Wouter and all-
As an Acat sailor let me just warn everyone of a potential "dilemma"-
The current "hot" thing on A cats is canted daggerboards- ie canted from outside in, ala the large Open 60 tris over in Europe. The issue is- these boards, canted as they are, are designed to provide lift to the boats, NOT just lateral resistance! The builder of one of the Acats, the BIM, has sent out a note that the use of these boards (any of you that have the French catamaran DVD- just look at Glen Ashby's Acat and you will see what I am talking about) effectively reduces the wetted surface of the boat (essentially acting as a "hydrofoil") and gives a boat utilizing such boards a clear advantage.
I know the F18's have outlawed such boards and I just want to find out how this group feels and if it's not very clear in the rules I suggest we make it clear now (apparently one of our manufacturers, AHPC, already offers such boards in their A cat hulls as an option).
Discussion?

Kirt

I think the rules have some reasonably clear implications on this issue:

---
2.6 Spirit of the Rule

2.6.1 In case of doubt, the intention of the rule makers, which is the spirit, shall take precedence over the letter of the rule.

2.6.2 The spirit of the rule includes, among other principles, the following considerations :

2.6.2.A Preserving general equality in overall performance between crafts of different make, accepting small variations, in order to garantee fair racing between designs of different make.

2.6.2.B Maximizing the freedom to optimize a design to personal preference and to improve the performance of a given crew and craft through refinement.

2.6.2.C The allowance to gently improve, by design, the handling and overal behaviour of a craft in small controlled steps which don't upset the balance in the class to the extend that the continued existance and growth of the class are no longer garanteed.
---

It seems to me that if canted boards could be shown to be responsible for a substantial and systematic decrease in wetted area, they would

(a) fall outside the goal of "general equality in overall performance between crafts of different make",

(b) not be viewed as merely a matter of personal preference (which I take as being intended to stand in contrast with anything aimed specifically at an increase in the potential speed of the boat), and

(c) not be an example of measures designed to "gently improve, by design, the handling and overal behaviour of a craft in small controlled steps which don't upset the balance in the class to the extend that the continued existance and growth of the class are no longer garanteed"

Mark.

Thanks for bringing that up Kirt, I was about to do the same having been watching the saga on the Acat forum.

I don't think the rules are as clear as you say Mark as this is a development class similar to Aclass but with a firmer rule list.
The boats are going to evolve as people just happen to want to win or at least try and get some sort of upper hand, hence innovation. This class supposedly embraces innovation.

The Aclass guys are going around in circles simply because no-one can prove the canted boards are hyrofoils - by definition.

Lalo Petrucci also stated that assymetical boards and curved boards are illegal, maybe there's room to manouver with assymetrical boards as they can be used without canting (I believe).

It seems the F18s have the clearest of rules ie "they must be in the vertical plan of the hull". This to me anyway clears it up fully.

It would be a shame to see another hydrofoil circus carry on with this class.

Cheers Phil

Actually I investigated this very issue in 2002 and discussed with with various builders and designers. I also discussed it with Martin Fisher himself and talked with the owner of a test platform here in NL.

Personally I think the letter the BIM yard owner send around is full of non-sense. The numbers simply don't check out and some are even obviously wrong. I refer to a 88 ratio between the lift and drag of a hydrofoil. Very good foils only achieve a ratio of some 30. But even more importantly a canted board can NOT provide as much lift as you want. It is locked into a force balance with the sails and so its produced amount of lift is a direct result of the sail drive, the inward angle of the boards and the fact wether the luff board is set. There is a reason why patient lady 6 raised here windward board after every tack. So I disgard the BIM data all together.

What did I find out.

Well that, as I wrote, the produced lift is a direct result (and limtied) by sail drive, angle and the fact wether the luff board is set. I ran a physical model on the issue checked the results with the builders and implemented a limiting structure in the F16 class rule that was made official with the Nov 2002 general vote on the F16 class rules.

