have sailed against.

Andy doesn't get off the Island much for one reason or another, the most expensive ferry trip per mile in the world being on of them I think...

 

The only time they've all raced together this year was at Weston, where each of them finished in front of the others in one race or another. Monkey seems to me *far* faster with the two sail rig, than she was last year with the Una sail, but for what little my opinion is worth I didn't think the original sail was the best ever cut, but the new rig looks pretty good to me.

 

It amazes me how little difference sail area seems to make... Of course one second a lap isn't much difference, but can easily be enough [grin].

Link to post
Share on other sites

On rig development, I am thinking that if the new boat/build works out well (and an Aussie maybe buys it off me so our fleet keeps building) I might go have a long talk with NS14 sailors to see what makes their rigs tick and look at applying the same theories to an IC rig. Phil S had me thinking down this line when we crashed at his house last month after the NYCC Challenge Cup went on display at the Maritime Museum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

What you have shown here is a very interesting plan-form. Did you review the class rule in putting it together?

 

Could you share your thoughts on how you would gig & support the mast, and what kind of tube you would recommend. I envision that the gooseneck & mast step might resemble a Moth.

It would be VERY interesting to see this idea further developed!

 

Great job!

 

John K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

Good to see some thought on mono rigs.

But that sail looks a bit long in the luff.

The rule restricts mast height to 6360 measured from the underside of the keel. Allowing for hull depth and vang I think you can get a max luff of about 5.5m. Mine is about 5.2m with a 2.7m foot and its still 0.6 undersize, but the hull is deeper than usual. The problem with a longer boom is that it needs to be higher at the back end than the sloops so you can get under it rather than walk around the back. The mast can not go much further forward than the sloops because the boats get too narrow for a stay base or even a substantial bulkhead for an unstayed mast (which I am leaning against now).

I have been considering a push vang and double panel sail down low to get the luff longer and foot shorter.

Your design would appear to need a push vang to fit on the mast and I wonder if the boom length is still too long for walk around tacking?

Also FWIW the rule makers require the sail to be removable on the water without lowering the mast. I have a full length luff zip which has never been used in anger. I think it just adds complication, weight and a weak link.

Compared to a moth sail, which you have obviously based the design on, a canoe is heaps more powerful, so holding up the super high leach will be an issue in moderate winds. The sloops are using very stiff masts now and I think the big mono rig will need an even stiffer mast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

 

I think that the luff length that Bill shows is workable, but I do share your concern about the angle and position of the boom. My boom is about 1.8 m long. I usually walk around the back except when jybing in a big breeze.

 

I think that the requirement that the sail be lowered on the water is a rule that should be put up for future reconsideration if it impeded progress. Lowering the main on an IC is a bad idea IMHO.

 

It makes me wonder if I would have to move my mast step or daggerboard position.......

 

I could get into trouble here!

 

Best

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
Discussing the rig of an IC is one of the last unexplored frontiers in this thread.

 

There is a lot of development going on with UniRigs these days - both stayed and unstayed.

FWIW, I think the IC would be a good platform...

 

post-9717-1227644419_thumb.jpg

 

 

I have a rules question about the sail plan Bill has drafted. The IC rules say no sail shall be set above the lower edge of the contrasting band, the aft corner of the head of the sail looks like it would set higher than the front corner would this been deemed to be set higher than the rules allow, or is it regarded as if the luff is below the band than all is ok? I guess technically if the head of the sail angles upward (someting like what bill has drafted) it does set higher than the measurement and therefore not legal.

 

I think its better to have it clear before anyone goes making a sail that wont measure.

 

It does look like a nice sail plan, but IMHO where's the jib :P all canoes should have a jib.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does look like a nice sail plan, but IMHO where's the jib :P all canoes should have a jib.

 

 

H,

 

With progressive thought like that, it is a wonder that we are not all still sailing bat winged ketches like the sailing canoes of the 1880's:)

 

IMHO

 

JK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you review the class rule in putting it together?

Could you share your thoughts on how you would gig & support the mast, and what kind of tube you would recommend. I envision that the gooseneck & mast step might resemble a Moth.

It would be VERY interesting to see this idea further developed!

John:

I had a brief look at the class rule WRT area and luff length. Upon further inspection, there could be other problems - not sure. The tube would depend on stayed or unstayed. I like unstayed rigs for their versatility downwind but that might be a structural problem on an IC. Thus, the Moth rig seems like a good place to start or perhaps a hybrid rig that is self-stayed to control/adjust bend but free to rotate...

