Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I have always wanted to sail a boat like a 2.4 Meter but with much higher performance. I suggested a concept years ago and wonder if anyone else has any thoughts on how to make something like this work. The idea I had was to use a molded "wing" that would have ballast slide inside it to give large RM-similar to a two handed dinghy where one of the crew is on a trapeze. The ballast could be moved by hand, foot power or electrically. The boat might have a small fixed keel. The ends of the "wing" would be slightly larger in section to provide extra buoyancy. Each side of the wing would be supported by a "trapeze" wire making moving the whole wing(and the ballast inside it) fairly easy since it all moves horizontally. The idea is to sit in the boat like a 2.4 meter but plane early and fast. I'm interested in any ideas that would accomplish this in a relatively small self righting monohull.... Link to post Share on other sites
theycallmegod 1 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I have always wanted to sail a boat Maybe one day you'll get round to it... Link to post Share on other sites
TimClark 0 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is this boat aimed towards the everyday person, or sailors with disabilities? TC Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is this boat aimed towards the everyday person, or sailors with disabilities? TC ====================== Both, I would hope. As I get older I contemplate more and more how to be able to continue to sail high performance boats w/o the effort that came so easy in earlier days. Link to post Share on other sites
m.h.valentine 1 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I like the general direction of the idea -- but I can't resolve the equation: {movable (maybe electrically) ballast + additional keel ballast + drag from the wing floats} = planing. I think it will be too heavy to plane except in big air, and I think if it looks anything at all like a 2.4 it will never plane unless you are about to die as you surf down a tsunami. If the rig is big enough to generate the power to plane in anything below scary wind speed, there goes ease of use by old fat farts and disabled folks. That said, Doug has built more boats than I have. Not sure if he's sailed more or not. I await with interest to see where this goes. M Link to post Share on other sites
another 505 sailor 135 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 It won't be a dinghy. But I'll humor you for a minute. In the real world, a planing dinghy requires rapid and constant adjustment of the ballast, which is the crew. In your sit in boat, the crew will not be able to accomplish that. So your ballast will have to move. How do you plan to do it fast enough and constantly? Moving the ballast with human power by arms or legs will require more effort than crewing on a planing dinghy. Battery power could have potential, but how big will the batteries need to be to maintain rapid and constant adjustment all day? Link to post Share on other sites
nige 46 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is this boat aimed towards the everyday person, or sailors with disabilities? TC ====================== Both, I would hope. As I get older I contemplate more and more how to be able to continue to sail high performance boats w/o the effort that came so easy in earlier days. Why does it have to be a monohull? Does the Weta (or something similar) not fit the bill pretty well? It seems you can meet your criteria much more easily with more than one hull and you dont need to make it as complex. Link to post Share on other sites
n.deroulhac 0 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 You need at least a 27% ratio to attain easy planing. Seems that adding the wings with movable ballast would add to much weight. Its an interesting concept though. For now I think ill stick to traps. Try an I-14 if you want some fun planing! Link to post Share on other sites
m.h.valentine 1 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Why does it have to be a monohull? Does the Weta (or something similar) not fit the bill pretty well? It seems you can meet your criteria much more easily with more than one hull and you dont need to make it as complex. Now that's a helluva thought. Maybe a sit-in Weta? Disabled sailors might really dig that. M Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is this boat aimed towards the everyday person, or sailors with disabilities? TC ====================== Both, I would hope. As I get older I contemplate more and more how to be able to continue to sail high performance boats w/o the effort that came so easy in earlier days. Why does it have to be a monohull? Does the Weta (or something similar) not fit the bill pretty well? It seems you can meet your criteria much more easily with more than one hull and you dont need to make it as complex. ================================ Not "self-righting"..... ------------ I don't think the "wing" would necessarily add too much weight: you have the weight of a person-more or less-to play with. I don't like the keel too much but it may be required to make sure that the thing recovers from a knockdown/pitchpole(in combination with the buoyancy of the wing to some extent). If you eliminate the keel ballast you could be talking serious performance but with drawbacks that could exclude disabled sailors. There isn't an easy answer as best I can tell.... ---------- PS- the wing would never be in the water- except in an emergency. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 It won't be a dinghy. But I'll humor you for a minute. In the real world, a planing dinghy requires rapid and constant adjustment of the ballast, which is the crew. In your sit in boat, the crew will not be able to accomplish that. So your ballast will have to move. How do you plan to do it fast enough and constantly? Moving the ballast with human power by arms or legs will require more effort than crewing on a planing dinghy. Battery power could have potential, but how big will the batteries need to be to maintain rapid and constant adjustment all day? --------------------------------------- As I envision it the wing+ballast is supported by trapeze wires-side to side movement would not require a whole lot of effort.... Just as a rough illustration here is a picture of a Melges 24 model fitted with a "trapeze power ballast system". The battery was part of the sliding ballast and that could be done on a full size version. The "wing" on the model is just two carbon tubes that form a track for the ballast to slide on. To me, a molded wing on the fullsize version would have a number of advantages including lower aerodynamic drag, buoyancy and it could be built with a slight curve. pix by me from www.microsail.com: Link to post Share on other sites
m.h.valentine 1 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 It won't be a dinghy. But I'll humor you for a minute. In the real world, a planing dinghy requires rapid and constant adjustment of the ballast, which is the crew. In your sit in boat, the crew will not be able to accomplish that. So your ballast will have to move. How do you plan to do it fast enough and constantly? Moving the ballast with human power by arms or legs will require more effort than crewing on a planing dinghy. Battery power could have potential, but how big will the batteries need to be to maintain rapid and constant adjustment all day? --------------------------------------- As I envision it the wing+ballast is supported by trapeze wires-side to side movement would not require a whole lot of effort.... Just as a rough illustration here is a picture of a Melges 24 model fitted with a "trapeze power ballast system". The battery was part of the sliding ballast and that could be done on a full size version. The "wing" on the model is just two carbon tubes that form a track for the ballast to slide on. To me, a molded wing on the fullsize version would have a number of advantages including lower aerodynamic drag, buoyancy and it could be built with a slight curve. pix by me from www.microsail.com: OK, so you're still crazy then. Never mind. Link to post Share on other sites
TimClark 0 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 My problem with this is the following: the boat is targeted for disabled sailors, and able bodied sailors alike, but lets go with the disabled sailors first. The sailors will be sitting in bucket seats as per the SKUD 18 (which does a mighty fine job of what you're attempting), and are fairly limited in what happens in the case of an emergency. Let's consider the worst scenario, the boat is fairly high performance, they are planing down waves in decent breeze when they wipe out. Then you find all of that ballast on the leeward side of the boat, not exactly placing the sailors in a comfortable position. I see there are a lot of risks that come with a design like this that may not be worth the extra effort. The SKUD 18 is a sweet little boat, and I think it does a great job for what it was designed. Link to post Share on other sites
nige 46 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is this boat aimed towards the everyday person, or sailors with disabilities? TC ====================== Both, I would hope. As I get older I contemplate more and more how to be able to continue to sail high performance boats w/o the effort that came so easy in earlier days. Why does it have to be a monohull? Does the Weta (or something similar) not fit the bill pretty well? It seems you can meet your criteria much more easily with more than one hull and you dont need to make it as complex. ================================ Not "self-righting"..... ------------ I don't think the "wing" would necessarily add too much weight: you have the weight of a person-more or less-to play with. I don't like the keel too much but it may be required to make sure that the thing recovers from a knockdown/pitchpole(in combination with the buoyancy of the wing to some extent). If you eliminate the keel ballast you could be talking serious performance but with drawbacks that could exclude disabled sailors. There isn't an easy answer as best I can tell.... ---------- PS- the wing would never be in the water- except in an emergency. I understand the self righting thing but something like a weta is very hard to capsize unless you are REALLY pushing it, consequently you should not need to get to that situation. I would imagine without pushing it to hard (i.e. with almost no risk of needing to self right) a weta will be faster, safer and easier than any carrying the dead weigh of a person in the middle and all the complexity and danger of sliding weight. You could also add a float to the top of the mast of the tri as you are clearly not going to get something that is screaming fast with your setup. Only danger then is that it will blow away from you faster than you can swim. Link to post Share on other sites
dkmor 0 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 isnt this a skud 18??? Link to post Share on other sites
