New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Cirrus Icon Development
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Cirrus Icon Development
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 152>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
skslr View Drop Down
Posting king
Posting king
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 06
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 139 		Post Options Post Options   Quote skslr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Cirrus Icon Development
    Posted: 09 Feb 10 at 4:38pm

Would the 59er have been more successful without people trying a trapeze? Or would it have been more successful if it would have had a trapeze right from the start?

I do not even dare to guess that.

But the huge kite may have been an important factor in making people think about a trapeze, on the other hand there was little effort by the manufacturer or designer to get the class going as intended. Both could be different for a new class.

I guess the huge kite made it more of a boat for big sailing waters. Two male speed addicts having the possibility of sailing on big sailing waters and looking for a recent design? Sounds like international 14 / RS800 to me...

The same people looking to sail on a pond/river/estuary where trapezes and kites are not worth the hassle? Hm...

 

I know you can make a 12 foot or 14 foot hull carry 150 kgs or more and taking weight better than a RS200 would be a real plus, as that is the only thing I do not like about them. But as a layman I hope there is a reason why many designers go to longer hulls than that if not limited by yesterday's class rules.

In my point of view RS800s benefit from being longer than the Morrison int14's.

I guess Ovington/RS/,,, could work on their margin if they would save a foot or two on their OD boats, but for some reason they don't. :-)
Back to Top
Slippery Jim View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 09
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 586 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Slippery Jim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 10 at 4:53pm
Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by skslr

Or the other way round: There are already
too many designs out there that target 130 kg and do not take 150 kg
well. Not sure there is much value in adding another one.

You could argue that the 59er demonstrates that if you make a boat for
the big boys they won't come, especially as there's a perception that one
of the things that stuffed the boat was owners putting a wire on to make
it more suitable for lighter crews.


Of course, that is not the real reason. The 59er with wire is better up and
down wind due to righting moment.
It was marketing, fouled up with a manufacturer that was already
producing/supporting a boat that takes weight, and one distributer in
Europe who supports another class that takes weight. What´s the point
of canibalising other well supported classes in favour of a design that
might be more advanced? I say that even though the 59er is really great
(for me) to sail.
Pass the skiff, man!
Back to Top
getafix View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2143 		Post Options Post Options   Quote getafix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 10 at 4:56pm
Interesting" as this 59er why didn't it take off debate is, I wouldn't equate the likely success, or otherwise, of the 'Icon' to the demise of the 59er.... different market segment, different sailors being targeted, very different boat & builder - no real comparison to be made, the Tasar comparison is fairer and I think Mike's answered that one pretty well (and he's sailed them a lot so he should know something!...)

As far as the 59er's demise goes, for my .02- worth, I believe it has suffered from a poorly defined target market and lack of focus on one or two key locations to try and build up some critical mass, while it has got good numbers right now, I doubt the RS800 will survive very long either and will end up marginalised like some that went before (L5000...) because establised, well supported and development skiff classes exist already and by their very nature, if you don't keep developing you won't be fast enough to appeal to those who want your product because of the speed round the race course it offers; as soon as your SMOD is 'obsolete' you'll find yourself drawn to whatever is faster, flashier, cheaper/more expensive etc... if you want a two-person trapeze skiff get an i14, if you don't want to trapeze get a B14
Feeling sorry for vegans since it became the latest fad to claim you are one
Back to Top
Slippery Jim View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 09
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 586 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Slippery Jim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 10 at 5:00pm
Originally posted by skslr

<FONT face=Helv size=2><FONT face=Helv size=2>
<P dir=ltr>Would the 59er have been more successful
without people trying a trapeze? Or would it have been more successful
if it would have had a trapeze right from the start?


<P dir=ltr>I do not even dare to guess that.


<P dir=ltr>But the huge kite may have been an important
factor in making people think about a trapeze, on the other hand there
was little effort by the manufacturer or designer to get the class going as
intended. Both could be different for a new class.


<P dir=ltr>I guess the huge kite made it more of a boat for
big sailing waters. Two male speed addicts having the possibility of
sailing on big sailing waters and looking for a recent design? Sounds like
international 14 / RS800 to me...


<P dir=ltr>The same people looking to sail on a
pond/river/estuary where trapezes and kites are not worth the hassle?
Hm...


<P dir=ltr> 


<P dir=ltr>I know you can make a 12 foot or 14 foot hull
carry 150 kgs or more and taking weight better than
a RS200 would be a real plus, as that is the only thing I do not like about
them. But as a layman I hope there is a reason why many designers go to
longer hulls than that if not limited by yesterday's class rules.


<P dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial>In my point of view RS800s benefit from
being longer than the Morrison int14's.


I guess Ovington/RS/,,, could work on their margin if they
would save a foot or two on their OD boats, but for some reason they
don't. :-)


To make a 14footer take more weight, just increase the amount of rocker.
Good places to look are N12 older clinker designs and also Final
Chapters. The 59er also has quite a lot of rocker, which also increases its
light wind performance. But I´m not sure whether it would be worthwhile
to use its hull as a restricted water platform for a different rig. Must find
out how much the hull alone costs to produce in order to answer that
question. I know we've been here before, but it really would disturb me
seeing such nice lines ruined by having some odd-looking rig on top.   
Pass the skiff, man!
Back to Top
skslr View Drop Down
Posting king
Posting king
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 06
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 139 		Post Options Post Options   Quote skslr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 10 at 5:50pm

Although I personally do currently not see any technical developments that could make the RS800 go down like the Laser 5000 in the near term future it obviously will happen at some point in time.

But I guess RS will have made their money by then, because they exploited that market segment "fast" enough.

Other options seem to be a development class being continuously redefined (int14) or a class that is regarded as a "dead end street" by the competitors (B14, all others put their money on trapezes for high performance dinghies).

