Moth Wing Sails

[daryl_wilkinson]

In short I prefer the mantra... "give ideas a chance".

It is strange that you say this as when I read Jim's post about percentages that was what I thaught he was saying. i.e. do not write wings off just from the results of a first regatta, give them a chance to show all their potential.

Glad you saw it that way. I didn't. But then I have probably misunderstood your post as well. You were no doubt hopefully that the next AC was going to be sailed in Moths? LOL

[phil_kirk]

The aims of the individual inovator of which there are a few in the class and the class association will differ.

The inovator doesn't want to be compromised by rules and artificial barriers.  These barriers can compromise quite a valid inovation and force it to be cast out giving the rest of the public the wrong message that it doesn't work.  (A side issue).

The class association needs to ensure it's future which means being responsible and ensuring that there is a reasonable fleet and it is attractive to new members.  This makes some one design classes very popular.

Breaking away with a design of racing boat that doesn't comply with any rules is risky.  It is not part of any class so has little appeal or value to the majority of dinghy sailors wishing to race.  many new designs have fallen by the way side in history because there was a lack of boats sold to make a viable fleet.

[daryl_wilkinson]

And there was I thinking this thread was about moth wing sails. 

[JimC]

The inovator doesn't want to be compromised by rules and artificial barriers.

Are you familiar with the concept of creative limitations?
 I've come across it from involvement in music: the way I think of it is that if you have an instrument that is limited in some what, be it monophonic, or lacking certain features such as the ability to control volume or pitch or whatever, you may produce more interesting music by exploiting its limited capabilities than with an instrument with almost unlimited capabilities in which the range of choices is quite overwhelming.

In the same way I think rules that limit design in some way can actually encourage more interesting development... I doubt, for instance, if the Moth was an unlimited sail area unlimited length class, they'd have ever got to the foilers, because the jump from 18 foot needles with F off big kites (maybe even A class with big kites) would never have happened... And, for that matter, if the Moth class hadn't banned sailboard rigs would they have every gone down the ultra small ultra light route Andy P set them down,which made the foilers possible (if you doubt that imagine trying to put foils on a Europe). Similarly I strongly suspect that the lack of spinnaker was what forced the C Class wings to develop, because they are constantly hunting power. A soft sail and a soddin' great kite would, even now, almost certainly be faster but to me a lot less interesting.


And that, BTW,  is why I've ended up with the IC once they returned to a development rule. Those who were about at the time will remember I have no enthusiasm for big sails and brute power, but once the ICs came up with the light open design hull for the kite free version then that was right up my street. Why should I be interested in stuffing a big kite on: the Cherub does the bouncing across and over waves better than anything else, and I have that T shirt, so what use would a pale imitation be.

[Will_Lee]

'Something understood' on Radio 4 2 weeks ago was all about the importance of limits in the making of great music and other things. It mentioned a composer who was a PoW and chose to write music for the instruments which were available: A piano with many missing keys, a cello with only 3 strings, etc etc.

Last weeks one is all how bad limits are, as a kind of answer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qn7f

(The first one has gone from iplayer, sadly)

[andy_paterson]

Regarding moths, restriction has actually encouraged the development of flying foiling. My first effort with foils on the back corners sort of worked, Brett Burvill's boat with foils on the front wing corners sort of worked a lot better, but then the rules required the foils to be 'within the hull waterplane' so development started in a new direction which has turned out to be much faster and controllable.
Without the restriction we would probably still be developing the Hydoptere style foils without the lateral-thinking jump to centreline foils.
The wingsails sort of work at the moment, but if allowed will obviously get intensive development, making them stronger and faster, and more practical ( ie in smaller parts for transport ). OR... they will end up too heavy  and not  very quick, easy to use or practical, in which case they will wither away.
If banned ( 2 element argument ) then there will be some wide catamaran type mast experiments, and who knows - that might be even faster / better!

[phil_kirk]

All reasonable points and I will agree with them all.

i was thinking along the lines of IOR which restricted ballasted keels and gave narrow transoms, small rudders making the yachts optimised to this rule less seaworthy. 

[JimC]

Measurement rules (as opposed to box rules like Cherubs (and Canoes) are always a problem. They do need to give a handicap benefit to bad design, otherwise what use are they, so there's always a tendency for designers to look for features that aren't quite as dreadful as the rule thinks they are in order gain a handicap advantage.
In box rules (as I think Dave Roe once pointed out to me when we were looking at an extremely odd N12), designers can be tempted to think that *every* restriction is performance restricting, and so hit the limit on every single measurement point. Apart from being likely to end up with a lumpy unfair boat, Dave pointed out for that to be true the rule framers would have to be completely au fait with every aspect of the influence of the defined measurements on hull shape. That's pretty unlikely since designers clearly can't have such knowledge, otherwise all boats would be the same shape...

[daryl_wilkinson]

'Something understood' on Radio 4 2 weeks ago was all about the importance of limits in the making of great music and other things. It mentioned a composer who was a PoW and chose to write music for the instruments which were available: A piano with many missing keys, a cello with only 3 strings, etc etc.

Last weeks one is all how bad limits are, as a kind of answer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qn7f

(The first one has gone from iplayer, sadly)

I thought I'd better point out Will, I work with creative limits every day of my life. It is what I do. Limits don't make for something better, but they do make something potentially more unexpected. The two are very different. The real skill for a creative is to able to create truly original ideas from a unrestricted pallet but with to a defined goal.

Getting back to boats, wing sails etc...

That's why it is important to very closely define a goal for a class. A single minded proposition. I.e speed at all costs or fast as possible but with easy handling etc. To my knowledge no restricted development or development classes have ever done this. But often use the nebulas ' in the spirit of the class' rules statement, which in truth means nothing unless defined. What it dose do is allow a select bunch (at any given period of a classes history) to make a judgement on what they believe to be in the spirit. This can allow new developments or restrict developments arbitrarily, depending on the mood / viewpoint of those people.

[Will_Lee]

What it dose do is allow a select bunch (at any given period of a classes history) to make a judgement on what they believe to be in the spirit. This can allow new developments or restrict developments arbitrarily, depending on the mood / viewpoint of those people.

I think that bunch you describe are an elected bunch.

[Phil Alderson]

There is a stated purpose to the class rules

1 INTRODUCTION
The object of these rules is to provide a set of rules to which inexpensive high performance dinghies may be designed and built.

Which is OK but how do you define inexpensive high performance? Divide the PY by the cost of production and compare with the rest of the market?  or some other method. One persons cheap (I can build a wing in my garage rather than pay a sailmaker) is another persons expensive (I can build sails in my front room but need to rent a garage to build and store my wing)

The class development is driven by the class rules, there is a (moderately well) defined process within the class rules for making changes to those rules, you need to be a member then you write a proposal, then get another five members  to support you, this gets submitted to the committee who organize a ballot within a given timescale. If enough members support it then the rules change and the framework for of development changes.

This whole system happened recently with a proposal to tidy the rules that went to ballot and was passed. There was also a discussion about introducing a restriction aimed to prevent full foiling, this failed to get enough members to agree on a proposal so it did not go to ballot. Both of these discussions happened in the open and the results were dependent on the wishes of the members.

Regarding the use of a wing mast on a Cherub, my interpretation is that a wing would not be permitted within the rules, there are a series of requirements on the sails which are there with the purpose of defining the sails as flappy things like we currently use.

Where we have an open set of rules there has to be space for interpretation, and if there are enough members who consider that there is sufficient ambiguity in the rules allowing significantly different interpretations then they could write an improvement, get some signatures and trigger a ballot.

We have a situation where members of the class association have the power to control the rules and thus the direction of the class they are members of!

[phil_kirk]

Changing tack back to the original thread. 

Phil alluded to a practical aspect of owning a wing sail. You need somewhere to store it or peg it down so it stays where you left it.

Another practical point worth investigating is what happens when you capsize and take a dive at a wing sail.  I assume that the ribs are closer together than the battens so the probability of landing on a rib is higher than with a cloth sail.  Would it break the rib or break you?  i wouldn't like to be the test dummy.

[daryl_wilkinson]

There is a stated purpose to the class rules

1 INTRODUCTION
The object of these rules is to provide a set of rules to which inexpensive high performance dinghies may be designed and built.

Which is OK but how do you define inexpensive high performance? Divide the PY by the cost of production and compare with the rest of the market?  or some other method. One persons cheap (I can build a wing in my garage rather than pay a sailmaker) is another persons expensive (I can build sails in my front room but need to rent a garage to build and store my wing)

I'm sorry but you are stretching things to say that you can't define expensive because one persons spare time is less valuable to them, than another who is happy to purchase the goods from a supplier. Because he/she values spare time more highly.

You can very easily define the expense of the materials. Carbon is expensive. The methods used to build Cherubs are expensive. You can beg, borrow, steal your materials, get as much help as you like, but you can't call the type of Cheurb that is being built inexpensive. People turn a blind eye to FUNDAMENTALS and focus on areas that suit them. In reality these boats should be made of Ply and Glass, probably 4 plankers as well. If INEXPENSIVE is to be up held. I would also say that is a FUNDAMENTAL Spirit of the rules which has been abused for a hell of a long time.

[roland_trim]

If someone out there is happy to gamble £450 I will fit their boat with a wing sail to that complies "fully" with the spirit of the rules, morphs to each tack and can be rolled up like a conventional sail when it is time to put it away. As a bonus the BGM wing would also be a very nice thing to land on (solid ribs are for barbarians and inflatables are too heavy).

The only snag is that looking at the numbers it only looks marginally quicker in Cherub land - even after you have debugged the rig. Kevin has a very well worded argument on this one, I'll ask him if I can post his email.

[phil_kirk]

1 INTRODUCTION
The object of these rules is to provide a set of rules to which inexpensive high performance dinghies may be designed and built.


Despite the exotic materials used in cherub building proportionally less is needed than many other dinghies.

Compare the cost of a new cherub un modded or customised and you will find that they compare quite well to equivalent high performance boats.  The Deamon was marketed at £8K if i remember correctly. And Aardvark advertise a complete boat now at slightly higher prices.  Cherubs even compare quite well in price to many low performance boats.

I agree it does depend on what you define inexpensive as. It also depends on what you determine high performance as.