Shu 121 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is this boat aimed towards the everyday person, or sailors with disabilities? TC ====================== Both, I would hope. As I get older I contemplate more and more how to be able to continue to sail high performance boats w/o the effort that came so easy in earlier days. Why does it have to be a monohull? Does the Weta (or something similar) not fit the bill pretty well? It seems you can meet your criteria much more easily with more than one hull and you dont need to make it as complex. ================================ Not "self-righting"..... ------------ I don't think the "wing" would necessarily add too much weight: you have the weight of a person-more or less-to play with. I don't like the keel too much but it may be required to make sure that the thing recovers from a knockdown/pitchpole(in combination with the buoyancy of the wing to some extent). If you eliminate the keel ballast you could be talking serious performance but with drawbacks that could exclude disabled sailors. There isn't an easy answer as best I can tell.... ---------- PS- the wing would never be in the water- except in an emergency. I understand the self righting thing but something like a weta is very hard to capsize unless you are REALLY pushing it, consequently you should not need to get to that situation. I would imagine without pushing it to hard (i.e. with almost no risk of needing to self right) a weta will be faster, safer and easier than any carrying the dead weigh of a person in the middle and all the complexity and danger of sliding weight. You could also add a float to the top of the mast of the tri as you are clearly not going to get something that is screaming fast with your setup. Only danger then is that it will blow away from you faster than you can swim. For a disabled sailor strapped into a bucket seat, the boat on its side is not going to blow away from them. Just needs enough floatation in the boat to keep them safely above the water, and enough floatation at the top of the mast to keep it on top of the water. Perhaps a hinge mechanism on the sliding rack thingy could be activated to move the weight "below" the boat to right it. The multihull is the simple solution; but an elegant solution that works for a monohull is worth considering. Link to post Share on other sites
Sailingkid 3 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I actually think we need a boat like what Doug suggests, except i think a 12-14' trimaran would be a good answer. It would already have the speed, just no self righting. Maybe you could make a bigger version by using a sea kayak, then having a kit that you bolt on to it including rig, floats and foils (Daggerboard and rudder). Same concept of that converter trimaran. You would still get they joys of sailing a boat that you partly built yourself, and maybe some reduced costs. The modificaions to the sea kayak to take the loads of the rig, foils etc might take some work though.... Link to post Share on other sites
eratica 0 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 bugger building more junk, if you want to sit on your ass and do very little while still going fast go crew on a keelboat doug Link to post Share on other sites
Sailingkid 3 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 bugger Talking about building more junk, if you want to sit on your ass and do very little while still going fast go crew on a keelboat doug Fixed that for you. Link to post Share on other sites
sten 0 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 The idea is to sit in the boat like a 2.4 meter but plane early and fast. I'm interested in any ideas that would accomplish this in a relatively small self righting monohull.... stick and out board engine on it. the 2.4m is great to sail how it is, very responsive and feels quick with your head at water level, don't think the 2.4 hull shape is designed for plaining high performance dinghy with movable balast is an IC Link to post Share on other sites
bistros 22 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Here we go again. Doug, you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that you inevitably specify mutually exclusive capabilities in your requirements. Doing so makes the desired result impossible or a horribly twisted compromise that will fail miserably to meet any requirements. Early planing & fast means light static weight. This precludes ballast other than crew. Self righting means a weighted keel and/or bulb of some kind. This precludes early planing and and light weight. Sit-in and handicap-capable capable means minimal required crew movement. This precludes the crew as movable ballast. Handicap-safe means no manual or powered systems for righting moment control. This precludes movable non-crew ballast. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no respect for most everyone here on Sailing Anarchy, but if the Skud 18 is the best real effort from Bethwaite Design, don't you think your specification is a little unrealistic? The first step towards project success is setting realistic goals that fit within the 2009 realm of possibility. I'm certainly a proponent of aiming high and pushing the boundaries of what people accept as conventional wisdom, but you always aim way too high and set yourself up for failure. One of the greatest tree-fort philosophers of our time, Bartholomew Simpson is quoted as proposing the attitude, "Aim low, live happy!". -- Bill Link to post Share on other sites
Matt D 6 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is it groundhog day? Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Here we go again. Doug, you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that you inevitably specify mutually exclusive capabilities in your requirements. Doing so makes the desired result impossible or a horribly twisted compromise that will fail miserably to meet any requirements. [*]Early planing & fast means light static weight. This precludes ballast other than crew.Not true [*]Self righting means a weighted keel and/or bulb of some kind. This precludes early planing and and light weight.Not necessarily true. [*]Sit-in and handicap-capable capable means minimal required crew movement. This precludes the crew as movable ballast.This concept does not require the crew to be "movable ballast"-though the crew may move fore and aft. [*]Handicap-safe means no manual or powered systems for righting moment control. Absolutely false-many handicap boats use powered equipment. -- Link to post Share on other sites
another 505 sailor 135 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Here we go again. Doug, you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that you inevitably specify mutually exclusive capabilities in your requirements. Doing so makes the desired result impossible or a horribly twisted compromise that will fail miserably to meet any requirements. [*]Early planing & fast means light static weight. This precludes ballast other than crew.Not true You have a way to plane early without it being light weight? Please tell us. [*]Self righting means a weighted keel and/or bulb of some kind. This precludes early planing and and light weight.Not necessarily true. If it's heavy enough to self right, how can it plane early? Please tell us. [*]Sit-in and handicap-capable capable means minimal required crew movement. This precludes the crew as movable ballast.This concept does not require the crew to be "movable ballast"-though the crew may move fore and aft. So how will the boat develop enough power and still be light weight if the crew doesn't move side to side? [*]Handicap-safe means no manual or powered systems for righting moment control. Absolutely false-many handicap boats use powered equipment. Powered equipment for righting control? He's not talking about steering or trimming. -- How about explainations to go with your answers? Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Here we go again. Doug, you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that you inevitably specify mutually exclusive capabilities in your requirements. Doing so makes the desired result impossible or a horribly twisted compromise that will fail miserably to meet any requirements. [1]Early planing & fast means light static weight. This precludes ballast other than crew.Not true You have a way to plane early without it being light weight? Please tell us. [2]Self righting means a weighted keel and/or bulb of some kind. This precludes early planing and and light weight.Not necessarily true. If it's heavy enough to self right, how can it plane early? Please tell us. [3]Sit-in and handicap-capable capable means minimal required crew movement. This precludes the crew as movable ballast.This concept does not require the crew to be "movable ballast"-though the crew may move fore and aft. So how will the boat develop enough power and still be light weight if the crew doesn't move side to side? [4]Handicap-safe means no manual or powered systems for righting moment control. Absolutely false-many handicap boats use powered equipment. Powered equipment for righting control? He's not talking about steering or trimming. -- How about explainations to go with your answers? --------------------------- 1) Of course the boat has to be light enough to plane but this does not preclude ballast other than the crew. 2) My very preliminary work on this has shown that a keel that will make the boat self-righting does not preclude planing. The keel and movable ballast system would have to be designed very carefully to not affect early planing but I think it can be done. The self-righting characteristic is critical-at least for disabled sailors. But when the buoyancy of the wing is considered the lead required will be way less than a "normal" keelboat. Also, no keel ballast is required to sail the boat, as I envision it, it's just there to make it self-righting. 3) The whole concept described earlier in the thread explains this. 4) One of the simpler applications of battery power would be to move the ballast for those who require help. The ballast wing is supported by trapeze wires so moving it and its ballast will be fairly easy. Link to post Share on other sites
Cheesy 0 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Here we go again. Doug, you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that you inevitably specify mutually exclusive capabilities in your requirements. Doing so makes the desired result impossible or a horribly twisted compromise that will fail miserably to meet any requirements. [1]Early planing & fast means light static weight. This precludes ballast other than crew.Not true You have a way to plane early without it being light weight? Please tell us. [2]Self righting means a weighted keel and/or bulb of some kind. This precludes early planing and and light weight.Not necessarily true. If it's heavy enough to self right, how can it plane early? Please tell us. [3]Sit-in and handicap-capable capable means minimal required crew movement. This precludes the crew as movable ballast.This concept does not require the crew to be "movable ballast"-though the crew may move fore and aft. So how will the boat develop enough power and still be light weight if the crew doesn't move side to side? [4]Handicap-safe means no manual or powered systems for righting moment control. Absolutely false-many handicap boats use powered equipment. Powered equipment for righting control? He's not talking about steering or trimming. -- How about explainations to go with your answers? --------------------------- 1) Of course the boat has to be light enough to plane but this does not preclude ballast other than the crew. 2) My very preliminary work on this has shown that a keel that will make the boat self-righting does not preclude planing. The keel and movable ballast system would have to be designed very carefully to not affect early planing but I think it can be done. The self-righting characteristic is critical-at least for disabled sailors. But when the buoyancy of the wing is considered the lead required will be way less than a "normal" keelboat. Also, no keel ballast is required to sail the boat, as I envision it, it's just there to make it self-righting. 3) The whole concept described earlier in the thread explains this. 4) One of the simpler applications of battery power would be to move the ballast for those who require help. The ballast wing is supported by trapeze wires so moving it and its ballast will be fairly easy. Can you share some numbers for #2 then? Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 Personally, a boat that would sail like a Windmill- with me sitting in the center- would be cool. That boat planes in 10 knots or slightly less and is a great ride offwind in a breeze. But a boat could be built that would be a bit more powerfull and meet Bethwaites criteria for upwind planing: LOA 16'(or so) SA-around 160 sq.ft. upwind 12' sliding "trapwing" with 160 lb ballast Allup boat weight minus wing,wing ballast and keel ballast including rig:160lb 75lb keel bulb 130lb-180lb crew SCP/Total Weight=30% @ 180lb crew Link to post Share on other sites
Sailingkid 3 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I still think my multihull idea is good. Take the challenger trimaran for example. Design something like that but with modern technology. http://www.sailchallengers.com/challenger/ On that site they claim that it won't tip, but i don't belive that because anything will tip if you try hard enough. You could put Dougs trapeze ballast system from one ama to another, and it would be fairly quick. Basically a weta but smaller. You might need a centreboard with 15kgs of ballast in it, as a last resort if its going over and Dougs ballast system can't go any further out or back. Even so capsizing isn't that bad, as long as your not strapped in. Just right it like a weta. Also even on a boat like the 29er you might be able to make it it plane upwind just sitting there, but the helm feels heavy, it doesen't feel as nice as it does when your going flat out with the daggerboard up 25cm and you are hiking as hard as you can, on an angle that might be called close reaching by traditionalists. I think you going to struggle to achive this on a boat where your in it. (except on a multi) Only people who have expierinced this will know what im talking about, but sometimes it can be just as much fun as going downwind. Link to post Share on other sites
Munter 0 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Doug - where are you going to get the energy to continuously move the ballast inboard and outboard as fast and often as a dinghy crew move? Link to post Share on other sites
Tornado_ALIVE 119 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Is this boat aimed towards the everyday person, or sailors with disabilities? TC ====================== I would hope Finaly a boat for DL Link to post Share on other sites
bistros 22 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Personally, a boat that would sail like a Windmill- with me sitting in the center- would be cool. That boat planes in 10 knots or slightly less and is a great ride offwind in a breeze. But a boat could be built that would be a bit more powerfull and meet Bethwaites criteria for upwind planing:LOA 16'(or so) SA-around 160 sq.ft. upwind 12' sliding "trapwing" with 160 lb ballast Allup boat weight minus wing,wing ballast and keel ballast including rig:160lb 75lb keel bulb 130lb-180lb crew SCP/Total Weight=30% @ 180lb crew So... 575 pounds with 160 square feet of sail on a 16' hull 12' movable wing width - displacing 160 pounds approximately 6' from centerline. 160 pounds at 6' = 960 pounds / foot (Assuming 8 feet of arm between COE keel and CE sails, this means 120 pounds cross boat force) 120 / 575 = 20.8% So, even using your incredibly questionable but beloved SCP ratio, the boat comes in 30% under the 30% SCP threshold ratio necessary for early planing. (Use of the ratios is exactly as specified in "High Performance Sailing - page 178") 160 square feet of sail on a single hander for handicapped/limited mobility folks is bloody ridiculous. You are talking a 20% INCREASE in upwind sail area compared to a SwiftSolo or Musto Performance Skiff. Bringing the sail area down to ambitious reality (100 square feet), and even assuming an 6' lever arm for your "trapwing" gizmo, this thing ain't going to plane early (if at all). Now, think about having the stupid moveable ballast on the wrong side, add your ridiculous sail area and you've got a completely knocked down keel boat teetering on a tiny 75 pound bulb keel, with a very scared person lying sideways in a bucket seat filled with water. Fun, wow! -- Bill Link to post Share on other sites
cynophobe 53 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Doug,if you can pull this off,and I mean IF,youll be a legend . The Kid is on the right track,there are already a number of 3mtr tris that can do this.If you go with safe rather than extreme,ie their really hard to capsize.Marples I think is one of the better ones. Relying on electrics in such a small boat sounds dodgy.Any leaks will turn it all to shit.What about taking duels?Must have pretty big batteries and good back up to make it safe.Sounds heavy. Like the pic but.Good luck. Link to post Share on other sites
avantgardaclue 3 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I actually think we need a boat like what Doug suggests, except i think a 12-14' trimaran would be a good answer. It would already have the speed, just no self righting. Maybe you could make a bigger version by using a sea kayak, then having a kit that you bolt on to it including rig, floats and foils (Daggerboard and rudder). Same concept of that converter trimaran. You would still get they joys of sailing a boat that you partly built yourself, and maybe some reduced costs. The modificaions to the sea kayak to take the loads of the rig, foils etc might take some work though.... The Challenger Trimaran, circumnavigated the UK in seriously shit weather... Link to post Share on other sites
Derek Grebe 163 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Is this boat aimed towards the everyday person, or sailors with disabilities? TC ====================== I would hope Finaly a boat for DL that's not really fair on disabled sailors..... Link to post Share on other sites
cynophobe 53 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Couldnt you just build a lighter flying 15? Sounds pretty close without starting from scratch Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 Personally, a boat that would sail like a Windmill- with me sitting in the center- would be cool. That boat planes in 10 knots or slightly less and is a great ride offwind in a breeze. But a boat could be built that would be a bit more powerfull and meet Bethwaites criteria for upwind planing:LOA 16'(or so) SA-around 160 sq.ft. upwind 12' sliding "trapwing" with 160 lb ballast All-up boat weight minus wing,wing ballast and keel ballast including rig:160lb 75lb keel bulb 130lb-180lb crew SCP/Total Weight=30% @ 180lb crew So... 575 pounds with 160 square feet of sail on a 16' hull 12' movable wing width - displacing 160 pounds approximately 6' from centerline. 160 pounds at 6' = 960 pounds / foot (Assuming 8 feet of arm between COE keel and CE sails, this means 120 pounds cross boat force) 120 / 575 = 20.8% So, even using your incredibly questionable but beloved SCP ratio, the boat comes in 30% under the 30% SCP threshold ratio necessary for early planing. (Use of the ratios is exactly as specified in "High Performance Sailing - page 178") 160 square feet of sail on a single hander for handicapped/limited mobility folks is bloody ridiculous. You are talking a 20% INCREASE in upwind sail area compared to a SwiftSolo or Musto Performance Skiff. Bringing the sail area down to ambitious reality (100 square feet), and even assuming an 6' lever arm for your "trapwing" gizmo, this thing ain't going to plane early (if at all). Now, think about having the stupid movable ballast on the wrong side, add your ridiculous sail area and you've got a completely knocked down keel boat teetering on a tiny 75 pound bulb keel, with a very scared person lying sideways in a bucket seat filled with water. Fun, wow! -- Bill --------------------------------------------- 1) SCP= RM/ ce-clr RM = 9x160(wing and wing ballast moved to weather)=1440+ 180 from boat plus keel @10degrees=1620 total DIVIDED by 9'=180=SCP. 2) SCP/total weight= 180/575=31.3% ====================== There are a number of ways that a boat like this could be designed to take advantage of this system. The above was to illustrate that since I already mentioned that an easy to plane fun boat like the windmill would probably be what my own version would be based on. -Because the wing is molded with the ballast running inside it ,it will support all the ballast with the whole thing to leeward and the boat upright and slightly heeled(wing is hinged at centerline to allow it to change angle as it moves supported by the windward trapeze wire) -As mentioned before the wing will be easy to move but a light weight system to electrically move it is a simple solution to anyone who finds moving the ballast too stressful. Link to post Share on other sites
dougculnane 0 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 sit in + moving ballast != High performance Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 0 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Personally, a boat that would sail like a Windmill- with me sitting in the center- would be cool. That boat planes in 10 knots or slightly less and is a great ride offwind in a breeze. But a boat could be built that would be a bit more powerfull and meet Bethwaites criteria for upwind planing:LOA 16'(or so) SA-around 160 sq.ft. upwind 12' sliding "trapwing" with 160 lb ballast All-up boat weight minus wing,wing ballast and keel ballast including rig:160lb 75lb keel bulb 130lb-180lb crew SCP/Total Weight=30% @ 180lb crew So... 575 pounds with 160 square feet of sail on a 16' hull 12' movable wing width - displacing 160 pounds approximately 6' from centerline. 160 pounds at 6' = 960 pounds / foot (Assuming 8 feet of arm between COE keel and CE sails, this means 120 pounds cross boat force) 120 / 575 = 20.8% So, even using your incredibly questionable but beloved SCP ratio, the boat comes in 30% under the 30% SCP threshold ratio necessary for early planing. (Use of the ratios is exactly as specified in "High Performance Sailing - page 178") 160 square feet of sail on a single hander for handicapped/limited mobility folks is bloody ridiculous. You are talking a 20% INCREASE in upwind sail area compared to a SwiftSolo or Musto Performance Skiff. Bringing the sail area down to ambitious reality (100 square feet), and even assuming an 6' lever arm for your "trapwing" gizmo, this thing ain't going to plane early (if at all). Now, think about having the stupid movable ballast on the wrong side, add your ridiculous sail area and you've got a completely knocked down keel boat teetering on a tiny 75 pound bulb keel, with a very scared person lying sideways in a bucket seat filled with water. Fun, wow! -- Bill --------------------------------------------- 1) SCP= RM/ ce-clr RM = 9x160(wing and wing ballast moved to weather)=1440+ 180 from boat plus keel @10degrees=1620 total DIVIDED by 9'=180=SCP. 2) SCP/total weight= 180/575=31.3% ====================== There are a number of ways that a boat like this could be designed to take advantage of this system. The above was to illustrate that since I already mentioned that an easy to plane fun boat like the windmill would probably be what my own version would be based on. -Because the wing is molded with the ballast running inside it ,it will support all the ballast with the whole thing to leeward and the boat upright and slightly heeled(wing is hinged at centerline to allow it to change angle as it moves supported by the windward trapeze wire) -As mentioned before the wing will be easy to move but a light weight system to electrically move it is a simple solution to anyone who finds moving the ballast too stressful. Doug, You know what, you're right I think it just might work. If you can get the prototype to perform up the these specs I would buy one. How much do you expect it to cost? When will you be gong into full production? Will there be a OD class? So excited. I can't wait to see one sailing. Nobody Link to post Share on other sites
