Print Page | Close Window

Not seen at the show

Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: Dinghy classes
Forum Name: Dinghy development
Forum Discription: The latest moves in the dinghy market
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13010
Printed Date: 12 Nov 18 at 8:50pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Not seen at the show
Posted By: Cirrus
Subject: Not seen at the show
Date Posted: 05 Mar 18 at 11:27pm
  Teaser ... Not seen at the show, developed here but not destined for the UK any time soon!





Replies:
Posted By: salmon80
Date Posted: 05 Mar 18 at 11:47pm
Burghfield?


Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 8:48am
This where the Icon went to? Looks pretty, but a crowded market anywhere in the world, I'd have thought.

-------------
Firefly 2324, Lightning 130, Puffin 229, Topper 44496, Minisail 3131, Minisail 3446


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 8:57am


Posted By: Jack Sparrow
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 10:05am
Honestly, why didn't you just bring the NS14 over here, build the class and build them?... This is just another version of an NS14 or MiG14 as was a few years back which also had an Assy (but single trap) and to my knowledge didn't do very well? I guess this is going to the USA? Good luck with it.

-------------
http://www.uk3-7class.org/index.html" rel="nofollow - Farr 3.7 Class Website
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1092602470772759/" rel="nofollow - Farr 3.7 Building - Facebook Group


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 10:31am

.....why didn't you just bring the NS14 over here

But of course we did and if it had been 'right' that would have been that.... It would never have caught on here frankly for many reasons not least it could not carry the crew weight.  If you and your crew are light enough for the NS well fine .... but we have the N12 etc here for that sort of thing.   Not many of us are frankly of 'racing snake' weight.... (or planning to be) – NS rigs are very modest and rotational as well , so arguably not ideal for many UK locations or tastes.    But the NS hulls were rather good hence the superficial similarities ... but these hulls are rather different being both longer /wider and with more underwater volume. 

We have no plans to sell the 3 sail boat ourselves in the UK for commercial reasons but the boat is going through final on-water testing here simply because it was developed here.  It would obviously have been seen around in the next couple of months so we decided to release a few images before you lot out there did.  

One point in relation to the NS/MG.    The new hull can carry either a standard 2-sail (Icon or Icon type) rig OR the 3-sail rig depending on how the hull is populated with fittings.  



Posted By: turnturtle
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 1:32pm
"Icon Mk3" - looks nice, very clean lines and good to see the red trimming off the sails ;-) 

Good luck stateside with it!  


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 2:11pm
One day dozy dinghy designers will come to realise the kite should come out from under the forestay.. we live in hope.

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 2:18pm
...... we live in hope.

LOLLOLLOLLOL   and you will for a very very long time ....


Posted By: maxibuddah
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 2:44pm
Didn't the budget extend to a carbon boom, or is it in an aluminium wrap?

-------------
Everything I say is my opinion, honest


Posted By: Neal_g
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 2:44pm
It's been done on one plenty boats rs800 springs to mind.

-------------
(Redoubt Sc)
Miracle 4040
GP14 13407

Crewsaver phase 2 range now available to buy online on at http://www.gibsonsails.com


Posted By: Do Different
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 2:49pm
iGRF. I presume you mean "should come out from under the forestay" as in come our from hiding under the forestay.

That being the case several have, to my limited knowledge, 505, Osprey, Javelin,................  

Cirrus. Shame the Icon didn't click over here, I liked the light and pretty look of it, perhaps not different enough to the established classes? Anyway, hope it fares better in another market.


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 3:12pm
Originally posted by Neal_g

It's been done on one plenty boats rs800 springs to mind.


RS800? Hmm isn't that a 49er style boat for pussies?

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 3:55pm

I'll indulge GRF a bit  .. while the fun lasts at least .....

The bows on this length/type of boat tend to be rather narrow relative to the size of opening that you really need for asymmetric work.   If you place the forestay far enough back to still provide a proper decent sized opening in front of it you lose at least 400-450mm of boat length.  IF it were single-hander with just the main to consider you might well position the forestay behind it or on the 'bar' – of course.  However you might also want a jib of a decent enough size and certainly in proportion to the overall rig.  Crew boats mostly have relatively largish jibs as well .  You could of course have a very small aperture for the spinnaker 'up front' ... it has been done before but that can quickly become the real road to madness, much gnashing of teeth etc and mangled spinnakers.  (mind you great if you supply the sails of course .... Wink  )

Based on experience in other classes we therefore opted for a LARGE opening and to still accomodate a decent sized jib .... key hole surgery may be all well and good in an operating theatre but is not necessarily the right approach on the front end of fastish dinghies - when you MUST raise/drop the sail in a hurry.    Regardless of where you place that aperture 'size' really is important – but it is not something you can compromise on really.

PS - The boom in one of the photos is not carbon (but is in the other ...) - give us a break this is a development boat and we are assessing both !! ... btw -  the boat does not have a single centimetre of 'faux' carbon anywhere yet - I know a terrible 'fail' on our part... However if it helps the builder sell more I am fully prepared to rapidly change my opinion on the sticky patterned fablon stuff ! ....



Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 4:34pm
One day I'll have a proper all carbon boat, then 'wrap' it in wood effect, see how the wood botherers like that.

https://www.wrapdirect.com/wood-effect-wrap/" rel="nofollow - https://www.wrapdirect.com/wood-effect-wrap/

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: chrisg
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 5:10pm
Already been done.

Related image


Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 7:27pm
Looks like fake laminate flooring!

-------------
Firefly 2324, Lightning 130, Puffin 229, Topper 44496, Minisail 3131, Minisail 3446


Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 7:30pm
Pub chain shabby chic.


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 7:48pm
For those who know the Viper sportsboat you might notice a few subtle details in common ....
 


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 9:12pm
It may be camera angles, but that foretriangle looks quite big?
I have to agree with GRF, I suspect the downside of the chute being behind the forestay might outweigh the extra jib area, around a typical course where launch and retrieve is randomly port and starboard?
I would agree that the RS400 set up is not perfect, the chute could be bigger.
Also how big is the kite? Those turning blocks are a long way back.... And cleats?
I guess the sprit is relatively short, not coming behind the mast when retracted?

The 400 is an obvious comparison. clearly a carbon mast is going to be a nice improvement.
Surely in this Dane Age, a carbon rudder stock could be cost effective?

I like the lack of a thwart. Looks like off the boom sheeting is an option, I suspect without that, it's going to be hard to get the weight forwards enough in a drifter?

Communal toe-straps though? I hope this is not the final version?

What is the thinking with the jib cleating/fairleads on the deck? It's very tidy but why has everyone else moved it to the floor?
How does the tank buoyancy compare to the 400? It looks like a higher floor so actually self draining, smaller side tanks so it floats with the plate reach-able?


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 11:07pm
RS- too many individual items to comment about all of them really... but do have a close look at the toestraps, they are not exactly what you think you are seeing ! (hint - have a look at a Viper image first !)  Also thwart comment - it will be an option, but not one I personally would go for .. but the crew might of course ....  No limits to toestraps, thwarts or not or sheeting choices either is part of the class model.   This is a fair way off being a UK regular SMOD class one and even the sail supplier will be relatively open .. ie largely driven by owner choice.

We will not be marketing it in the UK/EU ourselves and it may not even be produced beyond an initial run the UK for the same reasons now.  When we maybe post some video in time  you may understand some of the other specific features.  The boat outline is only being posted here for interest really... after all we started by saying this thread was a bit of a teaser ! 



Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 11:33pm
> but that foretriangle looks quite big?
Its sometimes sensible to think of a fine bowed boat as being a more traditional design with a foot added to the bow. The jib looks about right to me. There are all sorts of advantages to having the chute behind the jib. Obvously there are disadvantages too, but especially on a fine bowed boat I think its the preferred arrangement.

> those turning blocks are a long way back.... And cleats?
Absolutely cleats. Beats messing about tucking sheets under stupid bits of elastic upwind, and also handy for light air hoists. I imagine the kite has quite a high clew for better visibility to leeward.


> I guess the sprit is relatively short, not coming behind the mast when retracted?
Don't forget the long J measurement - makes for a longer pole.

> What is the thinking with the jib cleating/fairleads on the deck?
Its better, I'd never go back to the floor arrangements, especialy the sort of over complication on the 400.


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 06 Mar 18 at 11:44pm
I have always wondered why the toestrap fixings need to be prescribed. The Laser is a horribly uncomfortable boat for relative short-arses like me to sail. The Enterprise, a boat I love, used to only allow the toestraps to be fixed to the thwarts. Even the Blaze (which I also love) has the toestrap fixings mandated. The Blaze does allow a reasonable amount of movement but could still be better, my old OK was more or less free regarding toestraps and was the boat that fitted me best in that respect. I do understand that fixing points have to have sufficient strength so certain things are not practical but, for the vertically challenged amongst us, having the option to fit the toestraps where they allow the most efficient and comfortable sitting out position would make a big difference.

-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: zippyRN
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 2:12am
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons

I have always wondered why the toestrap fixings need to be prescribed. The Laser is a horribly uncomfortable boat for relative short-arses like me to sail. The Enterprise, a boat I love, used to only allow the toestraps to be fixed to the thwarts. Even the Blaze (which I also love) has the toestrap fixings mandated. The Blaze does allow a reasonable amount of movement but could still be better, my old OK was more or less free regarding toestraps and was the boat that fitted me best in that respect. I do understand that fixing points have to have sufficient strength so certain things are not practical but, for the vertically challenged amongst us, having the option to fit the toestraps where they allow the most efficient and comfortable sitting out position would make a big difference.

 to prevent Star style 'drop hiking' 


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 9:24am
But it doesn't, AFAIK none of the boats mentioned (or any other to my knowledge) have any limit on how long the toestraps can be. 

