Announcements
New Discussions
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
resurected B CLASS rules outline discussion #55840
08/24/05 12:32 PM
08/24/05 12:32 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
We may have the best luck resurecting the original B CLASS , as Mary noted the original B CLASS is no longer in existance and it does seem a resonable approach and one that most catsailors world wide are familiar with .

The A CLASS has undergone many additions and revisions over time to its original basic box rule outline that has resulted in an excellent class with very fast designs of all types , our mission should be much the same .

The B Class was specified as being a maximum of 20 feet long, 10 feet wide and with a sail area of 235 square feet maximum including the mast. The area of the mast being measured as its length multiplied by half the girth.

Here is an excellent link to the T history that developed from the B class .
http://www.aussailing.com.au/tornado/Other/History.htm

Updating the B CLASS rules to include the T and all other existing 20s including the lighter weight newer versions should be outlined . Length and beam are established at 20 L and 10 ft beam , weight and sail area are the other two sides of the box rule to be set . Added top and bottom box rules may also be added as most Formula classes specify in great detail .

opinion > boat weight based on the Marstom 20 weight . 231 LB
LINK --http://www.boatshow.com/M20-Marstrom.html

The Marstom 20 has a 34.5 ft mast height = 10.5 meters
and 22M mainsail in large sq top high aspect shape
= to 236 sq ft main .

The T has roughly = 235 sail area in main and jib
and a 270 sq ft spin .

The T weight is 376 LB that is 145 LB more .

What is the solution to the boat weight to sail area variations to form a class . Main only for lighter weight category then jib area added for those over a certain weight along with larger spin size ?

or another potential equalizing rule of a total boat plus crew weight of 650 lbs which would reqire a min 275 LB Tornado crew weight plus 376 boat weight to = 651 LBs
The Marstom weighing 231 LBs would require a 400 LB crew plus 20 LBs of corrector weights to equal 651 LBs IE

JUST two potential class racing solutions .

suggestions -opinion >>
thanks








Last edited by sail6000; 08/24/05 01:34 PM.
--Advertisement--
Re: resurected B CLASS rules outline discussi [Re: sail6000] #55841
08/24/05 03:43 PM
08/24/05 03:43 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
I was beginning to wonder where you had gone Carl

I think equalization rules are out of scope for a box rule. It complicates matters a lot, but doesnt neccesarily level the playing field. Differences in weight between crews are compensated by different sailcuts in the Tornado class, seems to work well there. I dont think this boats will be underpowered, so it should be possible here as well.

I am a bit ambivivalent on a minimum weight, as I would like the most boats to be able to measure in. More boats are always fun, we need as many as possible if this shall fly. The other side of the matter is making the boats affordable. Marstrøm's boats are perfectly engineered, autoclaved, pre-preg wonders with super-low weight, but horribly expensive.
Having a sensible minimum weight, that allows homebuilders to build plywood boats and manufactures to build without autoclaves and pre-preg's sounds like a good idea to me. The critera is that the boats still should be light enough to have high performance.

I suggest 130Kg's as minimum weight. I have recieved confirmations from competent persons that this is suited both for plywood construction and manufacturing for a boat with jib/mainsail.

If a boat is below minimum weight, corrector weights fixed to the mainbeam should be allowed to solve that.

I think minimum boat weight and a sensible spi-area is all that is needed.

I dont have the faintest idea how many boats will race and be buildt under these rules, but it should be interesting nontheless (I have some plans about a project boath).

Re: resurected B CLASS rules outline discussi [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #55842
08/24/05 04:17 PM
08/24/05 04:17 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
Hi Rolf

I should have been racing but was in Northern Michigan , the Petosky -Harbor Springs area on a cottage design project , took my sons so we also got lots of great fishing, hiking, boating ,etc in .

Sounds reasonable -130 kilograms is equal to 286.60 pounds (avoirdupois)

A Marstrom weighing 231. Lbs would add 55 LBs to race equally in B Class.

The existing T weighs 376 LBs = 90 LBs more , is that a problem ,and would racing against 100 LB lighter boats make all Tornado's non competitive.

The weight at 286 Lbs may fit some requirements or planned cat designs but also make some obsolete.

Perhaps 286 Min weight with some sail area factor added for boats over 350 Lbs, that brings the next topic of sail area into play .

The Marstom has a 34'5 ft mast height .-The T 32 -the M has 22M mainsail of 236 sq ft --the Tornado has a main plus jib of 235 sq ft .

What sail area is ideal and what sail configuration -
main only -main plus jib -spin area -masthead spin ? 3/4 rig ?

A larger main of 236 may be ideal per M design , The T could upgrade to a similar size main , then use in addition it's jib to compensate boat weight.

A larger spin as well may also be considered.

The only other variation is a design formula rule like Am Cup uses .-An equation that included Length Beam Weight and sail area = xxx B Class number , the Texel rating power formula would be the base model but modified for B Class purposes, just a suggestion for discussion.



