Icedtea
Super Anarchist
As a total highjack, Ed did those old J's race the America's cup with the same sails they used to sail over?
The return of the quadrilateral
- Thread starter Presuming Ed
- Start date
Not at all. Sometimes they had complete delivery rigs. I have an old book about sailing a J across with a smaller rig- still an adventure.
Why would anyone spend all that time effort and money on reseach and development only to have it rated 'fairly'
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.
Icedtea
Super Anarchist
Seriously? Wow...those guys really did have insane amounts of money :L
Presuming Ed
Super Anarchist
- Thread starter
- #25
By the time of the Js, they were frequently towed across, with extra beams etc to take the stresses.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/shamrock-v-in-america/query/Erin
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/shamrock-v-in-america/query/Erin
Last edited by a moderator:
pbenett
New member
I recall that kindo of sail was once called a "ghoster".
Pom
Member
off topic - i know -
but i was talking to a guy whos father used to race the uk J's way back when. Not only did they sail across with a delivery rig and sails, but they also used to have to hoist a 45gall drum filled with concrete up to the top of the (shorter) mast to compensate for the lack of roll that the taller rig gave. Apparenlty it was torture on deck without it...
but i was talking to a guy whos father used to race the uk J's way back when. Not only did they sail across with a delivery rig and sails, but they also used to have to hoist a 45gall drum filled with concrete up to the top of the (shorter) mast to compensate for the lack of roll that the taller rig gave. Apparenlty it was torture on deck without it...
Steveromagnino
Super Anarchist
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.
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.
George Hackett
Super Anarchist
is it me or???? the photo??? is it real???? evertime i click on it and look at it, it just looks so fake.
Presuming Ed
Super Anarchist
- Thread starter
- #30
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? (*)
(* IANAA)
(* IANAA)
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.
It really depends on the the mainsail guy being really quick and on the ball to keep the boat in its sweet spot - the later designs are way easier in that respect.
When you get into the 36, then different animal altogether as it sails with a bit of natural heel angle but doesn't care if you have more or less - not dragging racks in the tide!
Also, with much higher global inertias then even if the foil breaks surface then nothing much happens before its back in the water.
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.
Originally this was all designed to form part of an integrated package for the DSS boats and there are other things in the pipeline too for the right projects.
Its all an efficiency game - if we can remove a couple of sails from an inventory on a big boat thats a huge weight saving, and then fewer sail changes potentially, easier to handle for the crew and so on.
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.
The best purpose of development is not to get an advantage, it is to get a better sail or boat or package.
Speng
Super Anarchist
@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. basically gives you twist control over the top of the leech. i think this'll be useful even for not so fast boats. Is there any kind of stiffener (batten) between the two clews or is it just a matter of having the upper sheet lead in the right place so you don't wrinkle the sail in between the two sheets. It'd be interesting to see the sheet rigging etc.
Wow, the phones must be ringing off the hook at sail lofts around the world.
I have one sailmaker that just shrugs and says, " not going to be legal ".
Why would you....I would think the correct response is " when do you need it by "!
I have one sailmaker that just shrugs and says, " not going to be legal ".
Why would you....I would think the correct response is " when do you need it by "!
Presuming Ed
Super Anarchist
- Thread starter
- #37
STYacht.com
Super Anarchist
Hi Hugh, I spotted this on the FB as well, and commented there.
I will assume all discussion of same is best done here. I applaud a/ developing the sail without regard for rules you see as outdated, b/ withdrawing from rated classification by the skipper of Foiled! when the sail was used where it pretty clearly should not be and c/ the ORC position to rate it rather than not.
As for IRC, whatever the motives, it is clearly not allowed past 21.3.1. If they do chose to amend that rule, and why not, how can you lobby for the sail to be considered a spinnaker exactly? That just makes no sense at all, from what I have seen here.
For that matter I cannot understand how you say there is only one sheet. What do you call the other line first of all? You point to ERS, with the lines attached to the corners of trilateral sail, which are covered in B.9. There are corner definitions for a quadrilateral sail, clew, peak, throat, tack. Just they don't make much sense here. Saying there can only be one clew is twisting the facts, just as much as saying that quad sails are inherently unsafe and ought to be banned. But ok, the clew is defined as the virtual intersection of foot and leach. Still doesn't really mean there is only one sheet. Neither of the two lines shown attach to the clew of that definition. Aside, while yard and gaff or defined in the ERS, where the hell are gaff rigs in the sail dimensions? Obviously the lines pulling on throat and peak have little validity to the case at hand, but they are missing as well.
