Anyway, my immediate concern for the Blade and its potential is the stiffness of the platform. Coming from the Taipan, it is really, really soft in comparison. The hulls would move independently a couple of inches in different directions from each other.
That should not have been the case. I wonder what causes this.
I did the math work on the beams myself, a favour to Phil and god knows I'm still no way close to leveling on the favours. And the beams of the Blade (both the homebuild and VWM versions) are stiffer than the Taipans in all aspects. So we should not find the cause here.
Phill tested three boats to check the math and he found the following ratios :
AHPC glass Taipan : 100 %
Homebuild timber epoxy Taipan : 97 % flexing of glass Taipan
Homebuild Timber epoxy Blade : 70 % flexing of glass Taipan.
(Stealth F16 felt at least twice as stiff to me, maybe more)
This is comparable to what the math showed.
The measured Blade was wider then both Taipans and using the round 80mm x 2 mm Alu tube for both beams. VWM uses a 90mm x 1.8mm at the rear and also a stiffer section in front, both beams are stiffer then the measured Blades round sections. And I fully expect the VWM Blade to be stiffer then the measured prototype.
The Blade should feel noticeably stiffer then the standard Taipan. That is also the comment of the testers. The Timber epoxy Blade that was build here in the Netherlands feel stiffer then my own boat and even the glass Taipan of Geert. Additionally the vertical flexing of the blade, in the used test setup, was measured in 1 inch plus something. If you felt a couple of inches flexing then something is definately wrong.
I wonder what it could be.
I think I will e-mail David Adams and find out.
Wouter