Last edited by sail6000; 08/24/05 04:18 PM.
Re: resurected B CLASS rules outline discussi [Re: sail6000] #55843
08/24/05 06:53 PM
08/24/05 06:53 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Quote
The existing T weighs 376 LBs = 90 LBs more , is that a problem ,and would racing against 100 LB lighter boats make all Tornado's non competitive.


Ya Think??

A Few thoughts.

The T and the US I20 are close in performance now. You should be able to get racing going at a regional level even up... if not... a slight handicap correction might be needed. No matter... the goal would be regional racing. eg. Catfight.

I don't think I would be travel any distance to race an M20 even up with my T. I saw what Robbie and Eric did to the open fleet around a buoys course in light air on the protype M20.. It's a fight between a guy with a gun and you with your knife... The outcome is usally certain.

Seems to me... that you have to judge how much interest is there for expensive lightweight 20's. So far, Hobie has a prototype carbon 20, Marstroms has the M20, Eagle has their E 20 and perhaps a US Blade 20. I would construct a box rule that captures these boats and not worry about the T and the I20.

IMO, the rule is not the crucial factor... Rather it's where and what kind of racing will occur. EG... If you hold a high profile race for X type boats... X type boats will be built and raced. It may also be too late here. Mitch and Herbie are building their gran prix series with a big cat. In the USA, the Renyolds 33 is going for the same niche. Seems to me that unless this new F20 has an Olympic standing... It may be too late if the market and interest is sudenly skewed to the maxi cats.

Interesting as always.
Take Care
Mark















crac.sailregattas.com
Re: resurected B CLASS rules outline discussi [Re: sail6000] #55844
08/25/05 02:21 AM
08/25/05 02:21 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

Quote

A Marstrom weighing 231. Lbs would add 55 LBs to race equally in B Class.


The M20 doesn't weight 104 kg (231 lbs) anymore but rather 120 kg (265 lbs). The 104 kg boats had too much issues. So 130 kg (although this is still quite light in my opinion) seems to be reasonable from a M20 perspective. 10 kg corrector weight is not too much.

Quote

The existing T weighs 376 LBs = 90 LBs more , is that a problem ,and would racing against 100 LB lighter boats make all Tornado's non competitive.


Not over night. The M20 for example is still having issues staying ahead og I-20's and tornado in quite a few conditions. Eventually the Tornado will be passed by the new boats but that will take several (if not many) years of succesful development.

wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: Mark Schneider] #55845
08/25/05 08:03 AM
08/25/05 08:03 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Mark, I dont think the T will be uncompetitive put up against the other boats that can be build within this box rule, for the first years at least. The reason the T is so fast, is the incremental refinement and olympic class development that have taken place the last 30 years. Having the best sailors in the world doing sail development and finding 'go fast' techniques makes the T hard to beat. That's why the T is the 20 footer benchmark and the boat to beat (still the benchmark, that's why I refer to it).

As Wouter says, the M20 have gained some weight, and given some other courses then straight upwind/downwind (e.g. distance races) it might be less than the optimal platform (especially with additional corrector weights to bring it up to 130kg's).

When that have been said, part of the fun (in my opinion) in a box rule, is to see what's fast and whats not. If the Tornado is blown away, so be it (but I have a hard time thinking it will be, even if other boats weight less. It's just so optimized).
The current lightweighters are carbon boats, and possibly pre-preg/autoclaved, hence the cost. My reasoning for having a minimum weight is to allow lighter boats than the current F-20 while still making allowances for homebuilding and economic construction. If you dont put a price on your own time, a homebuildt with a resirculated rig/equipment should be quite affordable (this is part of the attraction to me).

The suggested Box rule should encapsulate all the boats you mention, but some of them will need corrector weights.


Your last comment is very interesting. Who will build and race boats under such a rule? 40 foot cats, R33 etc. are big and expensive boats, both to buy and keep competitive. My vision is that this is a class for a somewhat heavy "Joe Average" who wants high performance and the room for some experimentation, to race both round buoys and on distance races.

If some decent prize money are put up, the Olympians will come, either on T's or something else they believe in (who can get a sponsor like, Volvo, so we can put on something like the "Volvo Champions Race", http://www.volvocars-aktionen.de/vcr/home.html).

Carl: Regarding sailarea. I agree with what Wouter said earlier, the solution is not neccesarily to put up more area, but to get the ratios right. The old rule that just defined sailarea is a good one IMHO, let every designer/builder decide for themself wether they want an unirig or a sloop. Need to decide on a sensible spi-area tough, even if it has been demonstrated that larger spi's are not neccesarily faster.

I dont like having correction factors or time adjusters within a box rule. First over the line should be the winner, and no whinning

Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #55846
08/25/05 08:33 AM
08/25/05 08:33 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI

Great posts Wout -Mark & Rolf ,-agree .

Staying TRUE to the basic original B Class in very simple box rules outline should be the goal.