I do not recall IOR wooden keels (before my time perhaps, correct me if it happened here too). I remember plenty of lead on the cabin top under IOR. IMS was fond of wooden keels however.
Cheers,
Last edited by a moderator:
left hook
Super Anarchist
- 7,474
- 6
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.
I will assume all discussion of same is best done here. I applaud a/ developing the sail without regard for rules you see as outdated, b/ withdrawing from rated classification by the skipper of Foiled! when the sail was used where it pretty clearly should not be and c/ the ORC position to rate it rather than not.
As for IRC, whatever the motives, it is clearly not allowed past 21.3.1. If they do chose to amend that rule, and why not, how can you lobby for the sail to be considered a spinnaker exactly? That just makes no sense at all, from what I have seen here.
For that matter I cannot understand how you say there is only one sheet. What do you call the other line first of all? You point to ERS, with the lines attached to the corners of trilateral sail, which are covered in B.9. There are corner definitions for a quadrilateral sail, clew, peak, throat, tack. Just they don't make much sense here. Saying there can only be one clew is twisting the facts, just as much as saying that quad sails are inherently unsafe and ought to be banned. But ok, the clew is defined as the virtual intersection of foot and leach. Still doesn't really mean there is only one sheet. Neither of the two lines shown attach to the clew of that definition. Aside, while yard and gaff or defined in the ERS, where the hell are gaff rigs in the sail dimensions? Obviously the lines pulling on throat and peak have little validity to the case at hand, but they are missing as well.
I do not recall IOR wooden keels (before my time perhaps, correct me if it happened here too). I remember plenty of lead on the cabin top under IOR. IMS was fond of wooden keels however.
Cheers,
--------
What I was saying Doug was proposing an equitable way of dealing with the sail under IRC. Measure as jib with notional LP point, but then count into the spinnaker numbers so that has to be justified as a worthwhile sail to carry.
So effectively you get a double cost to it - measured for area that isn't there, then carries the additional point or whatever for being in the kite numbers.
And with ERS, then IRC is saying that all defeinitions are covered by ERS - and so I raised the point a while back where headsails with foot rounds were being velcroed to the deck - so was that sheeting? Answer came back no, read the ERS!! So merely applying exactly the same wording as is covered by ERS. If you are going to apply rules, then the application has to be consistent.
Wooden keels before your time eh!! Well there you go...
As for IRC, whatever the motives, it is clearly not allowed past 21.3.1. If they do chose to amend that rule, and why not, how can you lobby for the sail to be considered a spinnaker exactly? That just makes no sense at all, from what I have seen here.
For that matter I cannot understand how you say there is only one sheet. What do you call the other line first of all? You point to ERS, with the lines attached to the corners of trilateral sail, which are covered in B.9. There are corner definitions for a quadrilateral sail, clew, peak, throat, tack. Just they don't make much sense here. Saying there can only be one clew is twisting the facts, just as much as saying that quad sails are inherently unsafe and ought to be banned. But ok, the clew is defined as the virtual intersection of foot and leach. Still doesn't really mean there is only one sheet. Neither of the two lines shown attach to the clew of that definition. Aside, while yard and gaff or defined in the ERS, where the hell are gaff rigs in the sail dimensions? Obviously the lines pulling on throat and peak have little validity to the case at hand, but they are missing as well.
I do not recall IOR wooden keels (before my time perhaps, correct me if it happened here too). I remember plenty of lead on the cabin top under IOR. IMS was fond of wooden keels however.
Cheers,
--------
What I was saying Doug was proposing an equitable way of dealing with the sail under IRC. Measure as jib with notional LP point, but then count into the spinnaker numbers so that has to be justified as a worthwhile sail to carry.
So effectively you get a double cost to it - measured for area that isn't there, then carries the additional point or whatever for being in the kite numbers.
And with ERS, then IRC is saying that all defeinitions are covered by ERS - and so I raised the point a while back where headsails with foot rounds were being velcroed to the deck - so was that sheeting? Answer came back no, read the ERS!! So merely applying exactly the same wording as is covered by ERS. If you are going to apply rules, then the application has to be consistent.
Wooden keels before your time eh!! Well there you go...