 

But that sail looks a bit long in the luff.

I have been considering a push vang and double panel sail down low to get the luff longer and foot shorter.

Your design would appear to need a push vang to fit on the mast and I wonder if the boom length is still too long for walk around tacking?

Compared to a moth sail, which you have obviously based the design on, a canoe is heaps more powerful, so holding up the super high leach will be an issue in moderate winds. The sloops are using very stiff masts now and I think the big mono rig will need an even stiffer mast.

Phil:

It may be too long at 5.75m. I arrived at 5.75 after seeing String Theory which was quite low at the deck. The design is very similar to the Moth sail where we learned some interesting things applicable in the future. Leech profile and shape variability are critical and putting a Unirig in an existing IC is problematic but perhaps doable (as you have shown.) My preference would be a unirig-specific or at least less sloop-specific hull such that the mast can be further forward. With that in mind, I think many of the other problems you mention like boom length, vangs and profile become tractable. A bit of a development project but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the people in this thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a rules question about the sail plan Bill has drafted. The IC rules say no sail shall be set above the lower edge of the contrasting band, the aft corner of the head of the sail looks like it would set higher than the front corner would this been deemed to be set higher than the rules allow, or is it regarded as if the luff is below the band than all is ok? I guess technically if the head of the sail angles upward (someting like what bill has drafted) it does set higher than the measurement and therefore not legal.

 

I think its better to have it clear before anyone goes making a sail that wont measure.

That is a very good question.

From pictures I've seen, the 18' skiffs clearly don't have a problem with peaked heads being taller. Or, maybe they were illegal for class racing? Dunno. A similar sail(s) measured OK at the 2008 Moth Worlds. Later a question at the Moth US Nationals was raised without a clear answer but the fact the sails were approved at the Worlds seemed sufficient. One thing to consider is mast rake and tip bend underway and how it should be figured into the rule. This is particularly important to the Wyliecat 30 and now other unstayed boats in the SF Bay area who are having to deal with PHRF ratings. IMHO, the top of the sail should at least be parallel to the water when loaded. My preference as a sail designer is that it be slightly angled upward and I believe if the overall area is carefully measured and defined, overly peaking the head requires compromises elsewhere as well as engineering problems creating a self-regulating situation. Ultimately, the sail measurement rules will need to look at advances in technology and the idea of limiting headboards to right angles to limit the luff length (which is the original intent) need to be eliminated.

 

Definitely an interesting development...

 

post-9717-1227654763_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum height of the sail is a bit tricky. On the face of it, you would expect that if the included angle between the head and the luff was greater than 90 degrees the sail would end up above the max permitted height.

Not so. Because of the camber in the top batten, you can have quite a bit more than 90 degrees ( like 97 if my memory serves) and still have the sail all be below the upper band.

The only way to be sure is to put the sail up, put the boat on edge and measure from the underside of the hull.

So Bill, when do we start building your new hull? You have to come play!

SHC

Link to post
Share on other sites
H,

 

With progressive thought like that, it is a wonder that we are not all still sailing bat winged ketches like the sailing canoes of the 1880's:)

 

IMHO

 

JK

 

JK,

 

Ouch, I mentioned the Jib in jest only because IMHO an Interntional Canoe for me is defined by 3 things being Double ended, having a hiking plank and Two sails of 10m^2 (main and jib), but thats just what I personally see as defining points of an IC. The powers that be see that an IC is defined by being double ended and a hiking plank with 10m^2 of sail alone and so beit, if in the course of development it proves the sloop is slower than we will see IC Jibs around the world providing shade to gardens :P . One thing that appealed to me when I was looking at getting into Canoe was the fact they had a main and jib but this is purely a personal issue and the rules say now we can have either so what ever anyone thinks is the faster rig as long as they have a double ended hull with a hiking plank.... is cool with me. Let the development continue.

 

Also some would say we are not progressing by not allowing rack's with trapeze and F..... (nah just cant say the word) I guess it comes down to what each individual sees as the definition of an IC.

 

Steve, Bill

The contrasting band is to be measured with no rake (bolt upright) and so I would say the sail would have to be below the band with the mast in that attitude i.e. the sail set below the band with the mast in its most upright possible rake. I agree the boat wuold need to be rigged and tipped over and the measurement take from the bottom of the hull. I guess it you wanted you could match the sail plan with the rocker of the hull as it goes aft, but what would that do to the hull shape/sailplan. More compromises in the design of and International canoe, isn't it fun :lol: . I think its a question to take to the sailing committee to get clarification or is there something about that in the guide to measurers (will have to go have a read).

 

H.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy P is already well down this road (see previous page) and I think there is a lot to learn there: long luff; push vang; Moth like stays. And it is advertised to hit 12kts upwind. I have never seen more than 11 on my velocitek upwind at a reasonable pointing angle, and I am clearly competitive upwind, so that is encouraging.

 

I wonder if the tacking difficulty Andy speaks of is related to the fine pintail having less waterplane or maybe it is the higher C of E flopping around up there in the tack.

 

I think Bill's sail's foot needs to be angled up radicaly because you are not going to be dancing around behind that thing unless you are incredibly agile. At the same time I think keeping the foot as short as possible is key to safer tacks and gybes. On long boom boats where the C of E moves a long way as it sweeps across it is tricky to keep the boat under the rig.

 

Either way I think it is worth some more effort. I have an unstayed mast designed for the job but damn that thing is stiff down low. No downhaul induced mast bend in the lower half for sure.

 

At some point, when I get a little ahead on these few IC orders, I will be talking to Bill about one of these rigs. After that you guy's won't stand a chance! Bill would be a great guy to get into the class. He's smart, creative, button cute and wafer thin. We'll have to keep pushing him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way to be sure is to put the sail up, put the boat on edge and measure from the underside of the hull.

So Bill, when do we start building your new hull? You have to come play!

Can we sheet it in hard, pull on the strings and then measure?

Too busy for another project or boat but will gladly help someone who isn't 'mess' with it a bit...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Bill's sail's foot needs to be angled up radicaly because you are not going to be dancing around behind that thing unless you are incredibly agile. At the same time I think keeping the foot as short as possible is key to safer tacks and gybes. On long boom boats where the C of E moves a long way as it sweeps across it is tricky to keep the boat under the rig.

 

At some point, when I get a little ahead on these few IC orders, I will be talking to Bill about one of these rigs. After that you guy's won't stand a chance! Bill would be a great guy to get into the class. He's smart, creative, button cute and wafer thin. We'll have to keep pushing him.

 

I'll raise the clew if you let me make the boom longer.

The rest isn't worthy of comment...

 

post-9717-1227661803_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way to be sure is to put the sail up, put the boat on edge and measure from the underside of the hull.

So Bill, when do we start building your new hull? You have to come play!

Can we sheet it in hard, pull on the strings and then measure?

Too busy for another project or boat but will gladly help someone who isn't 'mess' with it a bit...

 

 

I believe the intent of the rule is such that the sails are to be set below the contrasting band at all times, and pullnig on strings to "force" a sail below would be against the intent of the rule.

 

I just had a quick read of the rule

11. e) No sail shall be hoisted or set more than above 6360mm above the underside of the hull.

 

If its possible under normal conditions, cunningham eased, vang off and boom eased for running for the sail to be set above the band then it fails to fit within the rule. Maybe if the sail is shakled on which induces bend in the rig the permantly (with no adjustment) so that the sail sets below the band would be allowed, then we would need to come up with a method of policing the shackling of the sail in the correct position... thats where standing the rig and sail up in the highest possible position even if its not where its set when racing works its the same for everyone and it easy to police.

 

Im just not sure about the una rig with the canoe in general beside my love affair of the jib :) in some conditions it will be great but for all round Im still swayed to the sloop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the requirement that the sail be lowered on the water is a rule that should be put up for future reconsideration if it impeded progress. Lowering the main on an IC is a bad idea IMHO.

 

Got to say, having rescued a few IC's in some pretty hairy conditions the ability to be able to quickly and easily get that big flappy thing down is pretty handy. I've also come in under bare poles a few times myself, and lived without breaking gear to race the next race (last race of the pre-worlds).

In gusty conditions when on the shore/packing up, IC's (in particular the new ones) can be a handful until the sails are down so I'm not real keen to see this rule go - not that it is heavily enforced anyway.

The top of the sail limit is interesting, a change to this rule could open up a big area of development in sails without any changes to hardware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The top of the sail limit is interesting, a change to this rule could open up a big area of development in sails without any changes to hardware.

 

It certainly would open some development, I can think of some hardware changes.