The trend currently in Formula classes is to define and limit nearly every aspect of cat design. Conversely it is important to develop concepts and advance the engineering based art of sailing craft design and have a competitive class and racing events to race within.

basic specs are a 20.1 FT LENGTH -10 FT BEAM -
280 LB min BOAT WEIGHT . 240 SQ FT SAIL AREA -270 SQ FT SPIN

The big question --what other limitations or rules should be listed the most controversial being -1-ANGLED BOARDS OR ADDED LIFTING FOILS
2 SAIL AREA CONFIGURATION-main only,-or jib - spin hoist height ,rigging configuration, and materials limits-CF etc
3 WINGS allowed on lesser beam designs .

My experiences in racing the Tybee 500 this year with lots of help from SAILMAX and a great person to sail with- Jake have been wonderfull adventures mixed with great racing legs of up to 120 miles in a day .
But my interest has been waining I think because I,ve raced 8 Worrell 1000s and tybee 500s on N 6/0s and 5 or 6 on Inter 20s ,--It's just time for something new
I think there are numerous potential sailing teams that feel the same.

Would any like to propose a set of B Class rules ?
thanks

Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: sail6000] #55847
08/25/05 10:03 AM
08/25/05 10:03 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

you guys best formulate what you want to do with the boats.

For example : an ultimate distance racers has other requirements than the ultimate bouy racer.

Personally I think that lightweight on a 20 footer is a case of diminishing returns. Pretty soon you are sailing on a pair of needles with lots of wetted surface area.

But anyhow a mast height limit could be a smart rule to have. This appears to be a really "pain-in-the-neck" item if it can't be standardized and produced in numbers.

and there are other common considerations like that.

And as I wrote some years back. Don't let yourself get swayed away with wide open rules that will, on its own, gravitate towards the optimal setup after several (or many) experiments. This is simply not going to happen. Everybody loves extreme experiments untill they have to build one of these themselfs. End result, no experimentation, and most will just look for a different class.

The trick is to gether all the past experience and harnass this known potential in the class rules while leaving enough room for gradual refinement and improvement.

Wouter

Last edited by Wouter; 08/25/05 10:05 AM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: Wouter] #55848
08/27/05 11:42 AM
08/27/05 11:42 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
Hi wout

You may be thinking of the C-Class with its 25 ft hull length and 14 ft beam plus 300 sq ft wings or larger cat racing classes

http://www.morrellimelvin.com/playstation/index.html

Damn -this happens evey time I ask others to propose rules outlines ,

I'll give it a shot and propose some B CLASS basic rules outline .

Just one " I told you so comment " to those that own I-20s and numeous others 20s , the prediction was if the F-20 class concept did not recieve support from sailors and builders it would result in further decline in the numbers of racing sailors and add yet another dead boat class .

Guess what ?

I think the restoration of the B Class may have more universal appeal and hopefully help the cat racing scene .

racing class rules creatingly definingly at your service
Carl



Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: sail6000] #55849
08/27/05 08:57 PM
08/27/05 08:57 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,911
South Florida & the Keys
arbo06 Offline
Pooh-Bah
arbo06  Offline
Pooh-Bah

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,911
South Florida & the Keys
Are we talking 10'max beam or 8'6"?

Last edited by arbo06; 08/27/05 08:58 PM.

Eric Arbogast
ARC 2101
Miami Yacht Club
Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: sail6000] #55850
08/28/05 02:38 AM
08/28/05 02:38 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

Quote

You may be thinking of the C-Class with its 25 ft hull length and 14 ft beam plus 300 sq ft wings or larger cat racing classes



No Carl, I'm really not thinking about the C-class. Quite the opposite actually. You have completely missed the point I was trying to make.


Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: arbo06] #55851
08/28/05 10:53 AM
08/28/05 10:53 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
Hi wout
just joking with you a little by posting the link to Playstation .
Most any designer can explain why length translates to higher potential speed in seas it where it makes the most difference in the 16 to 20 ft cat design range, though many design factors enter the bigger pic to shape fast safe seaworthy craft .

Last edited by sail6000; 08/28/05 11:13 AM.
Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: arbo06] #55852
08/28/05 11:04 AM
08/28/05 11:04 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI

Hi Eric

{Are we talking 10'max beam or 8'6"? }

10 though Some have already suggested as per 16 s that a lightweight cf or alum wing be allowed on 8.5 beam boats that would equal the total 10 ft beam crew position , 18 inch wings on ea side or just race within.

The 8.5 beam cats will be at a disadvantage in above 10 mph conditions ,but could add the wings dependant on forcast for the race event.

I raced the H 21 in the Prosail and Ultimate Yacht race events in 88 . They have great wings which were fun and made trapping horizontal to the water for maximum crew weight use and leverage applied very easy as well as providing a great spin block lead location out wider for more open slot and better sheeting angles .

The other option would be a B classs 8.5 beam category that was scored as a class but all raced together.
The A class does this for older heavier designs .

Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: sail6000] #55853
08/28/05 01:10 PM
08/28/05 01:10 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Hi Folks

How many days are the Tornado events in the EU and Australia? In the US... the Tornado's (Olympic guys) won't do anything short of three days and usually 2 events running back to back with a one day break in the middle.

