Has anyone considered the safety implications of the performance equalisation systems that the likes of the 5000s, 4000s, RS800s and so on are now using?  It would seem to me that they haven't...

When you capsize, there are two important criteria that make a boat safer.  First is how quickly it turns turtle - the slower it goes the safer you are, and the second thing is how easy it is to get back upright and sailing again.

With weight equalisation systems, lightweight crews are put at greater risk than heavy weight crews because of the lumps of lead they have to carry in the bottom of the boat.  When you first capsize, the lead increases the speed at which the boat turns turtle.  This is because it is way above the centre of bouyancy when the boat is on its side and as the boat leans over beyond the vertical, this weight is working against you.

Once the boat has turned turtle, the lightweight crew then has up to an additional 20Kg of lead to overcome when trying to get the boat upright again - as if being 20Kg lighter than the larger teams was itself not enough of a disadvantage...

The Tasar has had a basic weight equalisation system running for years.  The basis of this was simply if you are lighter than 135Kg, then you carry ballast.  I have been at nationals where a lightweight crew were carrying about 10 - 12Kg of ballast.  When the boat turned turtle, they were forced to retire from racing as they had to have the rescue boat to assist them.  With the lead out of the boat, righting after a capsize was easy...

When a rescue boat is occupied having to get boats upright again because the lead in the bottom makes it impossible for a crew to do this unassisted, the water is less safe for the rest of the fleet.

I can see the logic of trying to take weight out of the performance equation, but lets not do it in a way that puts sailors at risk.

do you have a suggestion for an alternative?  weight equalisation has meant that I'm able to sail boats that would otherwise not be possible (unless i put on about 4 stone and grew an extra foot!).  Without it, these classes would just be restricted to the big boys.

If the weight was put at the top of the mast then you might have a point.  But with it placed inside the hull the effect will be very small. In terms of 'putting sailors at risk' you can find many un-equalised dinghies which are heavier therefore harder to right than plenty of the equalised dinghies, but nobody seems to be getting worried about those boats being 'unsafe' - you have to choose a boat (including the configuration you'll sail it in) that is suitable for you.

Mike

I've noticed that successful weight equalisation systems seem to be mainly restricted to trapezing boats and rely on a mix of greater leverage and weight adjustment. It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be a system thats worked for sitting out dinghies, or at least in singlehanders, (my interest!)

I'm thinking of the EPS (now deceased), the Blaze (they dropped their system I believe) and the RS300 (the smaller rig is not popular, despite being much easier to sail)

Any thoughts on why this is?

Speaking as an eps owner (although the poor thing doesn't get sailed much these days) the weight equalisation thing seemed to work reasonably well when the boats were being raced one design.  Once Laser removed the class from the Audi sponsored tour hardly anyone raced one design anymore.  The owners decided that there wasn't much point in sailing a fast boat and deliberately slowing it down by making people bring the wings in so ditched the rule.  Don't think I ever sailed mine with the wings in the "correct" place.

The Blazes did something similar - although they did in it two stages I think.  Doesn't seem to have made a lot of difference to the results amongst the Blazes at my club - no real correlation between weight and results.

I think there were a couple of problems with the eps.  The first was that laser marketed it as a boat to sail in Audi sponsored UK and Euro series - which some people did.  However, when Laser bumped the class from the Audi stuff there wasn't a particularly strong class association to organise anything else.  There also didn't seem to be any clubs with a fleet of any size to promote it as a club race boat.  Second problem, the Vortex - Laser weren't selling too many boats anyway and they seem to have been wary of trying to sell two boats to the same potential purchasers. So the new Vortex stayed and the "old" eps got dumped.  There was also a story that they were making a loss on every eps they sold but might just be a story.

I've not sailed a 300 and I've only briefly sailed a Blaze (with the old rig, not the new X one).  I think the 300 is a much more difficult boat to keep upright than the other two due to its narrow hull shape.  The Blaze was a handful in strong winds because the old rig was a bit of a disaster.  (The original boats weren't as fast as Topper expected so they stuck a longer boom on and added 1.4 sq m to the sail, mainly onto the leech.)  The new rig seems to have transformed the boat - it isn't any faster (and it might be a little slower in very light stuff), but the helms don't have to fight the boat upwind anymore.  I think the eps is still a better boat, comfortable to hike because of the wing shape (not just a bit of tube like a Blaze) and the buoyancy in the wings does tend to slow the capsize process down enough to give you a chance to sort things out (sometimes!).

I don't think the eps is as quick as the handicap of 1013 suggests.  Laser had actually suggested 1030 I think.  The guy I bought my boat from was allegedly to blame.  My club always puts in lots of RYA returns and the previous owner did a lot of winning - he also sailed the boat with the wings right out despite being a heavyweight (I can't really critisise him cos thats what I used to do too!).  So there were suggestions that his results made up a significant part of the total returns the RYA received!

Edited to say it weighed about 65 kg, big rig 9.3 sq m.  By comparison, Blaze is around 80kg (I think), X rig sail is 10 sq m.

I heard there where two 300's in Aus, (bizarely with aft mainsheets? tho that may be a myth). The old Blaze rig was supposed to be difficult, but the new rig sounds like it makes the boat really nice! They are at least selling well. The 300 is the fastest of all, but also more demanding, coming from a Moth designer. To my mind it has all the best features of the earlier Moths, i.e. it's "cutting edge", light, fast and rewarding, but not as extreme as the latest designs. They probably made it too difficult for the market it serves, so they haven't really sold enough. It needs a season to learn, but once mastered, is not that hard to sail, and pays you back for all the effort!

By the way, the'yre all faster than the Laser, and the 300 rates just slower than the contender, but close enough to really race boat for boat- the best sailor would probably win!

Hi - A bit of 'Blaze history' - the early 10.4m fully battened sail was replaced about 4 years ago by a smaller 10.0 semi-soft sail developed by the class association and Sobstad. (now virtually universal) Only it's top two battens are now full width - this was done to overcome problems with the original sail which was simply horrible in F4 and above.  The boat is now transformed and helms can 'feather' the sail upwind and keep the boat moving fast.  The problem with some fully battened sails, particularly on singlehanders is that when sheeting out in a gust the battens support the chord of the sail into the airflow around the mast - this increases drag, the boat slows more and the helm has to let the boom out further etc etc (and repeat).  It was also very possible to be caught in irons if technique was less than perfect when tacking with the original sail (Sound familiar to some of you ?).  The semi-soft approach, as with 'traditional' sails, allows the helm to dump power and  keep the boat tracking as the luff of the sail can, when necessary, 'feather' as the rig is adjusted.   Getting caught in irons, a problem with many novices, was also banished.  You will notice that many of the later RS designs (and others) have also realised the limitations of fully battened (large) sails on all sorts of boats in recent years - no point in having power that is unusable ...The Blaze is now slightly slower in very light winds, but points higher and when it blows it really comes into its own.

Equalisation - well for us it did not really work.  Lightweights hated the lead (up to 12kg) in the boat especially when it blew and the heavyweights could not use the toestrap system properly as they were forced to have the wings 'in' and could not get far enough from the straps to hike well.  The Blaze has very little 'rocker' (very flat fore and aft) at all and the impression we got is that this sort of hull form was relatively insensitive to the attempts at equalisation.  We found the big guys won heavy wind races regardless - possibly because they are generall stronger and lightweights, even with lead, got to the front in the light stuff.  In the end we abandoned the system and accept that certain people are possibly advantaged in some conditions.  But it has not influenced results to any perceptable extent.  70kg helms and 95kg crews are remarkably close in most conditions.  We think this is because the rig is highly adjustable - a benefit of being held up with untrendy wire and that this is perhaps the best way to 'even out' some of the gross differences between crew sizes and weights.  In short we have rediscovered many of the advantages of the rigs developed and that evolved in many traditional classes. We are hopelessly biased, of course, but would encourage anyone remotely interested to try one - contact the association.  Cheers - Mike Lyons