Masts, wires, sails..... $$$ would it be good or bad????

 

Have we enough areas of development at the moment? I think so. Will we need/want more in the future? more than likely. Im still flat out getting my head around the little rooster tail thingy (sounds similar to what JK describes, must go make a decent rudder cassette, must fix carriage rails, build new light weight plank, new light boom, new......... learn how to sail it in a half decent manner..... finish painting the hull.......). I think we have enough to play with at the moment lets leave something for the future to play with once we get board of the new toys. (could take a while these new toys are just sooo much fun)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

I agree with Hayden that the sail (to present IC and ISAF rules) must be below the band even when relaxed and squared out.

WRT 18s, my undertstanding is that the measure spars but not sails, and the high leaches are as much a push for more area (from one sail per rig) as it is about efficiency. A few big blows lately might reduce that trend.

 

WRT moths, we had a heated debate about very big sails designed to cheat the measurement rule up to 2005 when we changed to a true area rule which allows sails to be higher and lower than the mast limits aft of the luff. But as of 2008 there is a new standardised sail measuring method, and so I expect some cheat sails to appear again, needing another rewrite. Development!

 

Gybing a 2.7m boom took some skill development too. Loose vang, swap tiller ext to new hand behind your back before bearing away, and move the seat fast and get on it faster. Have not had a gybe swim since McCrae.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the requirement that the sail be lowered on the water is a rule that should be put up for future reconsideration if it impeded progress. Lowering the main on an IC is a bad idea IMHO.

 

Got to say, having rescued a few IC's in some pretty hairy conditions the ability to be able to quickly and easily get that big flappy thing down is pretty handy. I've also come in under bare poles a few times myself, and lived without breaking gear to race the next race (last race of the pre-worlds).

In gusty conditions when on the shore/packing up, IC's (in particular the new ones) can be a handful until the sails are down so I'm not real keen to see this rule go - not that it is heavily enforced anyway.

The top of the sail limit is interesting, a change to this rule could open up a big area of development in sails without any changes to hardware.

What if the sail used the cunningham to keep it on the mast with a removable cap on the top of the sail. Kind of like the way some of the really teeny windsurfer sails fit on the masts - they have a cap with some string that goes to the head of the sail allowing it to be rigged on a taller mast. Cunningham tension keeps it from popping off.

 

to douse the main, you would just ease the cunno, pop the cap off, and scrunch the sail down. If the mast pocket is deep enough, you should be able to at least partially douse the sail. Enough to make it stable enough for a tow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the requirement that the sail be lowered on the water is a rule that should be put up for future reconsideration if it impeded progress. Lowering the main on an IC is a bad idea IMHO.

 

Got to say, having rescued a few IC's in some pretty hairy conditions the ability to be able to quickly and easily get that big flappy thing down is pretty handy. I've also come in under bare poles a few times myself, and lived without breaking gear to race the next race (last race of the pre-worlds).

In gusty conditions when on the shore/packing up, IC's (in particular the new ones) can be a handful until the sails are down so I'm not real keen to see this rule go - not that it is heavily enforced anyway.

The top of the sail limit is interesting, a change to this rule could open up a big area of development in sails without any changes to hardware.

What if the sail used the cunningham to keep it on the mast with a removable cap on the top of the sail. Kind of like the way some of the really teeny windsurfer sails fit on the masts - they have a cap with some string that goes to the head of the sail allowing it to be rigged on a taller mast. Cunningham tension keeps it from popping off.

 

to douse the main, you would just ease the cunno, pop the cap off, and scrunch the sail down. If the mast pocket is deep enough, you should be able to at least partially douse the sail. Enough to make it stable enough for a tow.

 

Good thinking, however no idea is really 'proved' until that 35knot squall rips through and you see what worked and what didn't. Will the sail release enough in big gusts of wind.... I'll be conservative and stick with a halyard until i see a system that works easily on a single hander.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm running a safety boat what I really like to see is a sail that can be taken off the other way - release a bare minimum of kit at the bottom and pull the sail off the top of the mast, rolling it up as you go. Sail gets put in bottom of rescue boat and there's nothing to tangle/blow loose/otherwise create hassle towing the boat in, or sailing it in under jib) and getting it off can be done by a fresh rescue crew, not a tired sailor.