Anything to learn from that for the ICON project?

One last word about the 59er (sorry!): As in any proper development project some benchmarking should be done, and I still think a 59er would be a candidate for upwind performance (no rigg change needed, o.k.?).



Edited by skslr
Back to Top
Slippery Jim View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 09
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 586 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Slippery Jim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 10 at 9:17pm
Originally posted by skslr

<FONT face=Helv size=2><FONT face=Helv size=2>
<P dir=ltr>Although I personally do currently not see any
technical developments that could make the RS800 go down like the
Laser 5000 in the near term future it obviously will happen at some point
in time.


<P dir=ltr>But I guess RS will have made their money by
then, because they exploited that market segment "fast"
enough.


<P dir=ltr>Other options seem to be a development class
being continuously redefined (int14) or a class that is regarded as a
"dead end street" by the competitors (B14, all others put their money on
trapezes for high performance dinghies).


<P dir=ltr>Anything to learn from that for the ICON project?


One last word about the 59er (sorry!): As in any proper
development project some benchmarking should be done, and I still
think a 59er would be a candidate for upwind performance (no rigg
change needed, o.k.?).



No probs. upwind, it´s just downwind I wouln´t want to see no spi on a
59er.

But anyway, a kite is only really any good on a hull if the hull form and
sail plan genuinely allow the boat to take off, and not just form that
group of classes commonly called "soakers". I do not mean to be
derogatory, about the RS200, RS400 &Co. i.e. all boats whose critical
sailplan weight and hull designs (esp. non linear drag hull forms) do not
enable the boat to tack downwind to best effect in up to and including
marginal planing conditions. I have yet to see a study
of the drag form of the latest NS14 hulls, but I presume they also have an
S-shape (plot Y axis drag , X axis speed). You just have to look at the
power needed in many to get on the plane to realise how many hull forms
would be better off being sailed more or less on a dead run. At his point,
in marginal planing conditions many owners of asymmetric spi boats start
talking about not being "tactical" enough, whatever that means. In
mixed fleet racing the crux of the matter IMHO lies more in their current
crew weight not supporting full planing at the average wind strength of
the day, giving them no advantage VMG-wise tacking downwind (made
worse by having in some cases a class-ban on goosewinging). There´s
my 0.02 worth. (I feel better now )

Edited by Slippery Jim
Pass the skiff, man!
Back to Top
Flick-Flock View Drop Down
Posting king
Posting king


Joined: 27 Mar 09
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 102 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Flick-Flock Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 10 at 11:56pm
But sometimes sailing on a dead run is exactly what
people want to get downwind. For example sailing on a
small inland pond where there isnt the space use a kite.
No matter how efficient the hull, tacking downwind will
never give you the best vmg if you have to gybe every 10
seconds. Unless you are very very good at gybing.

As for the tactics, surely the boats that are sometimes
quicker on a dead run, and sometimes quicker tacking
downwind are more tactical, because it adds the decision
of when to switch between modes. Plus sailing to the
pressure would be more beneficial as it could make the
difference between planing or not.

Thats the way i see it anyway
Swimming after Laser 5000 5069
Back to Top
Slippery Jim View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 09
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 586 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Slippery Jim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 10 at 7:40am

Originally posted by Flick-Flock

But sometimes sailing on a dead run is exactly what
people want to get downwind. For example sailing on a
small inland pond where there isnt the space use a kite.
No matter how efficient the hull, tacking downwind will
never give you the best vmg if you have to gybe every 10
seconds. Unless you are very very good at gybing.

As for the tactics, surely the boats that are sometimes
quicker on a dead run, and sometimes quicker tacking
downwind are more tactical, because it adds the decision
of when to switch between modes. Plus sailing to the
pressure would be more beneficial as it could make the
difference between planing or not.

Thats the way i see it anyway

I can understand that. You are not saying anything contradictory to what I say.

As for tactics, I think you mean boats which cannot efficiently (VMG wise) tack downwind in marginal conditions choose to dead run it. They are the "soakers" that I describe. Some, like the RS200 are not allowed to effectively dead run it, since they  are not allowed to goosewing. As for the linear drag boats, their crews just learn to gybe faster and the VMG stays good.

Pass the skiff, man!
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6662 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 10 at 9:59am
Originally posted by Slippery Jim

many owners of asymmetric spi boats start talking about not being "tactical" enough,

The only time I've ever seen or heard the phrase used in that context was in Bethwaite!

I do think he exaggerates the situation even though I can imagine running against a strong tide not being the strongest point of the RS200 performance envelope. I've had this discussion with him by email though and we've agreed to disagree!

My feeling is that setting the boat up so it is *always* faster to gybe downwind in any conditions means that you have to make too many compromises in other areas, especially with moderate performance boats. I've also found that the asymettric allows you to exploit the "gust fan" much better than a pole or no kite, which means that in the real world it can work better than it does on paper.

Edited by JimC
Back to Top
Slippery Jim View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 09
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 586 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Slippery Jim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 10 at 10:05am

Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by Slippery Jim

many owners of asymmetric spi boats start talking about not being "tactical" enough,

The only time I've ever seen the phrase used in that context was in Bethwaite!

I've heard it from the horse's mouth and his son's (face to face) but also elsewhere, from laser2000 and (ironically) laser4000 sailors and not even in the english language. the choice of phrase is typically bethwaite, but also economical. Yes i do own his book, but there also might even be an element of truth in it too.  Actually, I think once you try to be objective about certain classes (and this might not please the owners of certain boats), there are some which are "efficient" in this context on the water but many that aren't, but which despite that still have a large following. The simple question with the complex answer is why?



Edited by Slippery Jim
Pass the skiff, man!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 152>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy