Symmetric v Assymmeric Spinnakers

Hull weight on an i14 is about 75kg, old ones a bit more. They probably have some lead you can remove though.
Don't stick a Tasar rig on it, I have a hardly used NS14 rig sitting in my garage if you really want a wing masted rig.

The weight addition to put a chute in an Icon hull would be nominal....  it would be light enough in either mode to be interesting.  All up weight would still be plenty light enough.  Commercially we are not about to launch a spinnaker version unless we had a very good reason (we think it is unique in what it offers already) but if GRF wants to try it for kicks we do not have any real  problem and would follow his development with (neutral) interest.   The reason we do not to want to currently develop a 3 sail version is that we believe there are a multitude of goodish hiking spinnaker offerings out there already..

Now a derivative with a modest asymetric and a single trapeze ...... well that might be a bit more interesting !   well one day maybe  ;-)     ... but it would not be an Icon of course.  

Mike L.

PS ... '400' you seem interested in suggesting every possible way BUT trying  out an Icon hull... why ? and why not try one out first ?   Have you even seen one on the water ?  It is very very efficient indeed, does not require a lot of sail to go rather fast and is dead 'easy' with brilliant handling.  We looked at developing a MR inspired derivative when the project started ourselves but the NS had/has offered a much 'cleaner' hull as a starting point .. in our opinion at least.   There has been design convergence across both these classes, half a world apart, as you would expect but the 'free' NS 'box rule' arguably permitted a lot more design freedom for just about 50 years of experimentation and development.    


Edited by blaze720 - 13 Aug 13 at 10:47pm

Hi iTick

Simple answer to your question - No Icon is not like that... light 50mm carbon non-rotating mast compared to (amazingly) heavy 2 piece rotating alloy mast (ie that must have low rig tension to rotate in the first place)  ... and Icons hull is built accordingly.

Mike L.

 


Edited by blaze720 - 13 Aug 13 at 10:54pm

Originally posted by blaze720 The weight addition to put a chute in an Icon hull would be nominal....  it would be light enough in either mode to be interesting.  All up weight would still be plenty light enough.  Commercially we are not about to launch a spinnaker version unless we had a very good reason (we think it is unique in what it offers already) but if GRF wants to try it for kicks we do not have any real  problem and would follow his development with (neutral) interest.   The reason we do not to want to currently develop a 3 sail version is that we believe there are a multitude of goodish hiking spinnaker offerings out there already.. Now a derivative with a modest asymetric and a single trapeze ...... well that might be a bit more interesting !   well one day maybe  ;-)

What you mean like this... that is an NS14 with an Assy and has been around your donkeys years!

MG14 LINK





Edit: PS - Landenberger tried to launch it in Europe some years ago and it didn't take off

Edited by Jack Sparrow - 14 Aug 13 at 11:08am

Originally posted by blaze720 ..... PS ... '400' you seem interested in suggesting every possible way BUT trying  out an Icon hull... why ? and why not try one out first ?   Have you even seen one on the water ?  It is very very efficient indeed, does not require a lot of sail to go rather fast and is dead 'easy' with brilliant handling.  We looked at developing a MR inspired derivative when the project started ourselves but the NS had/has offered a much 'cleaner' hull as a starting point .. in our opinion at least.   There has been design convergence across both these classes, half a world apart, as you would expect but the 'free' NS 'box rule' arguably permitted a lot more design freedom for just about 50 years of experimentation and development.

Just seems pointless to me to chop about a nearly new one design boat to make a compromise prototype.
Yes the Icon has a marginal weight advantage over the older options, but it's not exactly overwhelming.
Also I don't think I'd want a bow tack jib with a kite, so that's more surgery.
If GRF want's to prove his kite concept is better than the run of the mill, fitting it to a modified 400 would give a direct measurement against the 'state of the Ark'.
Having proved the concept, then would be the time to design a really light hull around it.
Regarding box rules and all that, a lot depends on how narrow at the waterline you are prepared to go.
One thing Icon did get right, as with the 400 was to push the length up a bit from 14ft.
How long is your garage?