Re: Blaze - We tried softer and tapered battens with the old sail  but it was just tinkering and did not make much difference.  Unlike a Tasar main where the rig is still fairly 'soft' the 10.4 sail on the Blaze was quite 'hard' and we could not get it right hence the switch.  The M7 we use is fairly stiff at the top but being stayed we have a great range of setups possible to suit all.  The Moths are a different case in that its sail is relatively smaller and was always higher aspect plus the mast is softer so can get away with a hard sail more easily - and they tend to sacrifice everything for more power !.  The fully battened approach is likely to be theoretically and in practice very efficient - in certain wind strengths possibly.  However when it blows you do not need 'maximum' power anyway and the key is depowering upwind in particular.  With a fair bit more sail the Blaze was never short of power but it was very hard to apply in F4+  ,now, even when slightly reduced in size, the drive can be controlled more effectively.    

We would judge the Blaze to be very competitive on handicap with 300's and Phantoms in more than 9kn of wind, and absolutely faster than Phantoms though slower than 300's.  When it blows over 15kn+ its very much faster than Phantoms and close to a 300, partly because most club sailors find the 300 'challenging'  especially in the sort of waves 15kn will produce on open water.  In winds less than 6kn I'd put my money on a well sailed Phantom or 300 against a Blaze much of the time - but most of us prefer it when there's some wind surely !! 

I'm sure some don't like the Blaze - but ask them to tell you if/when they last tried one -  Draw your own conclusions if you get a 'vague' answer !  Most of us in the Blaze have come from Lasers, 300's, Phantom's or whatever.  They are all great boats for some people and revel in some conditions.  Make your mind up what your preferred style of sailing is and simply sail the boat that best suits it. 'My' boat may not be for you ... so ? 

Cheers - Mike Lyons  

The Contender has been mentioned a few times but with no response so I'll try my best. I've never sailed directly aginst a Blaze but shared an open with them a few years ago, the blaze seemed a fair bit slower upwind (F3-4) but quicker on a reach. The Phantom is really over canvassed so in any more than F3-4 you can usually hear the groans whilst going upwind. The Contender is horribly slow compared to anything in less than a F3 and it's fairly common (for me) to be racing lasers! The EPS was really quick on a run because there's no shrouds (just lowers) but seemed to stick a bit in a chop because of the lack of freeboard (and rocker?).

The thing that surprises people about the Contender is that we still use a 'soft' sail and a bendy mast and this gives us a huge sailable wind range, because you can pull the sail into any shape you like, but looks a bit dated. If you bang on enough kicker virtually anything is sailable upwind - off the wind may be a different matter tho

As Matt says previously - the Blaze is slower than a Contender upwind when the winds up and/but relatively faster offwind.  We are often faster than Contenders upwind in lighter airs but once the trapeze helps its the Contender that pulls away of course.  In fact we've shared quite a few meetings with Contenders in recent years - no conscious intention of ignoring the comparison !  We have not dis-similar rigs now and also both have centreboards which is another 'traditional' feature of the 'modern' Blaze.  Daggers are arguably more efficient to the purist - BUT it's so nice to round the windward mark, fully extended on the wing and raise by control line !  It also makes downwind sailing by the lee (a la Cockerill) much easier with a clear cockpit and lateral resistance moved back down the boat.  I'm sure the Contender benefits as well, especially when its windy, from its centreboard but maybe not as much as they seldom seem to attempt sailing by the lee.   I also think that the reason they do so well against the RS600 in higher winds is by virtue of their 'soft' sail and centreboard which makes their handling arguably easier.   

As for shroads preventing efficient running - we still have plenty of roach in our sail and simply let the kicker off.  The sail is high aspect as well and goes as far forward as you would want.  The other point about using the kicker Matt alludes to - Yes a powerful kicker and highly adjustable stayed mast certainly extends the upper wind range considerably as you really can make the sail 'blade off' at the top. Lastly - Blaze relative to the Laser - certainly faster in most conditions, sometimes much faster, but the Laser has its moments against all the classes mentioned and we've all sailed them at one time or another. 