I plan my season around breaking the boat down and rebuiliding it for weekend races. The 10 hours of breakdown, build, Race breakdown build, for 8 hours of racing on your average weekend usally isn't worth it. (Especially when this estimate does not include travel time)

Seems to me that for an F20 class to succeed... you will need a schedule that people ... just have to do! (presige, competition, venue, prize money, fun factor etc) For Example Texel is one of those kind of events. Otherwise, the market will have to focus on the trailerable weekend racer. Which gets you back to the question... How much better then an I20 do you have to build to get people buying boats and racing them.

Mark





crac.sailregattas.com
Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: Mark Schneider] #55854
08/29/05 12:27 PM
08/29/05 12:27 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI

Hi Mark

There are numerous existing solutions to trailering ,the tilt trailer ,etc

Other solutions are the fold up and the telecsoping crossbeams for trailering ease . Also several other potential easy fold up or breakdown design solutions may be applied.


Re: resurrected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: sail6000] #55855
08/29/05 01:48 PM
08/29/05 01:48 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Hi Guys

I am well aware of the tilt trailer solutions.
Greg Scace and Kevin Cook have the ultimate in tilt trailers... Boat is picked off the wheels and carried by its cross beams before it is flipped onto its back using an electric drill to drive the machinery. EG no heavy lifting required.

But... They still find it a bear to rig the boat for a weekend race. For your average weekend Hobie or CRAM or CRAC regatta ... you start aproaching the fun factor limit.

My only point is that you should keep in mind the types and durations of the events and realize that this F20 boat is more work then an 8' 6inch wide Nacra 20 or similar boat.

Take Care
Mark



crac.sailregattas.com
Re: B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: Mark Schneider] #55856
08/30/05 07:55 AM
08/30/05 07:55 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI

Appreciate the input ,thanks Mark , it would be great to hear from those you mentioned and that are very active with 20s and boat construction .


Re: B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: sail6000] #55857
08/31/05 08:58 AM
08/31/05 08:58 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline
veteran
phill  Offline
veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Folks,
Please take my follwing question in the positive manner of it's intent.
When you are looking at a set of Formula class rules I think you need to look at the market segment for which you wish to cater.
The rules must provide something that the existing formulas do not. This must be provided in a manner that is attractive to the people you want to be involved.
I see this as a prerequisite to being successful.
So would you mind giving me some insight into the intended target market. Who do you want to sail F20?
Would it not help to identify the target market and then look at what rules would best suit that market.
Hopefully then the F20 class will be successful in attaracting people from that segment of the market.
Just the way I see it.
Regards,
Phill


I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Re: B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: phill] #55858
08/31/05 10:24 AM
08/31/05 10:24 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
By all means Phill, please let us know what you are thinking.

Re: B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #55859
08/31/05 04:47 PM
08/31/05 04:47 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI

Yes please do, and please do not worry about offending any . We have thick skins and the priority is getting a B class /formula 20 going and are open to all interested sailors suggestions.

Re: B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #55860
08/31/05 05:03 PM
08/31/05 05:03 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline
veteran
phill  Offline
veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Rolf
I may have it all wrong but I thought the target market was the heavier sailor. If this is the case does a 10ft wide boat cater more for the heavier sailor than the lighter sailor?
Now if the segement of the sailing scene being targetted is not the heavier sailor it may be a good thing provided you can find people that are willing to put up with the inconvienience.

But once you add the hassle of the wide beam you imediately segment your potential market and loose those who don't have mast up storgae and don't want the hassel. While the boat may be great to sail it may not ever be mainstream because you loose so much of the potential market before you start.

Now if your looking at just a line honours boat the wider beam would help meet that objective.
But before deciding on the rules I thought it would help ensure success if some consideration was given to who you want to sail the boat. To further build the sport and not just rob sailors from other classes it would be best if the target is not currently being catered for in the current Formulas.
This is just what I'm thinking. I hope the final rules are a combintion that works and makes the F20 a mainstream class.
Regards,
Phill


I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Re: B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: phill] #55861
09/05/05 01:24 PM
09/05/05 01:24 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
I agree on several points Phill, but not all

One thing is what I personally want, and another is what's best for a new class.

My priorites are, in order:
1: A thrilling and fun boat to sail
2: A distance racer
3: A buoy racer

Now, I have several sub-categories for each category what this really encompass for me, but I am pretty sure that I personally want a 10 feet wide boat. We was out sailing our T yesterday, with max downhaul and travelled out 10 cm while beating and still was overpowered. We weight in at about 200Kg with gear. A lighter crew on the same boat would really have their hands full, and the same for a heavy team on a less wide and lighter boat.

I still think this class should be best suited for somewhat heavier sailors, who can use the extra power and bouancy (180-200Kg's). Agree fully that it's no point in cannibalizing other classes.

I agree that max trailering width is a big issue for a class. Do you have any idea for how the percentages are between mast-up storage and trailering? I seems like a lot of sailors in the US trailer their boats, while mast-up is more common in Europe.
Whats the price difference between a simple tilt-trailer and a regular trailer fitting a 8'6" wide boat?