TeamFugu 10 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I don't see this as a dinghy in any way. More like a current VOR but scaled down. I think a canting keel with bilge boards would be much better than a deck mounted contraption. You could build a very narrow hull with a flat planing bottom. Maybe even an asymetric launched from a sock. I also think the multi hull option is a much better way to go. It looks goofy but put a float at the top of the mast so that the boat won't turtle. Fix the mast to the deck using something similar to a windsurfer universal joint so that you can release the skyward shroud far enough to get the boat to right itself. I've seen some posts by the offshore guys thinking of ways to do this. The big problem I have with some of the ideas here is that they are far too complex making it dificult or impossible for physically/mentally challenged to be able to effectively use the boat. By using complex controls, you greatly increase the cost of building a boat as well. I have much more money in rigging on my Swift than I have in the hull. People tend to look at the hull construction as a way to reduce costs but the rigging is often the by far the greatest expense especially the more complex the rig is. Think of controls where someone with a puffer can sail the boat and I think you'll be more in line. Battery use should be a minumum because they are heavy and very expensive. What ever power system us used, it must be able to be continually used for 20+ hours so that if something happens, you don't get caught with a disabled person on a disabled boat. One of the problems with the challenge is that you have design requirements that contradict what you have to do in order to achieve the goals. Self righting means some form of ballast. There is no getting around that one. Second for up wind planing, you need a high SA/D ratio and to get enough righting moment to be able to keep the rig in the air, you either need to increase the RM with more balast or go to some form of multihull configuration. I think that by the time you average out all of the conflicting requirements, you'll have something that fills niether of the requirement well. Then there is the market. Though many people say they want something like this, every time someone tries to build something that comes close to filling the bill, the project goes nowhere. My $0.02 I'll probably get blasted for but that is the way I see it. Link to post Share on other sites
m.h.valentine 1 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I don't see this as a dinghy in any way. More like a current VOR but scaled down. I think a canting keel with bilge boards would be much better than a deck mounted contraption. You could build a very narrow hull with a flat planing bottom. Maybe even an asymetric launched from a sock. I also think the multi hull option is a much better way to go. It looks goofy but put a float at the top of the mast so that the boat won't turtle. Fix the mast to the deck using something similar to a windsurfer universal joint so that you can release the skyward shroud far enough to get the boat to right itself. I've seen some posts by the offshore guys thinking of ways to do this. The big problem I have with some of the ideas here is that they are far too complex making it dificult or impossible for physically/mentally challenged to be able to effectively use the boat. By using complex controls, you greatly increase the cost of building a boat as well. I have much more money in rigging on my Swift than I have in the hull. People tend to look at the hull construction as a way to reduce costs but the rigging is often the by far the greatest expense especially the more complex the rig is. Think of controls where someone with a puffer can sail the boat and I think you'll be more in line. Battery use should be a minumum because they are heavy and very expensive. What ever power system us used, it must be able to be continually used for 20+ hours so that if something happens, you don't get caught with a disabled person on a disabled boat. One of the problems with the challenge is that you have design requirements that contradict what you have to do in order to achieve the goals. Self righting means some form of ballast. There is no getting around that one. Second for up wind planing, you need a high SA/D ratio and to get enough righting moment to be able to keep the rig in the air, you either need to increase the RM with more balast or go to some form of multihull configuration. I think that by the time you average out all of the conflicting requirements, you'll have something that fills niether of the requirement well. Then there is the market. Though many people say they want something like this, every time someone tries to build something that comes close to filling the bill, the project goes nowhere. My $0.02 I'll probably get blasted for but that is the way I see it. Fugu, cut the realistic and rational logic. Your constant stream of measured, considered and well-informed opinion is a huge distraction from the Ritalin-fired convulsions of the DL skunkworks. For God's sake, stop building and sailing high-performance dinghies and helping other people to do the same so your opinions lose some of their credibility. M Link to post Share on other sites
TeamFugu 10 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Fugu, cut the realistic and rational logic. Your constant stream of measured, considered and well-informed opinion is a huge distraction from the Ritalin-fired convulsions of the DL skunkworks. For God's sake, stop building and sailing high-performance dinghies and helping other people to do the same so your opinions lose some of their credibility. M Sorry mate. I'll have to do better next time. Link to post Share on other sites
bwd 0 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 got it. Link to post Share on other sites
bistros 22 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 got it. You win the Reality Challenge 16-18' "Sit in" High Performance Dinghy contest! You forgot the 12' wide fast-moving weightless canoe plank, with embedded railroad tracks for the 160 pound lateral movement beer keg (capable of a net 18 FOOT lateral movement while tacking), driven by a weightless ultra-reliable electric motor powered by weightless solar cells, controlled by a microprocessor-based idiot-proof control system allowing the anyone to sail this boat whipping anything that doesn't have two T-foils and a midship wand. I wish I had the ability to design cool shit like this! -- Bill Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTheHero 47 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I don't see any advantage to going the route you originally came up with Doug over the Skud 18 or a trimaran. I have a mini 12 (not a 2.4 meter but same basic set up. I am not disabled (not all there either ) and I can tell you there is plenty to do with out all this movable ballast. Plus the sensation of speed is very good in these boats even at 4 knts. Also I have been knocked down in the boat and they are a bit scary in the survival mode. Steering with you feet while trimming in heavy air is not as easy as it sounds. The foot pedals have very little range of motion compared to the rudder so small corrections in the helm are very difficult. Overcorrections are common, leading to broaches. Get the ballast on the wrong side and it will be even more intimidating. I like the idea though, speed without the burn but I think the skud has achieved this to a large degree. Also there are several tris out there (as previously mentioned) that do all this and more (Hobie Tri foiler). All this would be is a complex machine that would be hard to control and certainly be expensive. I like your models but I don't think there will be a market for this product. My mini 12 Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 sit in + moving ballast != High performance ================== No, sit in + moving ballast + (SCP/Total weight=31.3%)= High Performance ------------------------ Thanks ,Fugu-you make some good points. Note that upwind planing is not a "reqiurement" of the Challenge. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 I don't see any advantage to going the route you originally came up with Doug over the Skud 18 or a trimaran. I have a mini 12 (not a 2.4 meter but same basic set up. I am not disabled (not all there either ) and I can tell you there is plenty to do with out all this movable ballast. Plus the sensation of speed is very good in these boats even at 4 knts. Also I have been knocked down in the boat and they are a bit scary in the survival mode. Steering with you feet while trimming in heavy air is not as easy as it sounds. The foot pedals have very little range of motion compared to the rudder so small corrections in the helm are very difficult. Overcorrections are common, leading to broaches. Get the ballast on the wrong side and it will be even more intimidating. I like the idea though, speed without the burn but I think the skud has achieved this to a large degree. Also there are several tris out there (as previously mentioned) that do all this and more (Hobie Tri foiler). All this would be is a complex machine that would be hard to control and certainly be expensive. I like your models but I don't think there will be a market for this product.My mini 12 ------------------- You may be right but speaking just for myself I think something like this would be a lot of fun. That same "sensation of speed " you mention would be magnified exponentially. I'm not considering it as a product -just a neat way to go fast when I can't move so well anymore...And I bet some other people would enjoy it too. Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTheHero 47 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 What ever floats you boat . I have seen a boat marketed in europe that was more like an AC 32 version of a mini 12. Looked cool, can't remember the url though. Link to post Share on other sites
