You get my vote for President. I'll also put a vote in for the other
officers.
To your health,
Rob
Rob DesMarais, D.C.
P.O. Box 1579, Clinton, AR 72031
888-754-7730
"One of the biggest tragedies of human civilization is the precedents of
chemical therapy over nutrition. It's a substitution of artificial therapy
over natural, of poisons over food, in which we are feeding people poison in
trying to correct the reactions of starvation."
Dr. Royal Lee
January 12, 1951
Founder of the "Vitamins Products Company" - 1929
Now DBA: Standard Process, Inc.
www.standardprocess.com www.mediherb.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Ryan [mailto:gregoryrryan@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:24 PM
To: swiftsolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: other ballot issues
As you all know by now, the rudder specs were chosen to ensure the boat is
controllable and the initial intention was to be harsh in the rules so that
the first bunch of boats wouldn't get a bad rep before the fleet even
started. I pushed for some flexibility and that is why the rule 5.13.6(e)
(part ii and iii) provides an out if the 49er class foil become impractical
for any reason. The section shape is a big part of the control factor. I
cannot take any credit or blame for the section shape of the Aquilo rudders,
that honor belongs to the Bethwaite stable. I personally think it might just
be possible to make a ruder with the same section shape that has less drag
than a 9er rudder, by changing the planform shape. I am concerned however
that if the rule is left completely open new rudder cassettes would have to
be made and changed every time you use a new blade and blades would not
therefore be interchangable at regattas (in case of breakage or for speed
and handling testing). Keeping an approved section shape the same as the
49er section and the same chord at the top 12 inches would obviate these
concerns. That being said I am for less rules rather than more when it comes
to knitpicky rules like rudder shape.
Just keep in mind It is not yet certain by any means, which of the two
planform choices we have now (that have the same section and approximate
area) is faster.
Do we want to stop someone making a skinny small rudder with a lot less
drag?
Probably, we all should be able to guess that with just one win with a
rudder like this and a rock star skipper everyone will think they need to
have that kind of laminar flow blade to be able to compete. I think this
will take the class down the wrong path. Rock star skippers might be able to
control a boat with such a blade but the rest of us will just find the boat
hard to sail and a lot of peope wont understand why - my real concern, and
then they start blaming the class design rather than a stupid desision about
the rudder section and area.
The other concern is that if we do lock in a shape it should be available to
home builders through multiple commercial retailers as a cheap blank. At the
moment it is possible to make a rudder, a very good rudder, using a core
blank from Aquillo or Wanka for a lot less than the cost of the 49er rudder.
I think this is the way to go. I will work to make sure the NYC Skiffs
blanks are available if the commercial suppliers fall through on this.
I also think it is unfair to the initial builders if they would feel
penalised by the class choosing one shape or the other or leaving the rule
open. In the event the 49er blade is not chosen the class might be able to
supply replacement foam cores to the few boats that already have 49er
blades, thus making their loss almost whole again. It is also quite possible
I have realised (now that I have much more CNC hot wire experience) to make
a foam core that could produce a blade as near as damn it to
indistinguishable from the bethwaite section AND planform. ie a 49er board
(but it would be MUCH lighter). Roger would certainly be unhappy about
stocking these cores for us as he has at certain cost to his business to
help the class get to the regatta and then because of a change having to eat
his stock. Likewise not fair.
To me the rules seem a bit schizophrenic. Almost open CB rule (max width,
well how could it be much wider since the case is that wide +1/16 on both
sides for packing). and a closed rudder rule.
So what do we do about the rudder rule ?
Have everyone buy the rudders from Ovington (RIP) or MaKay. That would be an
OK but expensive option depending on the health of another skiff fleet.
I would suggest keeping the section shape and chord at the top the same as
we have been doing add a stipulation that the chord may vary but basic
section shape must not change through the longitudinal length of the blade
and then have an area and minimum and maximum depth rule, leaving the
planform shape up to the builder. This would ensure adequate control
characteristics upwind and adequate depth and surface downwind. It is a
rather lot of rules though and difficult to control.
An alternate sitation is to settle on a "class" foam core design that can be
made simply and can be CNC cut simply and cheaply. The object here would be
to provide adequate control of both the sailing characteristics and control
the cost to make a very cheap rudder available and also to simplifty the
rules.