 

There aren't any easy answers to framing rules for this... Personally for instance I don't like to see shackles anywhere on the mainsail setup, although I usually seem to end up resorting to them at the outhaul, and wire halyards are a pain in the neck, although less common now of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went through a lot of discussion about this sail/mast max height /length when designing TT 3 years ago.

What the rule says and hows it's measured don't agree, but as has been said makes it easier to police.

 

Even though my rigging is fixed ( ie no shroud adjustment ) , using a lot of rake, and a lot of prebend, the length of the mast had to be added to the height of the mast step. Measuring the way the rule actually says - from the underside of the boat through the case vertically to the mast tip, in rigged condition, it's well short of the max.

My sail sits on the mast with a cap, so the black band is a virtual black band on the mast that isn't there, and would be inside the sleeve

But this does allow the sail head to be angled up ( maybe 110 degrees?) as long as it's still below the max height requirement in all setting conditions/boom angle.

 

The rule has changed slightly so it now requires the main to be capable of being 'lowered or furled', changed from 'removed'. which makes it more difficult for the sleeve luff camber-inducer sleeve luff sail, even with zips.

 

I might go back to a boltrope sail next time because of this, and to reduce the extra hassle of the sleeve and zips.

But with no halyard, still rigging/derigging on the side, with a string loop over the top of the mast that can be removed or cut in emergency. ( I've got very long arms ;)

As Jim says, upward or sideways removal of the sail is preferable on a capsized or unstable boat.

I havn't had to be rescued yet.

I use the moth style capsize and carry the boat up the beach method of landing if it's rough on the beach.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites
I went through a lot of discussion about this sail/mast max height /length when designing TT 3 years ago.

What the rule says and hows it's measured don't agree, but as has been said makes it easier to police.

 

I checked the 2009 rule as found here:

<< http://www.canoeicf.com/site/canoeint/if/d...20-%20DRAFT.pdf. >>

 

In my reading, no portion of the sail can be higher than 6360mm above the bottom of the boat and that is basically it.

As such, I'd opt for a shorter unstayed mast (lighter, effectively stiffer, less drag) and moderately peaked head (at 6360mm) placed forward in the boat sufficient to keep the boom out of the way while preserving the square area. The weight saved in all the rigging, control lines and hardware of a sloop rig could be used to beef up the hull torsionally. Should make for a relatively simple, easy-to-sail boat with excellent downwind capability. What that hull might look like is a good project for the many talented folks here...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say it again. Our sail have a head angle of about 97 degrees, yet do not rely on down haul or rake to be below 6360mm. They make it by more than just a little bit. We went through this quite carefully in 2002 because we were nervous as hell about our sails measuring in. The top batten cambers and as a result lowers the top back corner, so even though it looks like it would be a problem, it isn't even close.

 

In any event, the intent is that the rig height is limited, just as the hull length, draft and beams are limited. If you go well out of your way to cheat the system, the system will bite back. I really think there are enough variables to play with.

SHC

Link to post
Share on other sites
Should make for a relatively simple, easy-to-sail boat with excellent downwind capability. What that hull might look like is a good project for the many talented folks here...

 

This poses an interesting point, do we want the boats to be easy to sail? Personally I like the IC to be challenging, and spank you with a capsize if you make a mistake - it makes it all the more rewarding and exhilerating when you get it right (an IC's are pretty rewarding and exhilerating anyway).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are agreeing here ... What I'm saying is that the mast is a bit short ( so it measures when lengths added up ), but the sail can be a bit sticky uppy, beacuse the mast tip comes down well below max height when it's rigged normally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to step back to the sail design posted by Bill, and ignore for a moment the challenges of how to fit in all of the available area, and the requirements that the sail be lowered.

 

A considerable amount of work will need to be done to figure out how to support the mast. The sail as shown has a considerable amount of bend in the lower sections much like a windsurfer rig. The bend down low is much more that I would think likely even if it was induced by a wishbone boom, or GNAV. I am guessing that the bend of the mast would be straighter in the bottom sections with progressively more bend in the mast moving toward the head. Given the high righting moment that is generated on an IC (almost as much as skipper & crew on a 505), keeping the leach of the square head from falling off too early is critical. Intuition tells me that some spreaders & shrouds will be required to provide some lateral stiffness to the rig.

 

All of these changes in the luff profile affect how you can fit the allowable area into the rig height limitations.

 

I'm sure that someone will stick their neck out and further explore that avenue of development.

 

Regarding how the rig would influence the hull design…. Who knows?