What's your personal opinion on the wings/racks idea? Would that equalize the playing field somewhat between 8'6" and 10' wide boats? The less wide boat would have an advantage until the 10' wide boats could go out and double trapeeze, but then what? It seems like this is the greatest issue, there haven't been many comments on mast-height, sailarea, foils, materials etc..


Rolf

Re: B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #55862
09/06/05 09:47 AM
09/06/05 09:47 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI

Hello

Missed some of the thread , was out of town and moving the office to another part of the building here.

Phil made sence , as always .

The lightweight bolt on wings aspect for the 8.5 beam boats will need to be included ,and also some solution to trailering or an easier assembley or fold up /telescoping mechanism applied for this proposed class to become widely popular .

The B Class is certainly a good foundation to build on .


Re: B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: sail6000] #55863
09/06/05 04:19 PM
09/06/05 04:19 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
scooby_simon Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
scooby_simon  Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
OK, as I don't have any of the current 20 footers I can come from a position where I hve no buy into any class at present, so :

120kg - light but buildable without an autoclave ?
Width 10 foot / 3.1 M (the classic width = 1/2 length) ----- If you are worried about the hassle of rigging the thing at the other end; get up an hour earlier !!!!!

Mast hight 10.5 M
Mainsail 22sq M
No Jib
Kite 25; and why not make it mast head with a 2nd set of spreaders to hold the tip of the mast up....

No racks; they just qadd weight; When someone can build racks that are lighter than the difference in the 2 beams I'll buy them.




F16 - GBR 553 - SOLD

I also talk sport here
Re: resurected B CLASS rules outline discussion [Re: sail6000] #55864
09/06/05 06:00 PM
09/06/05 06:00 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 806
Toronto, Ontario
pitchpoledave Offline
old hand
pitchpoledave  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 806
Toronto, Ontario
Guys, I would forget about trying to wedge in the Marstom 20, Eagle 20 etc into this class. These are boats that don't really matter right now (because of the # of them out there)..They may in 10 years..

Just base the class on the T sport/Nacra 20/N6.0 and we have an instant class. I would make the minimum boat weight 380lbs, not less. 10' beam sounds reasonable
Dave

Wings and Distance Racing [Re: sail6000] #55865
09/07/05 02:24 AM
09/07/05 02:24 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline
veteran
phill  Offline
veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Folks,
I'm curious regarding the use of wings on cats in distance racing. Anyone have any relavent knowledge of better experience.
It strikes me a set of wings where the leeward one folds up could be quite helpful in combatting fatique without any real negatives. Interested in the views of others. [color:"blue"] [/color]

Regards,
Phill


I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Re: Wings and Distance Racing [Re: phill] #55866
09/08/05 07:12 PM
09/08/05 07:12 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,911
South Florida & the Keys
arbo06 Offline
Pooh-Bah
arbo06  Offline
Pooh-Bah

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,911
South Florida & the Keys
I think the advange of wings is obvious, however, are current boats designed to handle additional loads?


Eric Arbogast
ARC 2101
Miami Yacht Club
Re: Wings and Distance Racing [Re: arbo06] #55867
09/09/05 05:22 AM
09/09/05 05:22 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Phill, by the resounding silence I guess there's not much experience around about distance racing cats with wings (why does this sound a bit similar to "pigs will fly" ). "Cat's with wings, flying mandatory".. Ok, I'll put a leash on my sense of humour from now on!
Was there any cats with wings or racks in the 'experimental' Worrel races?

Simon, as far as I can understand racks aren't that bad an idea. Yes, the racks will add a bit more weight compared to 4 more feet of beam extrusions (or carbon, what do I know what people will build). What's important tough is the righting moment (RM).
A 10 foot wide cat will have an advantage in RM as hull weight comes 1 foot further out. A typical hull will perhaps weight around 35-40Kg's (??), so this is not a large advantage. Another point is that the axis for heel is a bit further out on a 10 foot wide boat compared to an 8 foot wide one. But by adding a 2foot rack on each side, you are able to move your bodyweight out just as far as the 10 foot wide boat and this is what's most important. In addition, the boat with rack's have the mast further to leeward, which gives a better weightarm for your creweight. (I haven't done the math, so I might be totally off and wrong). In addition, the 8 foot wide boat can get up on one hull earlier, which gives about 20% less drag and better windward abilities with the "new" hullshapes..

(Ok, now I have really done it. Talked myself into actually liking the tought of a 8 wide boat with racks)

I think your envelope is a bit to wide and expensive, we will probably not have much success in building such a class (it becomes to expensive and time intensive for most). Loosing the jib is probably not a good move for a distance racer, but might be smart in a pure upwind/downwind machine.
I had the same opinion as you earlier on, but after spending some time on it and receiving comments from others I have reconsidered. Now I think it's sensible to stay within the B-class envelope, limit mast height to 9.5 meters, weight to min. 140 kg's and 50 square meters of sailarea max. There is still plenty of room for experimentation if someone wants to tinker with their boat.