Rules to note in this issue are :

1.6.2 In addition to the rudders the platform may also be equiped with
a pair of daggerboards or centerboards.

(Note "a pair")

7.13 Daggerboard and Centreboards

All lift producing elements that have as the pre-dominant purpose to resist sideways movement of the craft while sailing and that aren't canted at a greater angle than 6 degrees of the vertical when the boat is level on the waterline.

A centreboard is only different from a daggerboard in the sense that it is folded or rotated away rather than slid away when in danger of hitting submerged objects.


The definition of a daggerboard limits the canting of daggerboards to 6 degrees outward or inward. This limit of 6 degrees limits the total amount of lift that can be generated relative to the conventional vertical boards.

There are two situations to consider.

-1- When both boards are down and the inward canted luff boards is perfectly vertical due to heeling of the platform this will angle both conventional boards also to 6 degrees.

-2- When only the leeward board is down and the platform is never angled more than a few degrees (between 3 and 6 degrees) (only upwind


In situation -1- the max gain = 1/2 * sin (6 degrees) = 0.052 * sideways component saildrive = 0.052 * about 150 kg = 7.84 kg = say 8 kg lift. (only upwind; downwind the sail drive in sideways direction is a lot less and so too the lift of the boards)

In situation -2- the max gain = 1 * sin (6 degrees) = 0.104 * sideways component saildrive = 0.104 * about 150 kg = 15.68 kg = say 16 kg lift. (only upwind; downwind the sail drive in sideways direction is a lot less and so too the lift of the boards)


You can not create more lift with straight canted boards than this and in the second case you will have to raise and lower the boards after each tack. This last necessity is a serious drawback especially when singlehanding. When doublehanding the amount of lift provided falls well within the limits of the normal spread between crew weights (about 20 kg). This limits its gain ones more also we don't think the last to be particulary unfair so why should these boards be ?

Of course we all need to realize that these are MAXIMA , meaning you have to create maximum sideways sail forces by double trapezing the achieve these lift levels. In conditions below 12 knots no-sailor can even come near these lift levels. So the biggest gain is always to be found in 12-25 knots when double-trapezing upwind. In all other situations the gains are seriously less.

Only curved boards can sort of pass the barrier that has been put up by limiting the canting angle and the force balance around the boat. However these boards have several drawbacks in themselfs. You'll need asymmetric crossection profile to mkae proper use of curved boards and you run into cavitation problems sooner than with a straight board. In general these boards have to be lowered and raised after every tack and gibe. And the same F16 rule limits any part of the board to be angle more than 6 degrees of the vertical. I confess that the rule is a little open to intepretation here but we can easily correct that by replacing

" ... that aren't canted at a greater angle than 6 degrees of the vertical ..."

By

" ... AND OF WHICH NO PART IS ANGLED at a greater angle than 6 degrees of the vertical ..."

This is the official intepretation of the rule anyway, Since the 6 degree angle limit was there to prevent more horizontal bearing surfaces that are arguably more efficient.

The end conclusion I reached and that was accepted by the builders of the time was that this was to small a advantage to ban. It was preferred to allow a little development in this area; mostly to stay in touch with the other classes in the future. One builder compared it to allow the square-top mainsail in the Taipan 4.9 OD class. At the time it was a controversial decision but it made the Taipan class an excellent choice during the 90's. They limited the amount of the square-top to a convervative amount to keep things in check but allowed some growth path to the future allowing the Taipans to compete with the expected new class that would be formed. As it turned out that new class was the F18 class and we all can see the wisedom of allowing this Taipan square-top now.

Personally I think the current limits in the F16 rules are sufficient to garantee level racing. Especially since racing in 12 to 25 knots is more determined by boat control and co-operation between the crew than absolute boatspeed. I really don't expect to see crews lower and raise their boards after each tack, you will loose any tacking duel and the conventional boarded boat will gain a few boatlengths on you with each tack that you can have to win back by additional boatspeed. The lift of canted boards looks to be insufficient for that.

Any more questions ?

Wouter

And they are all over the place indeed. I'm keeping an eye on that as is my responsibility as the chairman. We already handled this issue in late 2002. That is the advantage of having "dictator" Wouter as your chairman.