My company is branching out into other foam uses and you will all soon be
invited to the opening display.
http://www.amazingbreasts.co.uk/breast-form-types_50.html
Concerning wings on foils.
The rules are clear on this matter in my opinion. They are not allowed by
rule 5.13.6 (part f).
1. f. No appendages shall be allowed below the waterline on the
2. i. centerboard or
3. ii. rudder
Unfortunately we did not protest Mr Dally at the appropriate time. This
would have moved Mr Harper into the brown medal position which I believe he
deserved.
You know this rule taken to its absurdity, you could build a
wing-in-ground-effect attachment to the top of the CB or rudder and fly
around the course, but if you were able to achieve this why bother with a
hull at all.:-)
The recent advent of foils on rudders and even centerboards, in my view, is
an exciting development. It is very far from clear what this will do to
existing open class designs. Really why have a slippery hull at all, a
supercavitating wedge might do as well and will begin planing faster. I'm
particularly interested in watching how well foils work out on rudders of
short WLL boats not unlike the Swift. Mr Dally put the kybosh on allowing
that kind of appendage for his design. Time will tell if he was "right as
usual". I am certainly not going to second guess him (publicly!). But, I
will attempt to fly a boat that looks like a Swift, just for fun at some
stage I'm sure, even it its not faster round the pins it would allow me to
get in closer to the beach before I have to get out and get wet..
Becoming serious again --- wipes smirk away. Really.
5.13.3 Mast Spar
part c. The mast shall have a maximum height of 6.935m (273 inches), which
shall be measured from the bottom (or bearing surface) of the heel plug
(less the tenon) up the forward face of the mast to the top of the masthead
crane.
This rule was written in concert with the rule about the white band
regulating the hoisted position of the top of the mainsail to keep the mast
within reasonable bounds but not to restrict you in the design of the mast
head crane, the position of its sheaves etc etc. Especially in case the 49er
fitting is inadequate for any reason (apart from being just BUTT UGLY and
cheap) since we have no control over another class' fittings, so it seems.
My obvious intention, I must now confess, in writing this rule the way it is
was to allow one to attach wings of indeterminant width or chord to the mast
head crane so that the Swift will be able to fly just above the water like a
glider. You will notice the absence of a horizontal appendage or area rule
for the mast! Unbeknown to me Mr Dally slipped in rule 5.13.3 part b to a
late draft of the rules. Fortunately my lawyer (PC Chris LLP) tells me for
my devious plan to clear 5.13.3 part b and qualify as a "fitting" the main
halyard sheave can easily be inserted in the trailing edge between the
wings. Steve Clark and I are working now on a prototype leveraging the very
sucessful vertical Cogito wingmast design for the horizontal Swift solo
"wing top mast crane fitting". Look to see it soon on the Vanguard web site.
A large Australian fitting manufacturer is interested in this Swift solo
part too. Really.
You Go Steve. (notice the useless rudder). Why not save 50% of that weight
and put it in he middle. Eh!. Bieker agrees with this idea and so do a lot
of other designers. Ask my lawyer.
While we are on about wings. Those little appendages which cannot be put on
the foils, I have got a call into my lawyer about the little wings you see
in the videos of the 8teens attached to the hull at the knuckle to stop
porpoising or scuba diving. Can any of you get your lawyer to call you
back?? whats up with that. I'Il have to say mean things about Loosers -----*
again. Ayway, these knuckle dusters might also be available from NYC Skiffs
soon. I believe the 8teen knuckle dusters did not become popular because
they were not a supercavitating shape with a sharp front edge so that you
will not be slowed in case you should run over a competitor. What were they
thinking. My lawyer is an expert on this, he is writing a book on it. Here
is why it would work.
<javascript:window.close();> X Close
Concerning smaller or Sport sails, one sail or no sails. Go for it! Smaller
is faster, just ask Jim Champ or Steve Clark. Jim doesnt seem to need a
spinn on his version of a solo skiff either. (he's worried about concrete
walls or something). My lawyer tells me Marchaj said something like this
too, but Im going to disregard that.
Likely anyone who can keep upright and complete the course in an afternoon
race in SF bay or the Gorge might just be a winner. I can attest to that.
Have a slow day at work once in a while - its good for your bones. Funny
ones that is.
GR - Rose.
>http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16036
<http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16036&st=0> &st=0
|