bistros 22 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 You may be right He is. but speaking just for myself I think something like this would be a lot of fun. That same "sensation of speed " you mention would be magnified exponentially. I seem to remember people mentioning smoking pot and riding a bike generates a similar magnified speed thrill. Less effort than building a boat and you don't have to leave terra firma! I'm not considering it as a product Relax, everyone knew you'd never build one. You don't have to mention you don't intend to productize it. Some "big company" reading this forum will jump on the opportunity to buy the patent rights from you. -just a neat way to go fast when I can't move so well anymore...And I bet some other people would enjoy it too. By the time you get there you will be able to buy an elderly sport boat for a couple thousand bucks. I'm sure there are dock rat kids around your area that can actually sail a boat that can take you out to see what it feels like again. Link to post Share on other sites
TP30 0 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I got bored of reading this half way down. There is a load of shit talked here - most of it not from Doug. Of course a boat with lead in it can plane - Melges 24, SB3, etc etc etc. Hell, I suspect a SKUD can plane and that seems to me to be pretty much what Doug has described. PS I'm the guy who pointed Doug to the Frank Bethwaite foiling Tasar idea. Seems to me that if Bethwaite snr thinks it may (one day) be possible, the idea ought to be given some credit. Link to post Share on other sites
bwd 0 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Lest anyone think i wasn't taking this contest seriously, ahem ahem, here ya go. for propulsion, use one of everyone's favorite rigs A KITE. pulling from just above the deck, it solves your RM problem. Doh. ((Without a bunch of rube goldberg crap and batteries, minimum extra weight .)) ballast need only be enough to right the seated piloto and hull with almost no force from any rig -just blow off the kite safety on capsize. Maybe 75-100#.Or, if the operator can mange to slither in and out the open transom, even less ballast would be needed, 30-50#. But, since the kite pulls up instead of pushing down, you never turtle anyway. Plus if you have mui machismo, use an outrageously big kite and you got your jumpin boat into the bargain DL Upwind would not be truly high performance, but you should be able to get higher than the kitesurfers, say 40-45 instead of 50-60 deg. Downwind you could probably exceed windspeed from 13-30kts with a 7 to 10m kite. I'll build it if you'll buy it. Link to post Share on other sites
Sailingkid 3 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Thats a really good idea. Like to see Dougs reply to that. You could have kites from 24sqm snow kites to tiny 6sqm kitesurfing kites, so you would alwas be powered up, as long as you got the rig choice right. If you didnt and you went out in 30 knots with a 24sqm kite it might be .......interesting.. Link to post Share on other sites
Essex 70 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 the you would need to deploy your upside down foils to hold you down in the water and counteract the runaway kite forces. Link to post Share on other sites
bistros 22 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 There is a big difference besides the fact that the Skud is already sailing. The Trapwing Turbo is a singlehanded high performance boat- I see no reasonwhy this kind of performance should be denied to people not able(for whatever reason) to sail a more conventional high performance keelboat/lead assisted skiff. Do you? Yes, I do see reasons the mobility-challenged should be protected from this idea. It is unsafe and could put them in a situation where they may get hurt or killed. The good news is that this will never be built and never go beyond an irritant on a web forum. No club would ever get liability insurance for the use of this for the mobility-challenged. Get a written professional opinion from a legitimate accredited University graduate marine engineer that this is a safe design for the proposed use. Good luck. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites
bwd 0 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 re: the kite thing, umm, no need for bruce foil or similar, just use the right size kite. re: the DL contraptulation umm was that gonna work like this? nope, more like this? Link to post Share on other sites
Sailingkid 3 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 re: the kite thing, umm, no need for bruce foil or similar, just use the right size kite. re: the DL contraptulation umm was that gonna work like this? nope, more like this? Thats awsome. I still think the kite boat is a good idea, as is the multihull. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 Yes, I do see reasons the mobility-challenged should be protected from this idea. It is unsafe and could put them in a situation where they may get hurt or killed. The good news is that this will never be built and never go beyond an irritant on a web forum. No club would ever get liability insurance for the use of this for the mobility-challenged. Get a written professional opinion from a legitimate accredited University graduate marine engineer that this is a safe design for the proposed use. Good luck. Cheers ================================ If one was to presume that the idea would be engineered by a top Marine Engineer and Naval Architect one could, perhaps, see that this concept could represent a fast and exciting boat for many different people with a huge crew weight range. As to the use by "mobility challenged" people I'm afraid that even if the thing was engineered by the best in the world it wouldn't mean a damn to a "mobility challenged" individual unless the boat had input in the design and setup from pros like Access coupled with a desire on the individuals part to go really fast. http://www.accessclass.org/?Page=26362 Link to post Share on other sites
spankoka 157 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I have always wanted to sail a boat like a 2.4 Meter but with much higher performance. I suggested a concept years ago and wonder if anyone else has any thoughts on how to make something like this work.The idea I had was to use a molded "wing" that would have ballast slide inside it to give large RM-similar to a two handed dinghy where one of the crew is on a trapeze. The ballast could be moved by hand, foot power or electrically. The boat might have a small fixed keel. The ends of the "wing" would be slightly larger in section to provide extra buoyancy. Each side of the wing would be supported by a "trapeze" wire making moving the whole wing(and the ballast inside it) fairly easy since it all moves horizontally. The idea is to sit in the boat like a 2.4 meter but plane early and fast. I'm interested in any ideas that would accomplish this in a relatively small self righting monohull.... From what I see of disabled sailing in the Martin 16 tactics are the appeal. I just don't know that sailing as fast as possible is what disabled sailors are looking for, sailing faster than their competitiors seems sufficient to them. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but given that I am sure there are disabled sailors who could out-sail able bodied me in the close-winded and elegant Martin 16-why would they want to mess around in a skiff with training wheels or whatever? Link to post Share on other sites
skiffe 0 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 No Chalange, just go and Build it drugie. Your design brief for a while has been LOL 16' Sit it Light sliding ballast system 120 sqf sail area sometimes foiling Just get of your fat arse and build it For aslong as I've been a member here you have driveled the same shit FUCK OFF DRUGIE! Link to post Share on other sites
Raz'r 3,670 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 blah blah blah Link to post Share on other sites
Cheesy 0 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 If this boat was to be done in a production version(which there are no plans for) it would be engineered by one of the best and most experienced Naval Architect's and Marine Engineer's around. Like who? If this is feasible why haven't one of these engineers built it already? Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 Maybe because they didn't think of it? Link to post Share on other sites
BalticBandit 7 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Maybe because they didn't think of it? You clearly haven't met Don Martin and his ideas Link to post Share on other sites
Sailingkid 3 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 If I read that correctly your planning to put nearly the same amount of sail on a 16 foot boat as the 3 foot bigger skud 18. About 14sqm? Normally i would be all for this sort of crazyness but if your going to have mobiltity challenged people sailing it relying on 72.52Kg af movable ballast to control 26sqm of sail area downwind. To put things in perspective a 29er with 2 fully moving people with one on trap has 30sqm. I reckon sailing your boat would be like sailing a 29er with the skipper in the middle, but the crew can't move until 2 seconds after he needs to. It is going to be either very dangourous or scary for mobiltity challanged people, unless you make the keel bulb big enough, then your going to struggle to get the same sort of planing feel upwind, or it will feel over safe, thus eliminating the purpose. You could get a nice high performance feel if you put your trapwing idea on a sit in weta-like trimaran though. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 If I read that correctly your planning to put nearly the same amount of sail on a 16 foot boat as the 3 foot bigger skud 18. About 14sqm? Normally i would be all for this sort of crazyness but if your going to have mobiltity challenged people sailing it relying on 72.52Kg af movable ballast to control 26sqm of sail area downwind. To put things in perspective a 29er with 2 fully moving people with one on trap has 30sqm. I reckon sailing your boat would be like sailing a 29er with the skipper in the middle, but the crew can't move until 2 seconds after he needs to. It is going to be either very dangourous or scary for mobiltity challanged people, unless you make the keel bulb big enough, then your going to struggle to get the same sort of planing feel upwind, or it will feel over safe, thus eliminating the purpose. You could get a nice high performance feel if you put your trapwing idea on a sit in weta-like trimaran though. ==================== Kid, remember that the "Turbo" version is the souped up Trapwing and may not even be suitable for anyone but ablebodied sailors. The concept is quite broad and was originally conceived of to provide a "sit-in" experience that allows planing for a singlehander-not necessarily upwind planing. This is made possible by the extraordinary RM developed by the "on-deck sliding ballast" that is actually inside a sealed wing that itself also slides. It's a concept that could offer an exciting ride for any sailor in any number of versions tailored to the persons skills and other requirements. Link to post Share on other sites