The idea of F16 is too allow "slowed down innovation" instead of out-right development. Meaning that as soon as a development proofs to be an significant improvement we will slow it down to a pace where it will garantee that older boats remain competitive for several years. We will still allow the feature but put a physical limit on it. After 5 years or so we assume that a true competitive crew needs to have a new boat anyway while the less competitive crews are still competitive enough on the older boats as their skill is the dominant limiting factor instead of the boat design. These older boats will then enter the new role of supplying attractively priced boats for new sailors, intermediate sailors and recreational sailors thus growing the class. As a class it is important to have some turn-over in boats. This is one reason why the F18's grew so fast the later years. It is not good to have a class where boats stay competitive for 10 years or more and that will seriously slow down class growth. It is devils balancing act I admit.

But it is important to see the F16 class and the canted board issue in this way. It also signals the cause to the A-class problems. Their class rules have never been set-up with the same amount of "maintaining-the-class" thinking. Not their fault the 60's were the pioneering time of beach-cats.





For some reason , development and innovation are often presented with a negative ring to them. I don't understand why. It is actually hard to design significant improvements into a modern catamaran. The Flyer hull shape is almost 10 years old and in the mean time not much was improved on the A-cats for example. Also by allowing innovation and fighting against the carbon-fibre scare the F16 class features carbon stocks and boards for a FRACTION of the price that other classes ask for glass boards and cluncy alu stocks. None of these are serious performance boostings innovations but they do safe you money and allow builders to put an extra layer of glass on the keel-lines.

We must really take care to not let the OD fallacy rule the F16 class. For example their is more difference between H16 boatweights than their is between F16's. The kevlar-glass Taipan hulls are more robust than the newest Hobie 16 hulls. All because of improved quality control and innovation. And still a new Hobie France H16 costs the same as a new Taipan F16 shipped all the way from Australia (see earlier post on this forum). So I ask :"what about some 15 second speed difference on the finish when the same allowance of innovation gives us such better boats ? It is not like any of us is losing races on 15 seconds in more than 1 % of the races" The difference between the numbers 1 to 3 are easily a great multiple of that.

Once again it is a devils balancing act but if you do it right you will win on all accounts. Both in fairness of racing and quality of the bought boats. And I can say that the way we walked this balancing act has helped us alot. I can't tell all but more and more builders and sailors are moving over to the F16 class simply because of it. We can welcome a 4th new F16 design in the foreseable future and it is going to be a real good one. The designers of these F16's (like the Stealth and Blade) are attracted to the class by the fact that they experience more freedom eminating from the F16 class rules while they feel the rule set is limiting enough to garantee fair racing. Not many builders enjoy putting a F18 at 180 kg weight, when they know that they can do it for 150 kg as well. However getting the F16 at 107 kg and make it go well is a challenge these guys respect and like to play with. It is a show of skill.




That and the fact that their is a powerstruggle between the development guys (the older generation) and the "lets make A-class OD" guys (the new generation). The new generation was attracted to the class but the A-class performance but never felt much love for the development side of the class.





Just cant the hulls inward and beat this rule. If you are lucky the sides of the hulls will act a little as planing surfaces as well. Anyway if the inward canting of boards gives a strong enough improvement than such a trade-off can easily be made.

Actually, and pardon me for that, the F16 rules are better developped in this respect. In rules like these you need to decouple items like boards and hulls. Just define a fixed reference system (like the vertical and horizontals when the boat is level on its waterline) and define the limits to that. This also allows the designers to optimize the postion of hulls and boards to one-another. It increases design freedom without creating loop-holes




Indeed, luckily we (I, Phill and others) saw it coming back in 2002 and we did something with it. Way ahead of the A-cat class and even before the F18 class rules on it.