 

I have nothing against IC's being easier to sail, but above all, they must be fast. When the boats get too difficult to sail, they slow down. In my experience, a well sorted boat is easy to sail, and is usually fast too.

 

Does eliminating the jib make the boat easier to sail? I don't think we know yet. Alistair tried it, and switched back. I did not sail the "Log" in McCrae, and sadly TT did not make the trip, so I have no personal experience about how they handle when maneuvering.

 

Wishing you all a Happy Thanksgiving

 

Best

 

John K

USA-244 Mayhem

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be interesting to know how Tin Teardrop compares to Monkey and Scarlet O'Hara since those are boats a lot of us have sailed against.

 

At the weston open this year, we all sailed and on the first day shared all the top 3 places.

In the first race I mistook the start for the 1 min, in the 2nd I swas a bit keener to get going, so was over the line and had to go back. Which meant the first beat was a bit slow with all the IC and AC traffic. My better upwind speed eventuall meant catchup time, and all 3 of us crossed the line very closely in both races. In the 3rd race, I got a good start, a good clear wind beat ( first of all the IC and AC )and a first place by a good margin.

But on the next day it was windy and gusty - i was capsized at the start, so a rubbish race, and the next one I can't remember much apart from being so far behind after falling in too many times I went for the empty changing rooms and a nice hot shower.

The ICOD proved faster round the course than the 'new' IC in the windy conditions.

 

Upwind my boat points very high, and I can climb above anything without slowing, and can then foot off ( which is the other boats normal pointing angle) at high speed. But when it gets windy, I can't depower enough, and have to pinch a bit which is not so good, and this makes tacking tricky with low boatspeed.

Downwind we were all about the same speed, with perhaps the sloops sailing a bit deeper, and the ICODs catching up a bit in the lighter bits.

 

The problems with the boat are mostly related to stronger winds - tacking ( I can't do it), nosediving , too much power.

 

Caused by

low volume hull with low rocker, sharp corners - this makes the hull difficult to turn, with both ends stuck in the water. Sailing a nice curve means that the boat slows and won't get past head to wind.

The boom is too low. The boom is attached at crewdeck level, which gives a long luff, but I can't get under it and on the seat very easily.

No jib to ease to help spin the hull round when it's released.

The very stiff sail pops the battens at the wrong moment, and drives the bow back the way it has just come from, putting the brakes on, so it's head to wind going backwards time again.

I keep catching the tiller extension on the end of the long boom, dropping it, and so yet another way of stopping the tack.

The mainsheet tension locks the carriage, so I can't pull the seat back without completely letting out the sheet - so either the top square reach is very scary in a submarine, or I lose time trying to get the seat back and probably going head to wind again.

 

The hull seems to go best cat or moth style with the bow in, but waves do rip right over the foredeck and into the boat. With the seat back, the hull planes, but does bang a bit. It seems slower but safer.

 

The new boat or the modded old boat will therefore have :

more rocker

rig moved aft

higher boom

perhaps a boltrope sail ( maybe even a jib :unsure: )

better downhaul control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my contribution on unstayed una rig based on three years of development:

1. The righting moment of the canoe is so high that the mast , no matter how stiff, bends heaps at full power and so the sail if cut for that bend is way too full in light winds with the mast straight. Bending the mast in the light with cunningham works a bit but tends to bugger up the sail shape, tighten the lower leach and not perform any better.

2. Not much of that bend is down low as the mast is huge, mine is 70mm dia by 3mm thick at the deck. So John's comment on Bill's sail is valid IMHO.

3. Because of 1. I recently put diamonds and a fore stay on the mast to give initial stiffness. But I did not recut the sail so needed the fore stay to be loose enough to get bend to match the luff curve (lost interest in it really), then it went better when powered up but still had light air problem.

4. I think the forestay is necessary, but reserve opinion on the diamonds. maybe the mast can be stiff enough latterally.

5. Tacking is easier than a sloop, fast and easy. Those who have problems I think have the fin too close to the mast, like a laser, and can not bear away with vang on. The Log falls off the wind easilly, the high windage forward might even help here.

6. Gybing took longer to master, needs vang off a lot, cunningham on a lot so the battens pop easilly, a very easy sliding seat, and the new tiller hand behind your back technique mentioned above. I also have the mainsheet at the front of the carriage so I get easier access to throw the seat and swap sides than most canoes.