Cheers - Mike Lyons

PS - Contenders etc - Do you want to share any Opens in 2005 ?

... and those with any sense moved swiftly on to something less painful

It's really hard and scary (but quite fast) sailing by the lee in a Contender because the shrouds are a long way back. If you don't let the kicker off enough you risk a gybe (and a headache coz the boom it only an inch off the tiller) but too much and you induce a death roll - which is bad for boatspeed.

There wouldn't be room for a dagger in a Contender if we wanted one and the C'board is good in that it can be raked further back as the wind rises to keep the boat balanced as the centre of effort and trapezing position moves back.

I thought you were a RS400 man. Matt Aston is yer man for open meeting stuff, his email address is on the class website  http://www.sailingsource.com/contender/gbr/ - http://www.sailingsource.com/contender/gbr/ do you have much of a following oop north? I'm trying to raise the Contenders profile up here and tagging onto your circuit would be a low risk way of doing it - just an ideal. PM or email me direct if you're interested or have any wisdom to impart.

"The Moths are a different case in that its sail is relatively smaller and was always higher aspect plus the mast is softer so can get away with a hard sail more easily - and they tend to sacrifice everything for more power !" 

Not quite - actually you don't need that much power to drive the narrow hull, but what you do need from a moth rig is low drag. This gives higher top speed. Most moths now have camber induced, fully battened sails (like a windsurfer rig with shrouds). These give a flatter, low drag sail shape and are significantly quicker upwind than a standard mast track/bolt rope arrangement in F3 or above. Also much easier to control in strong winds than a standard fully battened sail (as mentioned in a previous post). Takes longer to rig, but worth the effort!

Much of the club has been trying to pursuade Mike to sail one for years.... but no luck so far :-(

It sounds like the sail has been totally redesigned for useability. I always find with fully battened sails they are only good for performance in medium to light windspeeds as in the very light stuff they tend to support such a deep draught it's hard to keep the airflow attached and they give very little feedback in terms of sail movement. In very strong winds it's harder to depower because there is less stretch in the cloth (unless using traditional cloth like the Tasar) and they are always producing drive because they sail is forced into a wing shape - ever tried holding on to an RS400 by the forestay in any wind? it just wants to sail off on it's own all the time.

I always thought the Blase looked right but was put off because the original rig was criticised so much - it just needs to lose a few kilos and I might be tempted to try one.

"I always thought the Blase looked right but was put off because the original rig was criticised so much - it just needs to lose a few kilos and I might be tempted to try one"

Matt - You are right about the rig - And the current Blaze weights about 74kg with centreboard in the hull and with wings and all lines and fittings.  Rule minimum is 72kg (The hulls come out of the mould at around 56kg).  Without wings it could be 7-10 kg lighter possibly but we reckon they are worth every gram when the wind gets up !  This is far from being as light as it could be built but its also far from being a heavyweight.  The 'new' rig is also relatively light, a by-product of being 'semi soft' now - ie less battens and a switch to carbon booms about 3-4 years ago. ---- Now remind me, cos I have forgotten,  how much exactly does a Contender weigh ?  Seriously though just try a Blaze out - as I've said before we're biased so make your own mind.

 Cheers - Mike Lyons

PS - Chris - I'm glad you love your 400 and I'm more than happy to borrow one from time to time ....

Right, stop there. The Contender is the perfect weight for it's height. OK a Contender bare hull weighs more than a fully rigged Blaze but the Contender is a big boat remember.

There is always talk in the class about reducing it's weight, mostly from newcomers and those thinking of buying one. My response would be that if it was much lighter it would be impossible to tack in F4+ as you need to get so far back in the cockpit. The class has always resisted changing the weight rule although most boats are now built with maximum correctors (6kg).You really don't notice the weight when sailing it - just when pulling it up a ramp. This is the reason I'd like the Blaze to be lighter because at Scaling the ramp is pretty steep (not that I'm seriously considering a Blaze) The Phantom only weighs 61kg and sails of the same PY - Imagine what a Blaze would do if went on a diet! All the Topper boats seemed to have been built on the heavy side which is probably why so many seem rather dated now - IMHO.

