Why would anyone spend all that time effort and money on reseach and development only to have it rated 'fairly'It is a shame when rules try and prohibit more effective sails that result from modern materials and improvements. Rate them fairly, but don't prohibit them.
Seriously? Wow...those guys really did have insane amounts of money :L
Have to remember this was the first real project after the 27 demo boat, so things have moved along quite bit since then. One of the issues with the Brace is the rack angle is a bit too low so there isn't much tolerance in sailing the heel angle that it likes. Then too the foil parameters have developed as we've learnt more but thats something we could well change on the Brace. Finally, it was designed more for flat water sailing and so it would be very effective on the swiss lakes and likewise the Q28 would be a lot easier to sail in those lumpier conditions.Hey Hugh
We raced against the Brace! brace! brace in TOG, Thailand and I took the press boat to follow them downwind as well in another regatta (raceweek). While the boat was very quick in certain conditions (flat water all angles especially at raceweek), it seemed to struggle a bit once the sea became very lumpy as you could see the foil's angle of attack would rotate with the pitch of the boat, so the boat would oscillate up and down as the fin went in and out of the waves; you could see it pretty clearly going downwind that the boat would be fine then they come out of a wave and go down the mine as the foil kicked in, then spring back out, and off they went again; exciting to watch with loads of spray, but probably a tough job to helm the boat in that condition.
BBB! was quicker than the Shaw 650s downwind in the flat water and the lighter conditions (as it should be as it is 1m longer, more sail area, smaller fin, smaller bulb, wider at the deck, more advanced construction) but when the sea was lumpy enough, it seemed to slow down enough that the Shaws seemed to be going a bit faster and lower.
Under SMS the foil is not given any rating penalty, and as a result we had pretty close, even racing. Not sure how IRC handles it.
I know the guys who sail BBB, and they are not slouches (drunken kiwis yes, but not slouches and definitely better sailors than us).
For a larger boat like the 36, do all these problems disappear (as the boat is a bit more planted in the water and relative to wave height the foil stays in the water rather than skimming over the top like a skiff) or is there some way to eliminate this? I know the moths have a wand, so when they are foiling they don't have to manually try to control it, I cannot see how you could control the angle manually as things happen quickly downwind.
Well take a look from astern of any headsail thats eased off - then theres a large corner of the sail with a very draggy return into the sheeting point - so chop that off and you greatly reduce drag and also heeling moment. Also of course far better attached flow over the angles so its all good. As a nice side effect, then it also requires less headstay tension than a Zero.So I suppose the question is: why does it work? Taking area away from the overlap? A higher aspect ratio? More area higher up? Combination/none of the above? (*)
Because the sail is better in absolute terms- boat goes faster, easier to handle, you name it. Avoids things like CCA boats sailing with no mainsail, IOR boats sailing with ribbon mains, etc.Why would anyone spend all that time effort and money on reseach and development only to have it rated 'fairly'It is a shame when rules try and prohibit more effective sails that result from modern materials and improvements. Rate them fairly, but don't prohibit them.
the whole idea of development is to create some kind of advantage, if it is rated failry by definition it will not give any advantage.
Which is what people build jib tops for.@Ed. In addition to what Hugh said take your blade jib or 130 out set it up for upwind then crack off to something between bean reach and close hauled and see if you can find a compromise between the bottom being oversheeted and the top being a useless flappy thing.
Hi Hugh, I spotted this on the FB as well, and commented there....Absolutely see the discrepancy between the ERS and IRC 21.3.1 especially, so it'll be interesting to see what happens, but given IRC 2.2, and 2.4, and the fairly clear intentions of 21.3.1, I can't really see the IRC rating office not shutting the loophole, in the same way that the spinoa loophole was closed. If the whole fleet has to buy one....
Its easy enough to deal with - count it into your kite numbers, rate it as the triangle headsail and to keep that in check then notional LP not greater than 150%J.
I don't see it as a loophole at all - what I do see is that we shouldn't be forced into building sails that are not fit for purpose simply because historically obsolete rules say you can't.
After all, that attitude is what led to the IOR and wooden keels - and we know how that ended up.
That's another one of the many reasons that the early USA boats were more able to defend the cup in the traditionally lighter conditions. All of the challenger boats had to be strong enough to make it across the atlantic (even towed) and were, as a result, heavier from structure weight. The US boats only needed to make it from Bristol RI (mostly) to the city.