As a final comment I would like to underline the F16 class setup once again. The class structure we have allows us to do these things. A more conventional structure would only have caused delays and more serious conflicts. I understand to for some our unconventionalness is difficult to appreciate but here you see a good example what a lean class structure and an active group of engineers with informal communication can do. It is what makes us strong and react in time and in a proportional manner. I srongly advice that we must keep the international organisation that way. The requirements of local organisations is different of course and see we designed alot of local freedom into the struture so that local groups can adapt fully to their local needs and requirements.

Anyways I will stop making your eyes tired now.

Regards,

Wouter

I spent a fair amount of time discussing this issue with Lalo Petrucci. The A-cat rules specifically state that Hydro-foils are not allowed. The issue that has now come up and why there is a push for a re-write of the rules is that people are trying to use the fact that they are not clear enough. The only reason to use canted boards or more in effect, curved boards is to provide some lift to reduce the wetted surface of the hulls. The amount may be argued, and it may not provide for lifting the hulls clear of the water, but any lifting device, no matter how efficient, definitely falls withing the realm of what should be considered a hydrofoil.

Any formula class is an attemp to provide a level competition that is open to a variety of people and builders. By opening up the centerboard rules different than what is clearly restricted in the F18 regulations we potentially open ourselves up to an arms race.

This class is at a critical point in its existance. While it is an excellant concept, getting the mass in numbers will be very important during the next few years. It takes guts to be in on the ground floor of a new concept, and we can not afford as a class to exclude any of these ground floor members. By allowing canted boards, or curved boards that may present potentially significant differences in performance we obsolete all the boats currently in the class. With what can be considered signficant boat development changes going on, people are less likely to buy a boat now when they could wait a while and get the new lattest thing.

From a builders standpoint, I have no issue with making what the customer wants and is willing to pay for. However it must be recognized, the introduction of canted boards will increase the cost of building boats, and the introduction of curved boards will significantly increase the cost, easily more than the 2,000 euro number they are using in the A-class banter. We have now a product that is for all intensive purposes rigged identical to the 18 and 20 footers out there. It is more difficult to manufacture, from a labor standpoint to control the weight, yet because it is 16 foot, the public perception is that it must be cheaper.

While it may be considered developmental, and personally fun to play with, by not restricting this item similar to what the F18 class has done, we significantly risk the future of the F16 class.

Resectfully

Matt McDonald

Matt,
Let me play editor here for a minute so there is no confusion about what you said, because I am not clear on it.

In your first paragraph you said, "any lifting device, no matter how efficient, definitely falls withing the realm of what should be considered a hydrofoil."

Did you mean "no matter how inefficient"?

And in paragraph 2 you said, "...what is clearly restricted in the F18 regulations..."

Were you referring to the F16 regulations?

Wouter ! for Gods sake (and mine) please please please just use a sentence not several paragraphs, " CANTED DAGGER OR CENTREBOARDS ARE FORBIDDEN" i felt myself slipping into a coma trying to follow your explanation.
One of the most disapointing things about this forum is the lack of sailing talk. I feel like i should be going out and buying the most expensive scientific calculator on the planet just to understand whats being said ! Okay i'm an old fart but i still believe sailing is about fun especially sailing past a capsized F18 shouting "swimming" Cmon people lets get sensible ?

Amen Mike!

I switched off after "Actually I investigated this very issue in 2002..."
Please Wouter could you make a summary posting by saying something like:

Actually I investigated this very issue in 2002 and there is not much benefit. (or whatever conclusion you came to)
A full description of my calculations and reasoning can be found on the F16 website at please read if you'd like more info.

Then put a page on the F16 website about the issue so that everyone can see!

How about ....


"trust me and the (2002) class rules. And have faith that the issue of canted or curved boards is under control.

Let the engineers figure this one out and trust their implementation of the rules to garantee equality in racing.

The current limit of max 6 degrees canting is too small to lead to unacceptable large differences in performance

The current rules allow freedom without risking upsetting the equality in racing"

Wouter

Hi Kirt, et al,

I've been following the discussion on the A-cat forum about this topic. I've also been amazed at the photos of the Moth guys with foiling boards. As interesting as they are, I don't think it would be beneficial for the F16 class to allow foiling daggerboards or skyward-lifting daggerboards. The easiest way to prevent these is to limit the angle of the daggerboards realtive to the hulls and prevent foils on the daggerboards (rudders ala Stealth okay).

