Bimbling with boats is about all many of us can do for the foreseeable ...  So here is one I started cobbling together over the winter.  Just 'finished' this 'special' with the current limitations allowing a fast finish but cannot test / trial yet of course !! 

It is simply called 'Hybrid' for now and is 4.25m overall and maximum beam of 1.60m (and lightish).   A mixture of ideas in fact to trial / assess.  Initial sail area in photos is approx 9.3m2 and the spars used here are carbon.  Intended primarily as a non-winged hiking design with centreboard with a higher boom could also make a GRF style trapeze platform maybe.  Why do it ?   But equally and especially now ...Why Not !  

Not a Blaze rig ... though the mast is v.similar to both Icon and the Blaze 'family'.  Not H2 in terms of general ‘bulk’ or freeboard but with a bit more (v.necessary imo) than say a Zero.    The original concept was for an exceptionally easily driven simple hiking hull but not to the point of becoming ‘demanding’ light and simple but capable of carrying a reasonable weight.  The hull underwater is almost pure Icon, (cos that one really is slippery yet ‘easy’) but it is 215mm (9") shorter and the freeboard is very much less than found on an Icon or H2.  The sail in the pics is in fact based on an early Icon development main but modified by Dick Batt to suit the rig dimensions and rake.  (The boom is currently made from old Blaze outer wing tubes – cos I was waiting too long for a larger diameter tube to arrive)   So NS14 inspired with touches of Blaze, Icon. and yes even some  H2 and Zero in there if you like !    This concept is much lighter than say a Blaze and if ever in full epoxy would be much lighter still.

..... and (if) I was willing to be on my knees downwind then it looks great ...

One of the ideas considered but not tried on this 'Hybrid' was to recognise that many don't use decent knee pads.  So if ever a production version was on the cards, in some distant future, I would look at having the floor with sectioned recesses to inset  high(ish) density foam.  The areas would need to be fairly large - but at this stage it is simply not necessary and would be an extra complication.  Would be nice to be able to wear a shortie wetsuit in Summer and no knee pads ? Yes I know !

PN ?  Not of interest any more – given previous experience with that rat’s nest ...best I don’t comment too much.  I’m maybe not as conspiracy suspicious as say GRF but some of the ‘experimental’ numbers produced way back could have done with some ‘full workings shown’ to increase confidence at the time.    Far far too early to do more than speculate anyway ....

Is that the Rondar Icon derivative intended for the US market? .....

 In short and in part 'yes' and this hull was the first out of the tooling - as a sailing test bed.  The new tooling can/could also supply the 2-sail Icon segment if there is demand with a different ‘population’ of parts and fittings.   It would even be possible as a prospective owner to switch between 2 and 3 sail modes’ in a couple of hours.  The underwater side is identical but the deck arrangements have many many refinements.  We learnt a hell of a lot from the original Icon, not least that the basics were far too good to be allowed to somehow ‘fail’ at the initial attempt.  In reality it is obviously not realistic to put a time scale on anything much at the moment, at least not yet .. and thank goodness the project was effectively 'frozen' a little way back due then to brexit trading uncertainty. ...).   Does not stop us dreaming and we all need a few of those at the moment..  

 

That is not a decision that has been, or needs to be, made any time soon !  I sold my interest in building / marketing boats a couple of years back (very thankfully given the current market).   Hybrid is currently just an indulgent bit of pure interest on my part at this time - because I wanted to try some ideas out of interest and do not need an immediate commercial justification to do so.  It is something of a hobby alongside still racing in two other classes !  However you never say 'No' completely and if any builders that may remain in the 'new normal' were interested in something like Hybrid you'd surely not turn them away either ?  But build or launch a new class by myself now ?    No of course not !

Though Hybrid might make a cracking entrant in something like GRFi's supposed all comers formula class he's proposed occasionally  ....

However - is there really demand for ANY new trapeze single hander class (either).  The Musto skiff  is now the de facto 'standard' modern take and the Contender remains a powerful focus for the 'traditionalist'.  As a segment it is still however very very limited in the current world.  Those who buy new boats are also disproportionately 'mature' and many clubs are not ideal for trapeze boats either.... Possible real world 'new' buyers are therefore far less likely to buy an alternative trapeze boat.   It is a particularly interesting segment to address, of course, but perhaps only from a technical point of view for the foreseeable ....

Might not stop me from putting a trapeze on Hybrid either at some point - or trying out other possibilities already considered but not yet involved.  That in a nutshell, is the beauty of an ‘off piste’ development like Hybrid.  You learn new stuff all the time - and then revert.

I've dealt with warranty claims for carbon masts sure ... it does happen occasionally.   It even happens to that relatively 'SuperStiff' alloy M7 with some who also 'forget' .... IF you maintain lowers at a regular setting and then rake the mast via forestay you, of course, have to take up the slack as you switch to offwind.  If you don't the lowers hold the bottom of the mast firm but the upper sections are not fully supported offwind by the (still) slack shrouds - the rig pivots at the mast/lowers attachment and goes 'over the front', it inverts and then can easily break.  You can get away with it in lighter conditions but add a gusty 20+kn and maybe a few waves and the odds shorten quickly.

You could specify a very strong (usually stiff) carbon stick of course but can also lose much of the benefit from having a carbon one in the first place.  Some makers eventually end up having to do this to still benefit from the 'carbon' marketing label while maintaining a commercially acceptable level of 'durability'.   If you have lowers you have other options  that avoid an over-stiff stick and all that entails.   If you do not have lowers – well the mast is inevitably heavier and stiffer and possibly larger in section all other things being equal  Hence the attraction of alternative de-powering approaches that can minimise risks yet maintain high(er) performance.  One way is to have an (already) raked rig coupled to a sail design that really responds to Cunningham to blade off the roach -  important to get the battening right naturally.  Another very useful one is to look to slacken off the lowers 'on the fly' to allow more regular bend in the lower mast upwind rather than depower via forestay raking  - you get a very similar effect to raking via forestay adjustment but it can be more forgiving in terms of necessary (and timely!) crew input.  In fact I think much of the benefit of raking via forestay actually comes from the fact that this naturally slackens (set) lowers (allowing more mast bend etc) - So why not leave the shrouds and forestay alone and just adjust the lowers ? You do need a stick that is suitable of course ....  As an extra safety feature you can also set up an extra line that runs from the bow forestay fitting to the lowers attachment on the front of the mast.  This can be used to inhibit, or at least provide a maximum limit, on any tendency towards mast inversion.

Anyway the point made here is that there are usually more than one way ....