tamaozy 1 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 How bout the reverse of weight. The yachts have been looking into a wing that lifts on the leeward side instead of weight on the windward side. It could be fitted below waterline and moves like an IC plank. Not sure but hey may work. Link to post Share on other sites
jfunk 4 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 You know all this bullshit from Doug would go away if he just lost some weight, exercised and learnt to sail a perfomance boat. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 How bout the reverse of weight. The yachts have been looking into a wing that lifts on the leeward side instead of weight on the windward side. It could be fitted below waterline and moves like an IC plank. Not sure but hey may work. --------------------------------- I think you may be talking about DSS(Dynamic Stability Systems)-a foil that slides or pivots out of a hull(on the leeward side) to create lift adding to stability. Has great potential but you still need a "normal" stability system to go along with it. Link to post Share on other sites
Steveromagnino 2 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 How bout the reverse of weight. The yachts have been looking into a wing that lifts on the leeward side instead of weight on the windward side. It could be fitted below waterline and moves like an IC plank. Not sure but hey may work. --------------------------------- I think you may be talking about DSS(Dynamic Stability Systems)-a foil that slides or pivots out of a hull(on the leeward side) to create lift adding to stability. Has great potential but you still need a "normal" stability system to go along with it. really though this is all a bit silly when the reality is the elderly have bad knees, and cannot easily scramble around. So therefore, my own boat is more focused on keeping them sitting securely, but using them as ballast, and also giving them a large bouancy vest to be a leeward pontoon as well. Stair climber turbo LOA 16'(or so) SA-around 160 sq.ft. upwind; 400 offwind 12' sliding "trapwing" with all crew weight acting as 160 lb ballast + 40lb mechanism All-up boat weight minus wing,wing ballast and keel ballast including rig:160lb 75lb keel bulb Total sailing weight(max):450 lb SCP/Total Weight=40% @ 180lb crew-UPWIND PLANING in complete safety. ======================= My belief is my concept will be a new elderly sport revolution, where 70 and 80 year olds can sail in total safety. And with incontinence, unlike your ideas, they can do excrement directly from the seat. What do you think? - sit in boat check - performance check - all parts available check - self righting check very simply solution. Link to post Share on other sites
kenwstr 1 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Doug, Having single handed a 2 handed 3 sail trapeze boat for a few years now, I think the idea of a moving solid weight is not a good one. The extra weight only slows you down when you don't need the RM. You would have to move it fore and aft as well as across the boat to cover all modes. It is another thing to fiddle with and distract you. When short handed, the simpler the better. You simply don't have time to fiddle with go fast things. If you get it wrong during a tack, the boats dead in the water or your swimming. That doesn't mean you can't have a tuneable boat, it only means the more automatic the better. You have to weigh up imperfect tuning with loss of boat speed to retune and the likely benefits once you get it right. It usually seems better to just sail the boat as it is and keep your head out of the boat looking for opportunities in the wind. I think the best solution for extra ballast needs to allow you to take on or dump weight as needed. Perhaps water ballast in gunwale or oversized rack tubes. Powered by dynamic pressure and with heel operated valves to fill the high tube and drain the low one. Drain both when level. Or use T foil ailerons for RM, again automatically operated. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 Doug, Having single handed a 2 handed 3 sail trapeze boat for a few years now, I think the idea of a moving solid weight is not a good one. The extra weight only slows you down when you don't need the RM. You would have to move it fore and aft as well as across the boat to cover all modes. It is another thing to fiddle with and distract you. When short handed, the simpler the better. You simply don't have time to fiddle with go fast things. If you get it wrong during a tack, the boats dead in the water or your swimming. That doesn't mean you can't have a tuneable boat, it only means the more automatic the better. You have to weigh up imperfect tuning with loss of boat speed to retune and the likely benefits once you get it right. It usually seems better to just sail the boat as it is and keep your head out of the boat looking for opportunities in the wind. I think the best solution for extra ballast needs to allow you to take on or dump weight as needed. Perhaps water ballast in gunwale or over-sized rack tubes. Powered by dynamic pressure and with heel operated valves to fill the high tube and drain the low one. Drain both when level. Or use T foil ailerons for RM, again automatically operated. ====================== Thanks, Ken. Another way to look at it might be that the concept is a two handed boat with a single trapeze and a robotic crew. The moving of the ballast will most likely be done electrically but on boats with lighter ballast could easily be done by hand or foot power. You're right that the weight will likely have to move fore and aft though a rudder t-foil could help with pitch trim. Some Skud 18's are equipped with tracks so that the helmsmans seat can easily be moved fore and aft-though it is illegal to do so during a race-in other words the crew on a Skud is not allowed to move fore and aft...The wing,as I propose it, would float even with the ballast and wing moved to maximum extension. Water ballast is interesting but(probably) to move it fast enough and far enough would require some sort of drainable and fillable tank? Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTheHero 47 Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 This idea is running away from itsself. By the time you build it doug it's going to be the million dollar boat. What do you think all these custom robots are going to run you? Link to post Share on other sites
grooveman 0 Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 This idea is running away from itsself. By the time you build it doug it's going to be the million dollar boat. What do you think all these custom robots are going to run you? By the time he builds it we will will all be in the nursing home.......... Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 This idea is running away from itsself. By the time you build it doug it's going to be the million dollar boat. What do you think all these custom robots are going to run you? ------------------------- I don't think so. There is no difference between my first post and my last post if you're referring to electrically moved ballast. In most versions of this boat that are sailed by able bodied sailors electrical power won't be required. Some might require electrical power to move the ballast or sheet the sails* due to the nature of their personal requirements-or just because it would be easier. Any way you look at it this concept(not just the Turbo version) the trapwing would provide a high performance alternative to the currently available SINGLEHANDED "sit-in" boats. And I think it would be a blast-from nice and easy to full blown Turbo. All versions may not be suitable for all people but they would all provide a new perspective and great speed for a sit-in singlehander. *similar to other electric sheeting systems used on Acess boats-like the Skud 18. Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Clark 832 Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 My guess is that anyone who has tried to build model boats that feature "real life" performance has had ideas along these lines. Almost half of the models I built as a kid had some sort of movable ballast systems to make them sail faster in the typically windy place I lived. Because RC gear was beyond my means, I never tried to make a remote controlled shifting ballast system until I was over 45 years old. But I do have to admit that I had canting keels and racks that held ballast packages well out to windward, and sometimes these models went stupidly fast. Could this be scaled up, probably but I am pretty unhappy with the so called "trapwing" concept that is being promoted. At least as portrayed in the images of model boats shown and from Doug's descriptions. I think it is awkward and that the difficulties outweigh the potential benefits. Many people have come to me with versions of this over the years, and I haven't seen one I liked. It is also worth noting that there were ballast carts on many cruising boats around Narragansett Bay in the mid 1800's. (Herreshoff"s Clara for one) This feature was not maintained as time wore on, I suspect because the kinetic risk of having a rail car full of a few thousand pounds of lead helt to the high side by a a pawl or equvalent mechanism was pretty disquieting. I know of no record of disasters, but I would have been pretty careful around these things. Talk about lose cannons! However it is also fairly obvious to me that a faster version of the Martin 16 is possible. One has merely to refine away some of the compromises and make the obvious improvements to specifications to achieve that. One important parameter is how much body shifting is acceptable within the notion of "sitting inside." Just being able to shift your bum or roll your shoulders to windward could be a significant increase in sail carrying power. So mobility within the constraint of "sit inside" needs further examination. So while I don't see any reason why there can't be sit inside boats that sail very very well, I don't like the above deck shifting ballast system as proposed. SHC Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 Could this be scaled up, probably but I am pretty unhappy with the so called "trapwing" concept that is being promoted. At least as portrayed in the images of model boats shown and from Doug's descriptions. I think it is awkward and that the difficulties outweigh the potential benefits. ========= Steve, the image posted earlier of the "trapeze power ballast system" used on the Melges 24RC prototype model was used as only a rough illustration of this concept. The trapwing would use a hollow wing in which the ballast slides. The wing would have enough buoyancy to keep the boat upright with the ballast at max extention to leeward. If you get a chance I'd like to hear specifically what details of this concept make you unhappy so I can see if it can be improved. Thanks for the comments. Link to post Share on other sites
Steveromagnino 2 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 This idea is running away from itsself. By the time you build it doug it's going to be the million dollar boat. What do you think all these custom robots are going to run you? By the time he builds it we will will all be in the nursing home.......... in which case, yet again the chair concept suits well with the elderly. Link to post Share on other sites