Dave, I think the current 20 footers are to heavy. I recieved some opinions in a PM, and one of the major philosophies lined out there was that minimum weight for a class should be based on a set of plywood hulls. I think thats a very good idea, as plywood hulls are something everybody with the inclination can build at home during winter. And if it can be buildt in plywood, manufacturers can achieve the same properties with composites. The stellar example is the Taipan4.9 class where timber boats are just as competitive as glass/epoxy boats.


Re: Wings and Distance Racing [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #55868
09/09/05 08:40 AM
09/09/05 08:40 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 806
Toronto, Ontario
pitchpoledave Offline
old hand
pitchpoledave  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 806
Toronto, Ontario
Hi Rolf,
Yes there were boats in the Worrell with racks/wings. Yes, perhaps the 20 footers that are around today are too heavy..not disputing that, but like someone else said.. [color:"red"] no one will bring a knife to a gun fight[/color] ...ie, no N20, N60, T sailor is going to race straight up with an M20 or Eagle20. So, they just won't show up.

So, how many boats do you want at a regatta? 1 M20, or a bunch of Ts, N20s, N60s, etc?

I guarantee that all or even some of these guys are not going to rush out to get an M20 or Eagle 20 just to race in a class where there are no competitors. Over time, people will of course buy/build lighter boats, and as they do, if there are enough we start a new class for them, or if they are more than 50% of the boats out there, then change the existing class rules.
my 2c
Dave

Re: Wings and Distance Racing [Re: pitchpoledave] #55869
09/09/05 01:34 PM
09/09/05 01:34 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Dave, the M20, Eagle20 etc. dont fit within the envelope I suggest. The Tornado does, and I believe the N20 and N6.0 does as well (I am uncertain about their mastheight). Retrofit wings, or dont, and go out there and race them.
However, I have had it explained to me that the N20 and N6.0 race formula already, and that this class is large enough to be self-sufficient and have good racing. Hence, I dont see this happening and I dont want to interfere with what seems like a good class.

The envelope I suggest have a minimum weight about 20-25kg's less than the current Tornado, and that's a lot of 'tire wheels' around the hips for sailors around 35-40years and upwards.

I agree with you that nobody will rush out to race in a non-existent class, and there is no point in cannabalizing on other classes, so I would like to see a class for sailors a bit heavier than the competitive sailors on the current 20 footers (like me). A powerful sailplan on light hulls generally demands a heavier crew. In very light winds a lightweight crew can be really fast on such a boat, but when the wind rises a bit more, a heavy crew can sail in circles around the lightweights.
As I see it, (and as you imply) it's the old "chicken or the egg first" problem. But I would like to hammer out some rules as I belive the time is ripe, instead of waiting for the boats to come first. I believe the F-16 class set the rules first, and then the boats came (Yes, they had some very good ideas, like racing formula racing one-up or two-up and a larger base of old boats to build on, like the Taipan4.9 and Mosquito). What we discuss here might just turn out to be a wasted effort and a lot of hot air which nothing comes out of, but what so (I sure hope nobody sees this as a threat, or are damaged/hurt just by us discussing this. Or even if there are some boats buildt to the formula)?

Of course, my initative and interest in this has nothing to do with the fact that I have all rigging, rig, equipment, crossbeams, sails etc. from an old Tornado lying in storage, begging for some new action on a set of higher-performance hulls..

Do you know who I could contact to learn more about how the winged boats did in the Worrel and what kind of configuration it was?

Re: Wings and Distance Racing [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #55870
09/09/05 02:38 PM
09/09/05 02:38 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI
sail6000 Offline OP
old hand
sail6000  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 800
MI

Yes , I raced the Worrell 1000 in 87 , there were several custom boats with wings . Some were 10 ft on each side

If you do the math a 200 LB crew * 10 ft = 2,000 ft lbs of added leverage .

A better example of the type of wings we may be talking about are found on the older Hobie 21s . We raced those in 1988 in PROSAIL and the ULTIMATE YACHT RACE EVENTS , at locations around the country , prize money , TV etc ,it was great fun .
The H-21 wings plugged into the hulls and were really great to sit on and much easier to trap out of , it was easier to get horizontal and use all your weight to advantage . The wings also made excellent spin block locations further outboard for more open sheeting angles between mast and spin.

Mystere also made a series of optional wings and racks for its cat line . I don't currently see them though -
http://www.multypass.com/nos_catamarans.htm

A team in latter Worrell race built foldable racks , the problem was they would fold up at the wrong time as you tryed to get out on them . Perhaps why we don't see foldable racks .

2 ft added to a 8.5 ft beam cat would equalize overall I think give hull weight etc . Let me know what you think .