7. WRT to layout. The mast is at 1500 from the bow, the boat is about 350 wide at that station and the mast tube is in a full bulkhead well secured. The boat is also deeper than standard between the mast and the seat to achieve good torsional strength. Having the mast forward allowed the mainsheet to be forward of the seat, giving gybing space. The seat needs to be at the centre of bouyancy, and I seemed to get that OK.

8. There needs to be a reasonable deck width behind the seat, Mine is just enough, Andy's first go was obviously not. If its not you fall over trying to throw the seat through. I do not think it necesary to go for the wide V transom design just for stability, narrower has less wetted surface and planes just as fast.

9. The de-rig rule makes it very hard for a pocket luff/ camber induced sail. Does not seem to worry all the moths and lasers but the ICs make their own rules. My system has not been tested and may not work. Probably better to use a bolt rope.

10, If you use a bolt rope the big fat mast will be high drag so a stayed rig would end up better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John and Phil:

Lots of great info.

Couple thoughts / reactions:

 

First, my illustration is based on a Moth sail. The luff round shown is merely a remnant of that work based on an older, softer mast rather than a profile I would consider for an IC (or a Moth at this point.) The illustration was intended to create discussion on the UniRig and the replies are a testament to the level of enthusiasm for the IC. Clearly it is non-unique problem with multiple solutions which is why (to me) it is interesting. The intriguing part is in creating an optimal planform within the rules and ability of the sailor and engineering it to a level of viability.

 

Second, I'll risk getting flamed soundly here but IMO one's level of sailing performance varies inversely with the level of complexity because there is more room to blame poor results on mis-trimmed sails, rigs, blades, etc. That's not to say that C Maas or Steve or the many other highly skilled IC sailors can't make a complex boat perform because clearly they do, only that they would have more time to concentrate and react to the wind and water without so many strings...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil and Andy,

 

Thank you for your informative replies. There is certainly more than meets the eye with these things. As always there is more than one variable at work. Keeps it interesting......

 

Bill,

 

Thanks for taking an interest in these things. We will have to lean on Mr. Maas to get you a ride before too long!

 

Signing off for the holiday

 

JK

Link to post
Share on other sites
9. The de-rig rule makes it very hard for a pocket luff/ camber induced sail. Does not seem to worry all the moths and lasers but the ICs make their own rules. My system has not been tested and may not work. Probably better to use a bolt rope.

10, If you use a bolt rope the big fat mast will be high drag so a stayed rig would end up better.

 

Does the de-rig rule encompass the ability to simply drop the whole rig? If the shroud system was designed with some sort of quick release pin, the whole rig could be dumped over the side and either abondoned in an emergency, or at least it would enable the sail to be removed from the mast at leisure from an upright boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

This message is primarily for Canoers located in the New England area but if you do not fit this description read it anyway,

 

I just got an email from Mark Rotsky the Race Committee Chairman at Bristol Yacht Club. I sent him an email earlier this month asking about hosting a regatta there and also about the possibility of doing a regular weeknight racing thing similar to what the Bristol A-Cats do. His reply was very positive on both counts, apparently Bristol is trying to re-emphasize dinghy sailing. The details of the regatta still need to be ironed out, more on that later. As far as the weeknight racing thing is concerned the first thing I need to know before I can move farther is 1.)who is interested and 2.) what night works best for everyone?

 

I think this a great way to keep us on the water racing more consistently. So, are people interested? What night works best?

 

Willy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gentlemen,

This message is primarily for Canoers located in the New England area but if you do not fit this description read it anyway,

 

I just got an email from Mark Rotsky the Race Committee Chairman at Bristol Yacht Club. I sent him an email earlier this month asking about hosting a regatta there and also about the possibility of doing a regular weeknight racing thing similar to what the Bristol A-Cats do. His reply was very positive on both counts, apparently Bristol is trying to re-emphasize dinghy sailing. The details of the regatta still need to be ironed out, more on that later. As far as the weeknight racing thing is concerned the first thing I need to know before I can move farther is 1.)who is interested and 2.) what night works best for everyone?

 

I think this a great way to keep us on the water racing more consistently. So, are people interested? What night works best?

 

Willy

 

Willy, make sure you put this on the US Thread of the IC Forum ( http://www.intcanoe.org/forum2/ ), and if you sort dates I can put it in the events calendar of the World site (if wanted http://www.intcanoe.org/newsite/)

Link to post
Share on other sites