The F16 class is, without question, a high performance class that allows and encourages a certain amount of development, innovation, and flexibility with materials. But it is not a full-blown developmental class like A-cats, C-class, etc. Some of the core appeals to the F16 class have to do with the fact that they aren't as uncompromising (in terms of weight, for example) as the full developmental classes. The F16 class should certainly embrace innovation, but it should do so in the context of preserve some of the core appeals. What are the areas of core appeal?

--Many boats already exist that are compatible, in their current form, with the F16 rig (eg T4.9, Spitfire, Stealth R, old Bim, Nacra 5.0, Prindle 16, etc.) or have been developed specifically under certain F16 rules (Stealth F16, Blade 16).

--Despite being extremely lightweight and high performance, all the F16 boats retain a robust build quality and user-friendliness. In other words, we're still beach cats! Our boats are strong enough to last through years of vigorous use. Also, we're not saddled with rigid wing sails or paper-thin hulls. Yet there's still tons of room to improve within the framework that we've got.

--There is an accessibility about the F16 boats for other cat sailors that a full development class doesn't share. For example, is the average Hobie 16 sailors going to feel more comfortable jumping to an F16 or a c-class?

--Then there's the budget considerations. Right now the F16 boats offer a tremendous VALUE in terms of how much performance you're getting for the dollar or euro. We certainly don't want to end up in nacra A2 price range (is it the balsa wood core that makes it so expensive??), nor do we want to force class members to buy new boats every season (sure, I'll buy the A2 this year and the A3 next year to stay competitive). The nature of the F16 class should be to allow sailors to constantly refine their rigs, etc to stay competitive, not have to rework their hulls with new trunk casings.

So to summarize, canted, lifting (skyward), and foiling boards are obviously a facinating innovation that should, quite naturally, fit in the A- and C-classes but should not be included in the F16 class since they would distract and dilute some of the core appeals of the class.

Dont Despait Wout, I read the post.
(but I must agree with the old Mr Young, you need to remember that LESS is MORE .....more or less !)

Actually, I didn't find the 6 degree rule when I read the rules yesterday as that bit is actually in the definitions not the rules as such.

Anyway one further clarification ( easy one wout, its a one worder!)
Is asymetical daggerboards OK in F16?

Phil Palmer

so why is hydrofoiling an issue?

as a matter or fact it seems an old moth hull on foils is as quick as a new hull on foils

Yes.

But they are a pain in the neck to have on a beach cat.

As a matter of fact the Australian Moth nationals 2005 were won by a NON-Foiling moth and yes Rohan Veal was in the nationals and did very well, he became second. And only two weeks later Rohan became world-champion. And we are talking full foiling here.

Dave Carlson has been designing and building Foiling A-cats for many years now and nobody paid any attention. Rightly so as he hasn't been able to make it work well enough to beat conventional A-cats. Now the Moth class comes along and everybody is in a uproar.

The only setup that I know off, and I know alot about boat designs, and that works is the Catri aided bruce-foiling trimarans and the ORMA boat. Both of which have the foils much further forward than the A's have right, they have a much higher width to length ratio, they have to go forward and pull up one board and lower the other at tacks and gives, ans also the angle on those setups use is banned by the current F16 rules.

Also the inward canted boards used on the A's are almost vertical as the outward canted hulls give an optical illusion that suggest that they are far more canted inward.

Lets calm down.

Wouter

"so why is hydrofoiling an issue?"

Read the bit in the rules that state the intention and spirit of the class is to provide fair racing on similar craft. the design criteria of a good foiling craft are so different to a sailing craft that they cannot be called "similar". If hydrofoils were allowed, a Trifoiler or Rave could sail against a F16 Taipan, and there are NO similarities. Reminds me of the America`s Cup when a catamaran won out against an aircraft carrier with sails.
I think development needs to stop somewhere for sanity sake.
The moths are a great idea but I think they will split into two classes, something we certainly don`t want happening in F16.
Besides, ISAF rating doesn`t understand how to rate a boat with overall length of 5,0m and waterline length of 30cm. I tried, it says it`s a LOT slower !!