Cheesy 0 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 This idea is running away from itsself. By the time you build it doug it's going to be the million dollar boat. What do you think all these custom robots are going to run you? By the time he builds it we will will all be in the nursing home.......... in which case, yet again the chair concept suits well with the elderly. But Steve this is a 7m version, Doug is talking about 18ft so you cant compare your design in fact Dougs concept will be faster as it will have half as much sail area again to what you have shown..... Link to post Share on other sites
bistros 22 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Here, Doug! Let me translate this for you: My guess is that anyone who has tried to build model boats that feature "real life" performance has had ideas along these lines. Almost half of the models I built as a kid had some sort of movable ballast systems to make them sail faster in the typically windy place I lived. Because RC gear was beyond my means, I never tried to make a remote controlled shifting ballast system until I was over 45 years old. But I do have to admit that I had canting keels and racks that held ballast packages well out to windward, and sometimes these models went stupidly fast. 1) Toy performance does not easily translate into full scale performance. 2) Your "innovative" moving ballast idea has been done before. Could this be scaled up, probably but I am pretty unhappy with the so called "trapwing" concept that is being promoted. At least as portrayed in the images of model boats shown and from Doug's descriptions. I think it is awkward and that the difficulties outweigh the potential benefits. 1) It isn't going to work. This is the considered, polite opinion of one of the US's most experienced boat builders, regatta sailor and all round experimenter in things to do with sailing performance. Many people have come to me with versions of this over the years, and I haven't seen one I liked.It is also worth noting that there were ballast carts on many cruising boats around Narragansett Bay in the mid 1800's. (Herreshoff"s Clara for one) This feature was not maintained as time wore on, I suspect because the kinetic risk of having a rail car full of a few thousand pounds of lead helt to the high side by a a pawl or equvalent mechanism was pretty disquieting. I know of no record of disasters, but I would have been pretty careful around these things. Talk about lose cannons! 1) This is an old and bad idea that has already been tried, tested and rejected more than a century ago. 2) The loose cannon metaphor points to two, three and four centuries ago - and directly applies to this idea. Many men's lives were lost when a cannon broke loose from it's moorings on gun decks. 3) Steve's polite warning that you would have to be careful is tantamount to telling you to NOT do this. However it is also fairly obvious to me that a faster version of the Martin 16 is possible. One has merely to refine away some of the compromises and make the obvious improvements to specifications to achieve that.One important parameter is how much body shifting is acceptable within the notion of "sitting inside." Just being able to shift your bum or roll your shoulders to windward could be a significant increase in sail carrying power. So mobility within the constraint of "sit inside" needs further examination. So while I don't see any reason why there can't be sit inside boats that sail very very well, I don't like the above deck shifting ballast system as proposed. SHC Get out your ACME catalog, or borrow one from Wile E. Coyote. Back to the drawing board. (The above is a North American cultural reference to the Bugs Bunny / Roadrunner Hour, in which the Coyote tried numerous hair-brained schemes to catch the Roadrunner - all ending in disaster) -- Bill Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Hmmm, I ,ah, respectfully disagree with the conclusions reeeeeached in the,ah, last post. Link to post Share on other sites
Sailingkid 3 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Here, Doug! Let me translate this for you: My guess is that anyone who has tried to build model boats that feature "real life" performance has had ideas along these lines. Almost half of the models I built as a kid had some sort of movable ballast systems to make them sail faster in the typically windy place I lived. Because RC gear was beyond my means, I never tried to make a remote controlled shifting ballast system until I was over 45 years old. But I do have to admit that I had canting keels and racks that held ballast packages well out to windward, and sometimes these models went stupidly fast. 1) Toy performance does not easily translate into full scale performance. 2) Your "innovative" moving ballast idea has been done before. Could this be scaled up, probably but I am pretty unhappy with the so called "trapwing" concept that is being promoted. At least as portrayed in the images of model boats shown and from Doug's descriptions. I think it is awkward and that the difficulties outweigh the potential benefits. 1) It isn't going to work. This is the considered, polite opinion of one of the US's most experienced boat builders, regatta sailor and all round experimenter in things to do with sailing performance. Many people have come to me with versions of this over the years, and I haven't seen one I liked.It is also worth noting that there were ballast carts on many cruising boats around Narragansett Bay in the mid 1800's. (Herreshoff"s Clara for one) This feature was not maintained as time wore on, I suspect because the kinetic risk of having a rail car full of a few thousand pounds of lead helt to the high side by a a pawl or equvalent mechanism was pretty disquieting. I know of no record of disasters, but I would have been pretty careful around these things. Talk about lose cannons! 1) This is an old and bad idea that has already been tried, tested and rejected more than a century ago. 2) The loose cannon metaphor points to two, three and four centuries ago - and directly applies to this idea. Many men's lives were lost when a cannon broke loose from it's moorings on gun decks. 3) Steve's polite warning that you would have to be careful is tantamount to telling you to NOT do this. However it is also fairly obvious to me that a faster version of the Martin 16 is possible. One has merely to refine away some of the compromises and make the obvious improvements to specifications to achieve that.One important parameter is how much body shifting is acceptable within the notion of "sitting inside." Just being able to shift your bum or roll your shoulders to windward could be a significant increase in sail carrying power. So mobility within the constraint of "sit inside" needs further examination. So while I don't see any reason why there can't be sit inside boats that sail very very well, I don't like the above deck shifting ballast system as proposed. SHC Get out your ACME catalog, or borrow one from Wile E. Coyote. Back to the drawing board. (The above is a North American cultural reference to the Bugs Bunny / Roadrunner Hour, in which the Coyote tried numerous hair-brained schemes to catch the Roadrunner - all ending in disaster) -- Bill That looks like something you would reply with to a Doug post, not one from Steve. I didn't see anything wrong with it.. Link to post Share on other sites
Munter 0 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 SK - you missed this bit: "Here, Doug! Let me translate this for you:" Link to post Share on other sites
Steveromagnino 2 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 This idea is running away from itsself. By the time you build it doug it's going to be the million dollar boat. What do you think all these custom robots are going to run you? By the time he builds it we will will all be in the nursing home.......... in which case, yet again the chair concept suits well with the elderly. But Steve this is a 7m version, Doug is talking about 18ft so you cant compare your design in fact Dougs concept will be faster as it will have half as much sail area again to what you have shown..... yeah but what about your 6.5m version? Will you utilise the same chair concept that I have proposed? Actually, the key thing about old people are that they still have quite reasonable upper b ody strength, and bad bowels. Therefore, I think some sort of bicycle on a track might be a better way to go, so they can cycle from side to side. Or perhaps a walker, with the walker wheels locking into the track. Attached is my idea, now, I realise you might be doing something smiilar on your new boat, but nevertheless I call 'shotgun' on this one. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 Here, Doug! Let me translate this for you: 1) Toy performance does not easily translate into full scale performance. Easily,huh? Well I don't know about that but many designers learn a great deal from models. 2) Your "innovative" moving ballast idea has been done before. No,it hasn't 1) It isn't going to work. This is the considered, polite opinion of one of the US's most experienced boat builders, regatta sailor and all round experimenter in things to do with sailing performance. It already has worked 1) This is an old and bad idea that has already been tried, tested and rejected more than a century ago. 2) The loose cannon metaphor points to two, three and four centuries ago - and directly applies to this idea. Many men's lives were lost when a cannon broke loose from it's moorings on gun decks. 3) Steve's polite warning that you would have to be careful is tantamount to telling you to NOT do this. 1,2,3 above: Wrong-no comparison with any ,shall we say,"prior art"! -- Bill ========================= More here: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats...wing-26289.html Link to post Share on other sites
BalticBandit 7 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 This idea is running away from itsself. By the time you build it doug it's going to be the million dollar boat. What do you think all these custom robots are going to run you? By the time he builds it we will will all be in the nursing home.......... in which case, yet again the chair concept suits well with the elderly. But Steve this is a 7m version, Doug is talking about 18ft so you cant compare your design in fact Dougs concept will be faster as it will have half as much sail area again to what you have shown..... yeah but what about your 6.5m version? Will you utilise the same chair concept that I have proposed? Actually, the key thing about old people are that they still have quite reasonable upper b ody strength, and bad bowels. Therefore, I think some sort of bicycle on a track might be a better way to go, so they can cycle from side to side. Or perhaps a walker, with the walker wheels locking into the track. Attached is my idea, now, I realise you might be doing something smiilar on your new boat, but nevertheless I call 'shotgun' on this one. Well I think you should consider putting rails on those wings so that the walker's wheels can be captured. And you need to put a leash between the top of the walker and the person to insure that his neck stays low enough to duck the boom on the way across. If you are ok with limiting the duration of the sail by the number of tacks and gybes, you could strap a bunch of Estes rockets to the walker so that each tack the walker gets assisted across the wings with a pair of Estes rockets. See folks - we too can think outside the box just like Doug wants us to... Link to post Share on other sites
