new stuff in the a-class

david r

Anarchist
597
56
pond
it's not just weight you should be concerned about. Consider level of complexity.

equipment battle?

equipment_battle.jpg

 

david r

Anarchist
597
56
pond
^

on the other hand,

Solving the problem of how to mold a T rudder;

The way they molded 2 continuous fiber Ls then joined them to make a T is elegant in it's simplicity.

 

Fireball

Anarchist
743
5
The moth people considered that water moving the wand was little different from water acting against the hull, centreboard or foil, the water exerts a force and can cause movement in all cases. To prevent any argument we clarified with a class rule declaring that the wand does not break rule 52.

Not all dev classes are completely open. The I14s decided at about the same time as the moths to not become a foiling class.
Your moth class rule is:

"12.2 In alteration to RRS 52, only remote controls using stored power are prohibited.",

so it alters RRS 52, rather than saying that a wand complies with RRS 52.

IMHO a wand doesn't comply with RRS 52. A wand operates independently of the crew, so there is a moveable hull appendage that isn't "adjusted and operated only by the power provided by the crew". The flap on the centreboard T-foil is adjusted by the wand and some linkages, neither of which is powered by the crew.

Note that RRS 52 was rewritten in the 2013-2017 rules, so any interpretations for the previous rules would have to be updated.
Your opinion would not get a hearing in the moth class. The horse has well and truly bolted. Sort of like when film sails appeared and the woven material rule had to go. Sort of like when the 100ft maxi boat zillionaires decided they could have power winches and tilting keels, and now they are doing it down to 40 footers. Like language, rules change to move with the times and modern realities. Not that you need to change, there are some classic OD classes about with very old rules doing very nicely.
I didn't say that wands were good or bad. Just that they don't comply with RRS 52.

The moths have their class rules allowing anything except stored power, which is fine.

But the catamaran classes have no such rules and we don't see any wands on A or C class cats. We saw a good example of this with the Hydros C class catamaran where the crew had a control line to alter the angle of the foils and was playing it like a mainsheet as they were sailing along. Not surprisingly, this didn't work very well.

This is also an issue for the A class. There are proposals to remove the restrictions on foiling, but there are no proposals to alter RRS 52. So the A class could potentially allow any type of foil, but the control mechanism could be restricted to being powered by the crew.

It seems likely that the type of foiling done by the cats is going to be very different to the moths.

 

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,697
1,139
Rome
^

on the other hand,

Solving the problem of how to mold a T rudder;

The way they molded 2 continuous fiber Ls then joined them to make a T is elegant in it's simplicity.
Except that - if really that's what it is - without an acorn fairing, in terms of interference drag it's very bad

 

Phil S

Super Anarchist
2,607
233
Sydney
The moth people considered that water moving the wand was little different from water acting against the hull, centreboard or foil, the water exerts a force and can cause movement in all cases. To prevent any argument we clarified with a class rule declaring that the wand does not break rule 52.

Not all dev classes are completely open. The I14s decided at about the same time as the moths to not become a foiling class.
Your moth class rule is:

"12.2 In alteration to RRS 52, only remote controls using stored power are prohibited.",

so it alters RRS 52, rather than saying that a wand complies with RRS 52.

IMHO a wand doesn't comply with RRS 52. A wand operates independently of the crew, so there is a moveable hull appendage that isn't "adjusted and operated only by the power provided by the crew". The flap on the centreboard T-foil is adjusted by the wand and some linkages, neither of which is powered by the crew.

Note that RRS 52 was rewritten in the 2013-2017 rules, so any interpretations for the previous rules would have to be updated.
Your opinion would not get a hearing in the moth class. The horse has well and truly bolted. Sort of like when film sails appeared and the woven material rule had to go. Sort of like when the 100ft maxi boat zillionaires decided they could have power winches and tilting keels, and now they are doing it down to 40 footers. Like language, rules change to move with the times and modern realities. Not that you need to change, there are some classic OD classes about with very old rules doing very nicely.
I didn't say that wands were good or bad. Just that they don't comply with RRS 52.

The moths have their class rules allowing anything except stored power, which is fine.

But the catamaran classes have no such rules and we don't see any wands on A or C class cats. We saw a good example of this with the Hydros C class catamaran where the crew had a control line to alter the angle of the foils and was playing it like a mainsheet as they were sailing along. Not surprisingly, this didn't work very well.

This is also an issue for the A class. There are proposals to remove the restrictions on foiling, but there are no proposals to alter RRS 52. So the A class could potentially allow any type of foil, but the control mechanism could be restricted to being powered by the crew.

It seems likely that the type of foiling done by the cats is going to be very different to the moths.
All I am saying is that if the As really want to make it a foiling class they should allow wands, so that they can use the most successful system for one man sailing. Allowing foiling without wands seems to me like Olympic walking races, try to go fast but do it the hard way. Not that I am advocating that they should be a foiling class, I happen to think they were a better boat before they started trying to foil.

 

Rohanoz

Super Anarchist
More than one way to skin a cat Phil.

While wands have proven quite effective in moths, they are also one of the limiting factors.

I love the fact that in the future there may be a solution to foiling control that is independent of external crude devices like a wand.

The speed of dev that is happening with the A's at the moment can only benefit all foilers (except the A's at anything below superstar level).

 

Fireball

Anarchist
743
5
Wands for cats are going to be tricky. Ideally, the windward and leeward wands would operate differently. The leeward wand would be similar to the monohull version, but the windward wand should have the flap in neutral or even pulling down.

You'd need 2 different wand settings and you'd have to change them when you tack - so you'd tack the wands.