Cheers
Steve

Ahh, Steve, totally O.T. but do you know where to find more of those 88's Americas Cup pictures?

S.S was such a beautiful boat in its heydays.. I remember reading that Dennis Conner and team considered several options for their defense, including a foiling boat. But as they did not have time to develop it, they went for the most 'bang for the buck' and proven performance. A scaled up C-class catamaran :-) (The latter paragraph was just to keep somewhat on topic to foiling.)

To all,

I want all to read this. And yes, you will have to make the effort to read more than two 3-word phrases. Anybody who isn;t willing to put in that effort has no valuable opinion in my book. And yes includes some science as well, anybody not understanding that can better leave the issue to the people that do understand it. My appologies, I don't feel like chasing ghosts all the time.

First the reply to Kirt.



It was HOT in 2002, but back then the mainstream sailors hadn't taken notice of it. Even the Moth class was having foils at that time.




It is only an issue when the gains made by this setup presents an unacceptable jump in performance. And over a large wind spectrum range at that.

Remember the outward canting hype of a few years back ? No new design, except A-cats, have that now. Why ? Because the gains were too small to be measured while the drawbacks were noticeable. In the F18 class the Tiger design remained uncanted and won many races. And that was the end of it.

Remember planing hulls with hydroplane step ? We had the same scare back then as well. Now both boats have been discontinued and the F18 version was unable to make an impression in the F18 cirquit. It was fast in strong winds but not so fast in other conditions; this meant it was a bad regatta boat as one can't command the weather. This is also what let Rohan Veal to loose the Australian Moth nationals in 2005 when two weeks later he won the World Championship. The Aus nationals had 1 (just 1 !) race with light winds and Rohan couldn't foil his way to a high place. He did have to content with all that drag adding gear though and a non-foiling moth, that booked only 2nds and 1 st, won the event.

My point, we must see this in perspective.





After years of moving in the same circles as a certain designer I have yet to see him provide dependable information. The data provide this time is embarrashingly faulty.

It is correct that any board put under an angle to the vertical will produce a force component that will lift the hulls a bit BUT this is not yet the same as providing a "clear advantage".

Afterall if I were to sail my conventional boat at a great heeling angle, thus angling my conventional boards off the vertical, than I don't go faster than the same boat at a smaller heeling angle. The phenomenon at work is more complex and it is no wonder solution to all our problems. In this respect I demand that person giving their opinion about the matter first educate themselfs on what is truly going on. Basing opinions on gutt feelings or the panic in the A-cat class is simply useless. My aunt is scared to death of mice, but that doesn't mean that these little furry animals are a great thread to her. Her fear is irrational and no rational soluntion can solve this situation.




Another group that saw their members panicking. It is a miracle that they didn't ban the outward canting thing or he planing hulls thing; or wave-piercer hulls for that matter. Or another great example by the F18 class, banning fully battened jibs or requiring that daggerboards must weight 3 kg's at least. But then again somebody may put lead in the daggers so they limited the max daggerboard weight to 6 kg as well. The F18 class has allowed herself to be ruled by the whims and fancies of scared members this is why designers don't particulary like the F18 class anymore. It is too much hassle and too many unnecessay or foundationless rule changes.

I think the F18's provide a bad example here. Mostly because they are now trying to undo a set of unnecessary rules; examples : fully battened jibs , carbon in rudders and daggers.

I think we only want to see rule changes or additions that have a proven necessity or that that actually limit something that is really undesireable. We should not pollute our rules only to have to clean it up at a later time. We all have more important things to do with our free time.




That is an easy one to answer. PART of the F16 group feels scared. They can't realy explain or proof why but they feel scared anyway and they want to be assured. But not by any scientic "stuff" that takes more than 2 or 3 punch lines. I don't think anybody can assure them under these limits. Except maybe themselfs.





And as far as I reverse engineer from the DVD these boards are canted inward relative to the hulls between 5 and 7 degrees. This means with the 3 degree outward canting of the hulls that the TRUE inward canting is 2 to 3 degrees. This means that this provides less than 4 kg of lift at the very bets conditions. Go to the weight watchers and achieve more gain.

Of course AHPC will offer it. It is a fashion statment. If Glenn says that he sails with a bucket dragged behind his A-cat than scores of A-cat sailors want to have that too and builders will sell them with the boats on request. What ever happened to the outward canting benefits ? But even more striking, canting the rig 3 degrees to windward has the same effect as canting the board inward. And some ORMA boats do that as well. Luckily we have a precendent in this case. Canting rigs were tried in A-cat class and were abandonned. They didn't produce the results that was hoped they would.



Of course, but I really want to stress that we must have this discussion on the basis of a scientic model and scientifically produced predictions. Otherwises the whole discussion is baseless and as a result also useless.

We must take great care to understand the F16 rules fully, we are not the A-cat class, and we must not allow ourselfs to be swept of our feet with every hype that happens to come along. Also we must realize that the F16 class rules allow the F16 organisation to intervene and force a certain solution whenever a unacceptable jump in performance is encountered. Such authority is written explicetly in the F16 class rules. We must trust ourself to use it when the time comes and not try to ban everything that MAY lead to us using this authority later. Chances are that by far most hypes/developments will die before any action is needed on the class rules level.

So, I allow you guys to humour me from time to time, but with this topic I don't want to see more "can you explain it in 5 words, please"

Unless you guys will accept "Trust me, it's under control"

With kind regards,

Wouter

Kirt

Sorry Rolf, that`s the only pic I ever found of her. I also think the keelboat was awesome, but just not up to the task of beating a 60ft C-class. When will they learn ? .
And I don`t think my statement was really OTT, imagine Hobie Trifoilers and Windrider Raves competing on a "fair" basis with any cat ?

Back to canting daggerboards / hulls.
A while back I heard of a Mosquito in Australia that had canted hulls at 7,5deg. I believe they canted outwards. Apparently it walked away from the standard Mozzies, so in theory and in practice it seemed to give an advantage, but I haven`t been able to substantiate this claim.
Now folks are talking about canting inwards.
If I`m correct, canting the boards inward will only provide real anti-pitchpole benefits if they are fitted in front of the main beam, and if used in conjunction with foiling rudders could get the boat completely out of the water.
If there is sufficient benefit of either, this should be dis-allowed in my opinion, since owners of boats like Taipan, Blade, Stealth, Spitfire etc that currently form the basis of the class would not be able to modify their boats without huge effort & cost to be competitive.
On the other hand, canting outwards doesn`t give any hydrofoiling benefits when the boat is sailed at a reasonable angle ie one hull just out of the water (the way I like it ), in fact normal straight-up daggerboards provide more lifting force in this situation than outward-canting ones, since at a heel angle of 6deg, your daggerboards are canted at 6deg ! I think this topic has been discussed on the forum elsewhere before, and I don`t believe a clear winner can be picked between the two.
And if canting in either direction proves favourable, any boat owner can do a simple conversion by shimming between his beams and hulls with a wedge-shaped block to acquire the desired angle, as long as it`s within 6deg.
Am I on the right track here?

Steve

Wouter et al

The canted boards currently on the A-cats are only angled slightly becuase the measurers enforcing the rule stated that the width of the boat at 2.3m would be enforced with the boards in the up and down position. There is such a small difference in performance with this arrangement, that it is not worth the time to discuss.

The reason the A-cat group is bringing up this issue with their rules, is that now to aviod the loop hole around maximum width, people are entertaining placing curved dagger boards on their boats. These do have the potential of significant lift, and will present a significant increase in cost to match.

This is my concern as well, and one I feel the class ought to consider carefully, whether we are a formula or developmental class. Development classes are very cool, but do not promote high participation.

Matt