If any has more specific questions on wings or racks ,or earlier 1000 mile cat design innovations please just ask , always enjoy talking cat design concepts .

enjoy --happy sailing
Carl

Re: Wings and Distance Racing [Re: sail6000] #55871
09/09/05 04:42 PM
09/09/05 04:42 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
scooby_simon Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
scooby_simon  Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
Rolf,

Quote
Phill, by the resounding silence I guess there's not much experience around about distance racing cats with wings (why does this sound a bit similar to "pigs will fly" ). "Cat's with wings, flying mandatory".. Ok, I'll put a leash on my sense of humour from now on!
Was there any cats with wings or racks in the 'experimental' Worrel races?

Simon, as far as I can understand racks aren't that bad an idea. Yes, the racks will add a bit more weight compared to 4 more feet of beam extrusions (or carbon, what do I know what people will build). What's important tough is the righting moment (RM).
A 10 foot wide cat will have an advantage in RM as hull weight comes 1 foot further out. A typical hull will perhaps weight around 35-40Kg's (??), so this is not a large advantage. Another point is that the axis for heel is a bit further out on a 10 foot wide boat compared to an 8 foot wide one. But by adding a 2foot rack on each side, you are able to move your bodyweight out just as far as the 10 foot wide boat and this is what's most important. In addition, the boat with rack's have the mast further to leeward, which gives a better weightarm for your creweight. (I haven't done the math, so I might be totally off and wrong). In addition, the 8 foot wide boat can get up on one hull earlier, which gives about 20% less drag and better windward abilities with the "new" hullshapes..

(Ok, now I have really done it. Talked myself into actually liking the tought of a 8 wide boat with racks)

I think your envelope is a bit to wide and expensive, we will probably not have much success in building such a class (it becomes to expensive and time intensive for most). Loosing the jib is probably not a good move for a distance racer, but might be smart in a pure upwind/downwind machine.
I had the same opinion as you earlier on, but after spending some time on it and receiving comments from others I have reconsidered. Now I think it's sensible to stay within the B-class envelope, limit mast height to 9.5 meters, weight to min. 140 kg's and 50 square meters of sailarea max. There is still plenty of room for experimentation if someone wants to tinker with their boat.

Dave, I think the current 20 footers are to heavy. I recieved some opinions in a PM, and one of the major philosophies lined out there was that minimum weight for a class should be based on a set of plywood hulls. I think thats a very good idea, as plywood hulls are something everybody with the inclination can build at home during winter. And if it can be buildt in plywood, manufacturers can achieve the same properties with composites. The stellar example is the Taipan4.9 class where timber boats are just as competitive as glass/epoxy boats.



Sorry, I assumed eveyone had read my comments elsewhere regarding the righting moment issues of wings

as for your comments re getting the hull up ealier; surely people will just move to balannce the boat and so the hull comes up a the same point

Wings also add windage/spray barriers


F16 - GBR 553 - SOLD

I also talk sport here
Re: Wings and Distance Racing [Re: sail6000] #55872
09/09/05 09:36 PM
09/09/05 09:36 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline
veteran
phill  Offline
veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Carl,
I expect this has already been looked at but a boat with 2.5m beam and 700mm wings would be roughly equivalent in righting moments to a boat with 3.1m beam provided both boat's hulls weighed 30kg ea and had a 170kg of crew.

I like the idea of foldable wings.
I think they can be built quite light and as they can fold they can stay on the boat. If the fixed wings are anything like the ones on the Hobie 17 the wing design I was working on a few years back would be much lighter. Although the wings fold they would only fold up when you wanted them to. This would be achieved in the hinging mechanism. Pushing open the folded wing will unlock the folded out wing and fold it up at the same time.
Just playing around with some ideas hence my desire to get first hand info from someone who has used them.

Regards,
Phill


I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Another cool thing about wings. [Re: phill] #55873
09/13/05 07:30 AM
09/13/05 07:30 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline
veteran
phill  Offline
veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Folks,
If you were building a set of wings you could exend the wings past the back of the boat. At the end of the wings build in posiions for your feet. Better than trying to find a foothold on the rudder casting.
Would that make the downwinds an exciting spectacle, particularly the nose dives.
Maybe we could create the catamaran version of the 18ft skiff and chase TV coverage.

The wings need not be all that expensive. They could easily be made from carbon by anyone who was willing to give it a go. They would be folding and probably not weigh much more than 3 or 4 kgs ea.

It could be a lot of fun.

Regards,
Phill


I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Re: Another cool thing about wings. [Re: phill] #55874
09/14/05 07:33 AM
09/14/05 07:33 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Simon, I dont think I have read what you wrote about wings earlier. Do you have a link?

Spray, yes. But thats a question of designs. As it is, we get quite a bit of spray and slamming from our aft-beams. With a new design, beams can be raised to avoid this and I am quite sure there will be some creative thinking about wings/spray/drag along the same lines as well.

When going to windward, it's my experience that almost nobody move around the boat to balance on one hull. There is some crew-movement in light winds, but after that most stay put on the windward hull or work on trapeezing (some hiking also perhaps). We did try sailing to windward while we moved about to balance the boat on one hull, but stopped as we were really slow. I guess moving about took to much concentration away from steering and trimming sails. We could not move fast enough to use small puffs either, but had to luff or dump power.


