HALO (and 'Fire') ....

The Fire 'special' hull finally arrived here last night ....   It  is obviously rather light to start, comes with residial wings (ie also very light, fixed and (after a lot of discussion) now set at  1.90m.... This also means no tramps needed etc etc.  The prime reason for this particular width was to ensure it would still fit on the bottom level of regular double trailers !    It will now be roped out and fitted with its carbon rig.  It looks fantastic and very minimalist.  You will have to take my words on it for now as we may keep any official pics off forum until it is reviewed externally.

Anyway we will very soon test 'uber-light and narrow'  (if you can call 1.9m 'narrow' !) against the regular ('heavy' if you are GRF but then he's never sailed a minumum 'standard' weight one I'm guessing) and 2.48m wide.  The earlier trials did suggest that our target groups were happy to trade 'lightweight' for 'leverage' but we'll now run the same group tests again.   Previously for them it was especially important to manage well and enjoy higher winds and this meant leverage.

Therefore if the previous results are repeated/confirmed we'll standardise 'Fire' on the regular wings.  This makes sense particularly for those who may want to sail with the regular Blaze rig as well as the Fire one..... However you have to try things and remain open up to the very last minute......  And the 'special' hull will not be wasted ... Oh no  .  

Mike L.    
 

Oh well no harm really ...






Wing  material ?  The width thing here is for trial purposes at this stage.  Carbon is easy enough but there are just as many good reasons for not going that way.  Weight 'advantage' is really marginal if you want a fully durable product.   We have a nice engineered telescopic wing system and owners find it highly practical - want to go light ?  The real way to do that is to have a simple  'fixed' wing, that is where most of any weight advantage would come from, and material choice makes only token difference.   However you might still want to drag the boat around roads to meetings .... and then you realise just how impractical things can get !   We are trying out 1.90m 'fixed' for Fire as that is still practical as well as being pretty light.

Open mind and 'narrow' testing aside for a moment I still think our testers (remember young(er), old(er), light(er) and female) will still want even more leverage than 1.9m and are quite prepared to trade weight for leverage.  'Narrow' can always produce a lighter, lower cost boat - but we are not competing in the '*ero' market with Fire.  Fire was always planned as part of a Blaze/Halo/Fire range using a common core.  Fire is primarily for people in these groupings who regularly find they do not enjoy higher wind conditions because of 'who they are' - We aim to offer them a Blaze type experience.   Fire is optimised for medium+ wind conditions just like the Blaze but is still competent in the light stuff. 

Better start the fit-out now ...

Mike L.

agreed- and from an outsider perspective I think you would utterly mad to ruin the 'common core' concept by creating variables in the wings for the Fire.  But hey, it's your and your customers project...  I just like the thought that all three could share an open meeting and start off the same line- overall prizes and derivative prizes.    

No forestay attachment...this an oversight or is this not added at the factory?

Originally posted by kneewrecker Originally posted by mongrel I don't own a Blaze so this is easy for me to say, but - I think you should start churning out the lighter Blaze hulls, have a fixed lightweight wing that's comes off easily for transportation, then race all 3 sails off the same line, choose your sail for the conditions.  The light weight hull, with the Halo sail, in a F3 would go like sh*t off a shiny shovel no matter who's in it! yes- it's easy to say, would it make you consider buying one though?   Genuine question.  I know my answer....