Weight equalisation

The mast has nothing to do with it. As I said it is two moments which are balanced and composed of two forces and it the magnitude of these force and their separation that is important.
The heeling moment is composed of the heeling force (sideways) from the rig and the lift (sideways) from the foils. This is balanced by the righting moment, which is composed of the crew weight and the buoyancy of the hull.

Originally posted by A2Z Interesting isn’t it?  Lots of people have told you that you are wrong about moving the trapeze attachment outboard increasing righting moment but no one has really explained why.

Had to revert back to schoolboy maths and moments, now this is not a statement, it's still a question.

So lets say racks, and our helm is 90 kgs and the racks are 2.5 metres out from the pivot point which we'll call the mast base. So Distance from pivot times mass to get moment is 2.5 x 90kg equals 225Nm yes?

So now with a trapeze do we not have to accept that the pivot distance changes from the foot of the mast to the end of the rack, to the foot of the mast to the point at which the weight is acting on the mast which is the new lever at say 4 mtrs to the hounds? So our 90 kilo mass now supported flat wiring from the mast must be 4 x 90 kgs and 360 Nm?

This doesn't asnwer my question but it does give some maths to start with.

Or, do we totally discount the mast lever suggestion because it's neutralised by the sail sideforce and the calculation remains directly from the pivot point to the point at which the harness is attached or the height of the sailor?

If it's the harness hook attachment point then my suggestion holds water, if it's the height of the sailor then it doesn't.

Those holding the racks trapeze makes no difference answer will hold with the view that wether racks or trap the c.o.g of the sailor distance prevails, i.e. 250 so 225 Nm righting moment either way.

I maintain that there is an element of mast leverage and probable weight reduction as a result, but it's an interesting thing to continue to work on and I hate maths, but there has to be a formula there somewhere to support what I'm sure I've read somewhere along the path.

Edited by iGRF - 03 Jan 22 at 4:41pm

Originally posted by iGRF Originally posted by Do Different Give it up people, there's nothing to be gained here.    iGRF has an undoubted history of being a demon windsurfer and marketeer but time and time again he has demonstrated that he entirely missed out on secondary school physics lessons. I have respect for skills and wish him well with his Contender experience. I entered the Grammar School in the A stream, passed Physics at O level, questioned the physics master on his definition of light at the time 1964-5 and was proved right many years later. Have an IQ according to some of 166. (stupid logic puzzles) Question everything always, sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong, have probably been wrong more often than right, but that's not reason to stop questioning. I do come here for a laugh, I don't take anything too seriously, but I hesitate to accept suggestions of not being as well educated or as bright as the rest of you. I just never ever accept the status quo and none of you have provided a convincing argument supporting the fact that a trapeze wire set further away from the boat does not provide better righting moment. Do we have to re run the lee bow argument that proved my point?

Bubbles tell us about the bubbles please…

And then we’ll move on to laughing at your Lee bow vanity!

Originally posted by Do Different iGRF. I did not say that you are not a bright bloke, which you obviously are and an innovator. However. Sometimes you are simply plain wrong on the most basic theory.

This time I'm not wrong, I may not be correct in the harness hook positioning on my person, but the ([s]argument[/s]) discussion has gone beyond that, 'they' are now questioning the efficiency of a trapeze and how it functions and are wrong. Racks do not work the same as a Trapeze and unless you understand that, in my mind the argument against my higher hook theory also fails, though I suspect is probably right for altogether different reasons to do with the percentage of weight loss the further up the body you go, yet the bending knees fact still supports the attachment point being as far out as you can get. Why I'm still hanging on for a definitive answer.

Edited by iGRF - 03 Jan 22 at 3:56pm