Re: Another cool thing about wings. [Re: Rolf_Nilsen] #55875
09/14/05 02:21 PM
09/14/05 02:21 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
scooby_simon Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
scooby_simon  Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
Quote
Simon, I dont think I have read what you wrote about wings earlier. Do you have a link?

Spray, yes. But thats a question of designs. As it is, we get quite a bit of spray and slamming from our aft-beams. With a new design, beams can be raised to avoid this and I am quite sure there will be some creative thinking about wings/spray/drag along the same lines as well.

When going to windward, it's my experience that almost nobody move around the boat to balance on one hull. There is some crew-movement in light winds, but after that most stay put on the windward hull or work on trapeezing (some hiking also perhaps). We did try sailing to windward while we moved about to balance the boat on one hull, but stopped as we were really slow. I guess moving about took to much concentration away from steering and trimming sails. We could not move fast enough to use small puffs either, but had to luff or dump power.



It was in the F16 forum so you may not have seen it here


F16 - GBR 553 - SOLD

I also talk sport here
Re: Another cool thing about wings. [Re: scooby_simon] #55876
09/14/05 02:51 PM
09/14/05 02:51 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Rolf_Nilsen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Rolf_Nilsen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,451
West coast of Norway
Thank you Simon.

I just re-read the thread, and as for righting moment it makes sense to me. I think the discussion omitted the point that a narrow boat will be able to fly a hull at lower windspeed tough.

Re: Another cool thing about wings. [Re: scooby_simon] #55877
09/14/05 06:09 PM
09/14/05 06:09 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline
veteran
phill  Offline
veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Simon,
The point you make about the leeward wing acting aainst the righting moments is true unless it folds up. An additional consideraion is the windward hull is closer to the pivot on winged boat and this needs to be taken into account when dimensioning the wings. For the specific example I was using it amounts to the wing being 100mm longer. I have not done the numbers for a Tornado because the hulls are heavier than 30kg but it would be more like 150mm wider ie. 750mm wings on 2.5m wide platform to get the same outcome.
I would not consider wings unless they folded up and
the windage can be minimised in their design.

Regards,
Phill


I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Re: Another cool thing about wings. [Re: phill] #55878
09/15/05 05:53 PM
09/15/05 05:53 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
scooby_simon Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
scooby_simon  Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
Quote
Simon,
The point you make about the leeward wing acting aainst the righting moments is true unless it folds up. An additional consideraion is the windward hull is closer to the pivot on winged boat and this needs to be taken into account when dimensioning the wings. For the specific example I was using it amounts to the wing being 100mm longer. I have not done the numbers for a Tornado because the hulls are heavier than 30kg but it would be more like 150mm wider ie. 750mm wings on 2.5m wide platform to get the same outcome.
I would not consider wings unless they folded up and
the windage can be minimised in their design.

Regards,
Phill


Ok, maybe make them 755mm (OK I'm splitting hairs now) to account for the fact the mast is now 300mm more to leaward so you also loose a bit there and you now have the same righting moment as a 10 foot (3.1m) wide boat. BUT there is still the assumption that you can build the swing up wings for the same weight as 600mm from the front beam and 600mm back beam which I think you will be pushing very hard to do.

I looked at this a while back (when Carbon was V expensive) and decided it could not be justified. But now with the reduced cost, it might be worth it. (but then why not just go for Carbon beams!)

Making the wings swing has to happen; however as soon as you do this you then need to make sure that when they are down they stay down and locked fore/aft. Now this can be done, but adds some weight and/or string.

One very positive side in IMO is that you whould be able to design the wings in such a way as to be able to get the weight a little further back.


I still think there is a fair way to go yet with wing systems before we get any real gains.

Windage will always be a problem - more so than the front beam? - I'm not qualified to say. But the spray catching is a real problem even when the wings are in the up position - consider those times when you've had the bows under, the front beam under and some of the mainsail talking to the fishes too, would you really want some wing in there too (The wing MUST be attached / form part of the front beam as you'll want to get the weight forward too)



F16 - GBR 553 - SOLD

I also talk sport here
Re: Another cool thing about wings. [Re: scooby_simon] #55879
09/17/05 08:22 AM
09/17/05 08:22 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
P
phill Offline
veteran
phill  Offline
veteran
P

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,449
Simon,
It all depends on the design of both the wings and the hulls. Also how the wings attach and pivot to fold up.

While I agree with many of your points I think there is a fair chance the right design could solve or significanlty minimise the possible drawbacks.

I think a well designed 20ft winged boat would have the convenience of a smaller beamed boat yet should also be a more comfortable, more exciting and therefore more enjoyable boat to sail.

The way I see it, you never really know until you give it a go.

Regards,
Phill


I know that the voices in my head aint real,
but they have some pretty good ideas.
There is no such thing as a quick fix and I've never had free lunch!

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Damon Linkous 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 209 guests, and 79 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Darryl, zorro, CraigJ, PaulEddo2, AUS180
8150 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics22,405
Posts267,056
Members8,150
Most Online2,167
Dec 19th, 2022
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1