Plus there is the cost and complexity of having 2 sets of everything.

It would also be better to have the T-foils at an angle so they provide lateral resistance.

IMHO If cats can be made to foil with reasonable stability using a simple setup with no moving parts then it's a worthwhile boat to sail. If they end up effectively being 2 moths joined together with beams then I'd rather halve my investment and sail a moth.

 

Phil S

Super Anarchist
2,607
233
Sydney
Or if the 1.5 m rule goes they might end up with one central T foil like the Arrow, plus a single wand and capable of windward heal with halve the drag? The possibilities are endless, ACAts may never look the same again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rawhide

Super Anarchist
1,900
103
Pittwater
Some great shots on FB by Dario. After so many years on conformity it is refreshing to so many divergant designs.Having lived through the last couple of major design evolutions without major cost implications I don't have concern for the classes future.

What a lot of observers fail to understand is that the strength of the class is not in a few AC or other blowins seeking stature by Sailing A's, it is in the vast majority who are club sailors and will keep sailing whether their boat is the latest greatest design or not and will upgrade when it suits their persoanl circumstances.

In my opinion, there is no need for restrictive rules, because as nature has shown us over the last few million years, complex, fragile and unfriendly designs will die out swiftly, and elegant solutions will prevale. A simple userfriendly foiling solution will present itself and the class will go through another significant evolution and if not, then the current designs will remain until another path appears.

 

FishAintBiting

Anarchist
549
0
Or if the 1.5 m rule goes they might end up with one central T foil like the Arrow, plus a single wand and capable of windward heal with halve the drag? The possibilities are endless, ACAts may never look the same again.
Might run a smaller rig, or multiple rigs depending on wind strength, too!! If the foil is mounted in the centre it is like to mean the skipper has less righting moment.

Happy sailing,

Fish

 

juniordave nz

Member
355
1
Auckland
The bit you see at the bottom gets glued into the bottom of the hull, and forms the exit point. The large bit glues into this and goes to the top of the hull, you then mount the sliding plates on top.

Really all they are is a big wide trunk that can accept the tip on the J board. It is a bit confusing with the extra cup that they have on the bottom, but is means it is easier to install in the hull.

 

Fireball

Anarchist
743
5
Having the Rule 8.1 proposal defeated leaves the A class in no man's land. Foilers have won the first 4 heats of the world championships, so they are definitely quick enough to win regattas. But if there was a light air series then the foilers would be uncompetitive. The foilers are unstable and tricky to sail.

It's hard to change rules with a 2/3 majority, but it's also hard to ban foiling with a 2/3 majority. This is unfortunate because either outcome would be better than the current unsatisfactory situation.

 

WickedF18

New member
25
0
The vote was probably only ever going to go that way.

The National Authorities that put the changes forward did not proceed correctly

If you look at each of the proposals in the Agenda you have one of the National Authorities with 2 different proposals

The reduction in the 1500mm rule is just a joke there is no such rule, they should have proposed a distance from the 750mm rule, otherwise what are you voting for 1mm or 749mm

The proposal that should of been put forward is the removal of rule 8.

 

SimonN

Super Anarchist
10,533
755
Sydney ex London
If you remove rule 8 in total, you could end up with an 18 foot long "moth" with one centreboard and rudder on the centreline with small floats at max beam. There are all sorts of other issues as well, such as positioning foils on beams and some very weird and dodgy set ups. In addition, you are really opening things up to potentially huge costs. Everything needs to be well considered because each change has a real consequence.

There are 2 very big problems. The first is the voting system. You need 2/3rds agreement from all members and on this issue I see that as almost impossible to get. The other problem is time - unless the committee can be persuaded to call an extraordinary world general meeting, or enough countries back the idea of calling such a meeting, both of which could be tough to get, the next time a proposal can be brought to the class is at the next worlds, in September 2015. If it was passed at that, there then needs to be a vote of the whole membership on passing that, it goes to ISAF and the first meeting that it could go on the agenda for would be mid year, 2016. If passed, I suspect it would be in force from January 2017!!

 

Sonofagun

Member
164
0
If you remove rule 8 in total, you could end up with an 18 foot long "moth" with one centreboard and rudder on the centreline with small floats at max beam. There are all sorts of other issues as well, such as positioning foils on beams and some very weird and dodgy set ups. In addition, you are really opening things up to potentially huge costs. Everything needs to be well considered because each change has a real consequence.

There are 2 very big problems. The first is the voting system. You need 2/3rds agreement from all members and on this issue I see that as almost impossible to get. The other problem is time - unless the committee can be persuaded to call an extraordinary world general meeting, or enough countries back the idea of calling such a meeting, both of which could be tough to get, the next time a proposal can be brought to the class is at the next worlds, in September 2015. If it was passed at that, there then needs to be a vote of the whole membership on passing that, it goes to ISAF and the first meeting that it could go on the agenda for would be mid year, 2016. If passed, I suspect it would be in force from January 2017!!
More drivel. These two "problems" are the reason the class is strong and growing.

 

Fireball

Anarchist
743
5
This no vote may not be the end of the matter. Reports have the foiling supporters in the majority, but not up to 2/3.

The results at the worlds may change some people's attitudes. Let's see what happens in the rest of the regatta.

 

SimonN

Super Anarchist
10,533
755
Sydney ex London
Sonofagun

I am really interested in your view that the class growing. How is it growing when the builders are screaming that nobody is ordering boats due to the hiatus with the rules? Did you see the turnout figures at the Aussie nationals? Have you spotted how many people in Oz who had boats last year have sold them? Spotted anybody getting out the class to get foiling Moths? Maybe all of those things are my imagination........

 




Top