Incedentally did it really put on 5kg when the X design came out? The specs are both shown on the website and the hull weight goes from 65kg to 70kg?

"The Phantom only weighs 61kg and sails of the same PY - Imagine what a Blaze would do if went on a diet! All the Topper boats seemed to have been built on the heavy side which is probably why so many seem rather dated now - IMHO".

Matt - Yes I did really know how much a Contender weighted - I've sailed them !!.  The Blaze has never been below 74kg with plate in regardless of what you might have heard.  Our class rules are the only source that counts and define what it should include.  Note it does include the centreboard - say 3-4kg and everything except the rig and rudder. The Phantom is now getting near their revised minimum weight which was almost impossible to produce (the old rules had 57kg)  but before the switch to epoxy and revised build a great many were nearer 75-80kg or extremely fragile.  However this comparison is without the Blaze wings which certainly pay their way when the wind blows.  Across a range of wind strengths the boats do sail boat for boat on average - however the Phantom has a definite edge against the Blaze in lighter stuff, as well as against most other classes, and the Blaze walks away whenever it blows.   It's a bit like a Contender against a Laser - different boats and sometimes even a Laser can 'beat' a Contender.  But would you switch either !!  The two classes have very different characteristics.  As said earlier - decide which one suits you and sail it !  No class is necessarily 'better' unless there was universal agreement on what 'better' means.

As for Topper boats being heavy - understand your point but its a bit of a generalisation.  The Blaze is produced in the very same facility and with the same people as some of the country's fastest cats and a surprising range of 'non-topper' classes, many of them extremely light.  Topper simply market the Blaze design that is built by Rob White and in fact the design rights are actually owned by John Caig and Ian Howlett.  

Don't buy into the overall argument that says weight is 'good' when tacking. Could only possibly help in very windy conditions and would be a real disadvantage the rest of the time - it's a big price to pay even if partly beneficial.  I'd argue for progressively dropping the lower weight limit for the Contender - Think you too could get down to mid 70's without any problem  

Cheers - Mike Lyons

Even with the downhaul very slack ?  All cats need to have the downhaul very slack otherwise they do this big time - made worse by the rotating mast....

[/QUOTE]

It sounds like the sail has been totally redesigned for useability. I always find with fully battened sails they are only good for performance in medium to light windspeeds as in the very light stuff they tend to support such a deep draught it's hard to keep the airflow attached and they give very little feedback in terms of sail movement. In very strong winds it's harder to depower because there is less stretch in the cloth (unless using traditional cloth like the Tasar) and they are always producing drive because they sail is forced into a wing shape - ever tried holding on to an RS400 by the forestay in any wind? it just wants to sail off on it's own all the time.

Gee, you must be talking about very deep fully-battened sails. Moth, skiff, windsurfer and cat sails are fully battened and incredibly flat. As you say the Tasar main is a bit different because it has stretchy cloth.

I can only think the difference in your experience (and that of others in the UK on RSs etc) is due to the fact that some boats require deeper mains and they don't depower as well by simply being flattened. The effective flat fully battened sails don't really need to luff, when you ease them to reduce angle of attack the wind just seems to stream by each side of a dead-flat piece of cloth. We can regularly sail around with the head pushing us to windward, the centre streaming and causing (apparently) no drive or any other fuss, and the bottom driving normally.

I suppose the only slow boat I've sailed with a fully battened sail (apart from some kids boats) is the Solo, and that was only once. The boat I was sailing was set up lik ethe national champs (although we had a tiny and low-standard fleet here) and the thing had no gust response at all.

PS

Jim C is right, Ben/Bob wanted the Contender to be much lighter than it was. The IYRU introduced a minimum weight based on the freeboard, LOA and beam; that's one reason the Contender is fairly low-sided. The prototypes were just hard-chine ply boats, in films I've seen they look bloody quick in the right conditions.

Good old IYRU/ISAF, at least we can depend on them to know what's good for us.

can we rebel and ignor them completely!!!