socalsailor38 0 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 why not something like a hobie trifoiler? Sit in, stable, fast Link to post Share on other sites
socalsailor38 0 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 why not something like a hobie trifoiler? Sit in, stable, fast because that would make to much sense.............. haha good point Link to post Share on other sites
JimC 760 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 why not something like a hobie trifoiler?because that would make to much sense.............. More to the point no-one wants one. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Update on the technical aspects of the movable ballast system: With some help from friends it has been decided that the boat will use only an electric ballast system(w/emerg. manual back-up)- the 160lb. ballast will move up to 4' in one second with enough battery capacity for well over 8 hours of sailing. Thats faster than any 160lb crew can move and gives a high level of control to the skipper. It is a design that allows high performance from a unique perspective-and as best I can tell there is nothing even close available now. Link to post Share on other sites
nutz 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 has anyone got prospective drawings of this thing? I really don't understand the attraction of the moving ballast board thingo, seems it could turn into one enormous headf#ck. I mean if that thing stuffs up then your in a world of hurt. My thoughts for a sit-in boat is make the skipper on a track so he can go from windward to leward via a rope system (travellor track?) and have movable fore/aft ballast, if the ballast stuffs up then at least its in the middle of the boat. Link to post Share on other sites
Cheesy 0 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 How about this for an idea, get the other one of those F16 hulls, put some beams across them and a mast in the middle and your good to go...... Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 Well, you know I appreciate that idea because I love multihulls-and you can't beat Mat's workmanship. The Blade F16 is without a doubt the best 16 foot cat I've seen yet. But I digress: you probably missed the fact that this thread is about a High Performance Monohull Singlehander-a "thrills without spill" performance machine that requires very little physical effort to go very,very fast. Yeah, you missed that,right? Link to post Share on other sites
Dicko 1 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 How's your boat coming along Doug? Making much progress or are you wasting time dreaming about this and other contraptions of limited or no appeal to anyone? Link to post Share on other sites
Sailingkid 3 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 If your going to have a keel, why can't you just making it canting? If you could get it to cant through 170 degrees it would have to generate more leverage then the trapwing? You could just put a couple of electric winches on and pull it from side to side with ropes. That way the worst case scenario is that you get tipped over to 90 degrees, and you get a little bit wet while holding the button to pull it up to the new windward side. (unless a super freak wave came along, and flipped you through 270 degrees) But it still seems safer then the trapwing. Although if you put this on an f16 hull it would probably just tear it in half. It would also need the ability to manually control the keel, for saftey reasons. But,even if you do all this its still going to be slower then a multi of the same size. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 If your going to have a keel, why can't you just making it canting? If you could get it to cant through 170 degrees it would have to generate more leverage then the trapwing? You could just put a couple of electric winches on and pull it from side to side with ropes. That way the worst case scenario is that you get tipped over to 90 degrees, and you get a little bit wet while holding the button to pull it up to the new windward side. (unless a super freak wave came along, and flipped you through 270 degrees) But it still seems safer then the trapwing. Although if you put this on an f16 hull it would probably just tear it in half. It would also need the ability to manually control the keel, for saftey reasons. But,even if you do all this its still going to be slower then a multi of the same size. ---------------------------- Kid, no way a canting keel is remotely comparable to the trap wing in terms of RM-unless it was 9' long and pivoted thru 110 degrees each side. Link to post Share on other sites
bgulari 7 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 If your going to have a keel, why can't you just making it canting? If you could get it to cant through 170 degrees it would have to generate more leverage then the trapwing? You could just put a couple of electric winches on and pull it from side to side with ropes. That way the worst case scenario is that you get tipped over to 90 degrees, and you get a little bit wet while holding the button to pull it up to the new windward side. (unless a super freak wave came along, and flipped you through 270 degrees) But it still seems safer then the trapwing. Although if you put this on an f16 hull it would probably just tear it in half. It would also need the ability to manually control the keel, for saftey reasons. But,even if you do all this its still going to be slower then a multi of the same size. ---------------------------- Kid, no way a canting keel is remotely comparable to the trap wing in terms of RM-unless it was 9' long and pivoted thru 110 degrees each side. Thought you had a design for canting past 90, what happened to that sketch?? Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 ---------------------------- Thought you had a design for canting past 90, what happened to that sketch?? ======================== And the point is? A 110 degree canting keel is possible on the right boat-but a 110 degree(each side) canting keel with a 9' strut is not possible or practical on this boat. The power required to move the ballast in the wing 3-4' per second is far less than it would be for any canting keel. sketch by nflutter: Link to post Share on other sites
Dicko 1 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 For fuck's sake Doug, what is your point?? When is your new boat going to be in the water? Link to post Share on other sites
BalticBandit 7 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Here are the original numbers ,presented earlier in the thread, backed up with much more detail:LOA 16'(or so) SA-around 160 sq.ft. upwind 12' sliding "trapwing" with 160 lb ballast All Up boat weight minus wing,wing ballast and keel ballast including rig:160lb 75lb keel bulb 130lb-180lb crew SCP/Total Weight=30% @ 180lb crew ---------------------------- And once again ,in detail: LOA 16' using a Blade F16 hull from Matt McDonald of Falcon,LLC in Port Canaveral, Fl.and: Hull weight(with cockpit) 73lb(actual weight+ cockppit mod) SA 160 sq. unstayed squaretop rig,carbon mast- 35lb Foils-17lb 12' wing,all up-20lb movable ballast-160 lb motor,controls,battery (25lb est) ballast keel- 75lb ---------------------- SUB Total=405lb crew=120-180lb TOTAL = 585lb ==================== RM: 160@ 9' =1440ft.lb 20 @ 4' = 80ft.lb 75 @ 1'(15 degrees)= 75ft.lb ------------------------------ Total= 1595ft.lb ------------------------------------ Bethwaite says a boat with an SCP/TOTAL WEIGHT of 30% will plane upwind -(moot to some extent with this L/B of 16/1) -SCP= RM/CE to CLR=9'; 1595/9=177.2 SCP/TOTAL WEIGHT= 177.2/585=30.3% with 180lb. crew (weight within 1.7% of guestimate) -------------------------- Another advantage of this concept is a HUGE crew weight range due to the fact that the crew contributes no RM. ------------------------------------- Please Note: This is the trickiest version of the concept without a doubt because of the narrow hull. The 4' ballasted keel will make it a little easier to sail and sailing the boat without the keel would be for the trully adventurous able-bodied sailor. A much less demanding version of the concept is easily possible. So Doug - are you coming to the Gorge in August to demonstrate how your numbers work? Again, we need some heads up to gather the $$ for your airfare. I'll personally guarantee the transport to and from PIA to Cascade Locks and provide the tent (admittedly its only big enough for 1 sleeping bag - I've got two of these tents). So are you coming to show us the actual application of your theory? Link to post Share on other sites
Doug Lord 1,219 Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Here are the original numbers ,presented earlier in the thread, backed up with much more detail:LOA 16'(or so) SA-around 160 sq.ft. upwind 12' sliding "trapwing" with 160 lb ballast All Up boat weight minus wing,wing ballast and keel ballast including rig:160lb 75lb keel bulb 130lb-180lb crew SCP/Total Weight=30% @ 180lb crew ---------------------------- And once again ,in detail: LOA 16' using a Blade F16 hull from Matt McDonald of Falcon,LLC in Port Canaveral, Fl.and: Hull weight(with cockpit) 73lb(actual weight+ cockppit mod) SA 160 sq. unstayed squaretop rig,carbon mast- 35lb Foils-17lb 12' wing,all up-20lb movable ballast-160 lb motor,controls,battery (25lb est) ballast keel- 75lb ---------------------- SUB Total=405lb crew=120-180lb TOTAL = 585lb ==================== RM: 160@ 9' =1440ft.lb 20 @ 4' = 80ft.lb 75 @ 1'(15 degrees)= 75ft.lb ------------------------------ Total= 1595ft.lb ------------------------------------ Bethwaite says a boat with an SCP/TOTAL WEIGHT of 30% will plane upwind -(moot to some extent with this L/B of 16/1) -SCP= RM/CE to CLR=9'; 1595/9=177.2 SCP/TOTAL WEIGHT= 177.2/585=30.3% with 180lb. crew (weight within 1.7% of guestimate) -------------------------- Another advantage of this concept is a HUGE crew weight range due to the fact that the crew contributes no RM. ------------------------------------- Please Note: This is the trickiest version of the concept without a doubt because of the narrow hull. The 4' ballasted keel will make it a little easier to sail and sailing the boat without the keel would be for the trully adventurous able-bodied sailor. A much less demanding version of the concept is easily possible. So Doug - are you coming to the Gorge in August to demonstrate how your numbers work? Again, we need some heads up to gather the $$ for your airfare. I'll personally guarantee the transport to and from PIA to Cascade Locks and provide the tent (admittedly its only big enough for 1 sleeping bag - I've got two of these tents). So are you coming to show us the actual application of your theory? ======================= No, I'm not coming to the Gorge in August to demonstrate how my numbers work. Link to post Share on other sites
Raz'r 3,670 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 chicken Hell - even HWSNBN showed up at the gorge. With a bottle of whiskey in hand. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.