And I think I have gained a few inches length in my arms. Should help with the spinnaker sets.



Not quite as the cat will not pivot on the end of its wing (hope not anyway) but the centre of the hull. Beam alone does not give you RM, weight will also contribute and the further you move it away from the pivot point (hulls and rig) the more RM you achieve.



Do you want to move more weight easier on a catamaran (we are talking healing here, not forward momentum) or resist it.

TA, to clarify with your diagram, the taipan with wings is 2.66m wide as the rules state that the measurement is taken from leeward hull. So I could put 16cm wings on either side.

Scooby_Simon, see your point of taking into account rig weight aloft as this would fall over the pivot point quicker in my taipan v viper example, but have we measured the extra force you able to exert through the lever effect v this force of the mast over the pivot. Would be interesting to see these calcs in the whole picture.

Ahh, got you. Did not read the rule, however all else applies. Disadvantage is just not as small as I thought. Think of the weight of the hull and rig being brought closer to the pivot. Would be like only half trapping or hiking rather then full.

Used to have a pair of sportwings on my FX-One but took them off after a while because it doesnt really add anything other then another piece of kit you have to drag along to regattas.
Downwind those thing where horribly in the way and made it almost impossible to trap from the transom.
Upwind they would hit waves and the tubes would hurt my feet after a few hours, it also ment you would trap quite high which IMHO is not as pleasant (lower the better).

I think Macca is a bit obsessed with banana-boards today, after he spent all of yesterday playing around on the F20 Carbon ;-)

Not sure how you increase leverage. please explain.. your distance from the centre of lateral resistance is the same. Please explain to this old mind how you're increasing righting moment..

I asked a while ago and if I recall the crew must have at least one foot on the hull.. Otherwise one could trap on the shoulders of the other crew.. This would increase righting far more than any other option..

I thought the original poster, who asked about wings, was going to do some long distance race (6 days?) and wanted to be more comfortable, sitting on the wings, vs. hanging on a trap wire all day, for 6 days.

So...has anyone ever sailed a long distance race while sitting on the wings vs. trapping out? I know the Worrell guys trapped for 10 days or more, no wings there!

Yep! its awesome, and thats why its so daft to restrict such a good development in the class (if the philosophy is still to have it as a development class...) Right now you can spend a LOT of money on an F16 with carbon beams, mast, pole plus hull construction etc just to get an incremental but definite gain in performance. Yet something as simple as curved boards is not allowed which gives a measurable gain for not much cost increase over straight boards!

the max is 2.5 meters. Having a fixed beam of 2.66 would make the boat class illegal. Wing tip to wing tip.. Not hull to wingtip..
relevant rule. (from website)

1.2.3 Wings may be carried as long as the equivalent overall beam, when measured over the platform, and one fully extended wing is 2.5 m or less.

the main argument when this rule was passed was basically to ban "flying" F16s..

The collective at that time decided there could be an arms race to produce a flying boat.. *shrugs*

Do not understand the comment on pivot point; the pivot point for all forces IS the leeward hull; the only differece wings give you is to make the boat thinner and thus reduce the RM provided by the hull; the mast IS NOT the pivot point on a Cat; the leeward hull is. Remember the RM is there to overcome the lateral force created by the sail; this pivots at the leeward hull; you cannot use the standard "see-saw" diagrams to understand the forces as the heeling forces (sail forces) are at 90 degrees to the RM and so where EVER you put the mast; the heeling moment is the same and always resolves to the leeward hull.

From the original post, which has yet to be addressed:

"...I am doing regardless as i am entering a charity fundraiser which requires a 6 day coast sail and the wings as a seat will be awsome i can remove them later if they are just a hinderence thanks..."


So, would you add wings as a seat "for a 6 day fundraiser" or not?

maybe.. cruising is different from racing..

The wings will be made from my same wing mast section and be covered so will be fairly wide and nice to sit on and at 115kg my back will be thankfull...But here`s a new one to ponder seems we have so many RM experts here and im not, for years I have considered the value of having the mast on a slide on the cross beam with the stay wires and rather than cant the mast as was done in the AC how about simply slide the whole rig sideways please forget the ruls for a moment, how would this affect the RM? it would be simple to do but add a little weight and time to shift across, should of patented that...slide the base of the mast across to the windward hull stays and all, i have many drawings but not the maths to know if it would increase the RM and if it did then it would be a breakthrough unless you jibed real quick.

no need to move the whole thing, just cant the rig by shortening and lengthening the stays as per most multis, quite efective but you will be penalised on handicap ratings and it all gets a bit of string pulling excercise for little gain.

Thought about rotating the mast base in an arc centred from about the front stay area, lower it down to the leeward ( less RM )when getting overpowered or wanting to point better ( as per the windsurf rigs, it creates lift vertically of a form ), pull it back to the middle on the downwind run, certainly on the Bitsa's to do list.

You just answered your question by quoting the rule. The platform width of a Taipan is 2.34m. One extended wing is 0.16m which would make it to 2.5m. But wing to wing it is 2.66m.

TaipanFC is right

Wouter

I think your missing an issue.. If the wings are fixed you can only have wings that are 0.08 wide. This will take the width to the full 2.5.

If they are folding then yes you can have have the 0.16 wings. BUT if they stop folding you're illegal. I wonder if they stop folding in a race what happens?? Yes you started legally but you sailed illegally so guess disqualified??

As I see it your still only 2.5 meters from the point of lateral resistance.. So the difference standing on a gunwale or standing on a beam is?? What you suggesting is why not make your hulls 0.6 cm apart and only use wings.. Your thinking would suggest this is the fastest config? Tried this on an 18 and swum lots..
So Im still missing the advantage... just dumb I guess..

Stewart,

Taipanfc (james) is right. The rule is not concerned at all with the fact whether the wings are folding or not; it only equalizes the righting moments. To do so only requires the inclusion of one fully extended wing as the leeward hull is the pivot point and not the leeward wing.

Wouter

wouter Im still confused as to the advantage..

either way its just better to have a total beam rule. Wings are crap unless they are upright and replace sails