-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: mozzy
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 9:53am
 
Originally posted by Cirrus

The bows on this length/type of boat tend to be rather narrow relative to the size of opening that you really need for asymmetric work.   If you place the forestay far enough back to still provide a proper decent sized opening in front of it you lose at least 400-450mm of boat length.  IF it were single-hander with just the main to consider you might well position the forestay behind it or on the 'bar' – of course.  However you might also want a jib of a decent enough size and certainly in proportion to the overall rig.  Crew boats mostly have relatively largish jibs as well .  You could of course have a very small aperture for the spinnaker 'up front' ... it has been done before but that can quickly become the real road to madness, much gnashing of teeth etc and mangled spinnakers.  (mind you great if you supply the sails of course .... Wink  )

Based on experience in other classes we therefore opted for a LARGE opening and to still accomodate a decent sized jib .... key hole surgery may be all well and good in an operating theatre but is not necessarily the right approach on the front end of fastish dinghies - when you MUST raise/drop the sail in a hurry.    Regardless of where you place that aperture 'size' really is important – but it is not something you can compromise on really.

PS - The boom in one of the photos is not carbon (but is in the other ...) - give us a break this is a development boat and we are assessing both !! ... btw -  the boat does not have a single centimetre of 'faux' carbon anywhere yet - I know a terrible 'fail' on our part... However if it helps the builder sell more I am fully prepared to rapidly change my opinion on the sticky patterned fablon stuff ! ....


I can't say I ever found having a throat behind the jib a difficulty in the 29er, 49er or 200. It becomes second nature to make sure you did a low set on port gybe.  Starboard to port gybe drops time it so the kite is coming down before it's blown through, so it falls on the foredeck. Then on port to starboard gybe drops try and let it blow through first.
 
The 800 has the throat in front of the jib, and to do so they've effectively had to extend the boat by 30 cm, not move the jib back as cirrus notes, so the jib stays the same size and sail plan stays balanced relative to the foils. 

For the 800 I don't think this is so much about making port hoists and gybe drops easier as it is about making the skiff easier to sail. The longer bow gives you a bit more buoyancy in the bear away, and it also means you can have a longer pole, which lifts the front of the boat embarrassingly high (safe) downwind. The overall balance of the boat isn't affected much either, as most of that comes by the placement of the rig relative to the foils, as waterline length isn't relevant once planning.  So all in all, a pretty good design feature if you're aiming to make a 49er for pussies! 

The boat pictured doesn't look like it has a big enough rig to make pitchpoling a major issue, so having the throat behind the jib seems sensible. 

Regarding the alloy boom: In a SMOD I see no reason to go carbon. Unlike a mast you can make it plenty stiff by increasing diameter.  It doesn't need variable bend characteristics over it's length, so why waste money on making it out of carbon? I'd expect you could save more weight elsewhere for the similar money to a carbon boom. 


-------------
https://www.youtube.com/user/656mozzy/" rel="nofollow - YouTube Channel
RS200 1382
RS800 1144


Posted By: PeterG
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 9:56am
Regarding the alloy boom: In a SMOD I see no reason to go carbon. Unlike a mast you can make it plenty stiff by increasing diameter.  It doesn't need variable bend characteristics over it's length, so why waste money on making it out of carbon? 

It hurts less when you get your head in the way!


-------------
Peter
Ex Cont 707
Laser 189635
DY 59


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:00am
Thumbs Up

-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:07am
Originally posted by mozzy


  So all in all, a pretty good design feature if you're aiming to make a 49er for pussies!


Isn't it a crying shame though, that the world may have thought that way some time back, when the reality is the 800 is a superb boat and the 49er a design disaster.I think an 800 broke the round Sheppey record one year, something 49er couldn't begin to even think about.

Obviously my jibe was aimed at nealg (he sails at my club) and in all honesty I think the s800 is one of the good guys boat wise. Whereas my views on most stuff that comes off the drawing board of that antipodean halfwit is already a matter of record and feel that immense damage was occasioned to this sport during what could have been a critical growth period, with basically anything ending in 9er

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: mozzy
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:15am
Originally posted by PeterG

Regarding the alloy boom: In a SMOD I see no reason to go carbon. Unlike a mast you can make it plenty stiff by increasing diameter.  It doesn't need variable bend characteristics over it's length, so why waste money on making it out of carbon? 

It hurts less when you get your head in the way!

Really? A heavier boom may carry more momentum, but a lighter boom will accelerate to faster speed. The total amount of energy in the impact will be the same, and that comes from the sail. 

A alloy boom can be pretty light, even compared to a carbon one once you extend out the diameter. Extending out the diameter will also make it a significantly more blunt object, which I would think would have more effect on the damage should it hit you on your head. 


-------------
https://www.youtube.com/user/656mozzy/" rel="nofollow - YouTube Channel
RS200 1382
RS800 1144


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:27am


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:31am
Originally posted by mozzy

Originally posted by PeterG

Regarding the alloy boom: In a SMOD I see no reason to go carbon. Unlike a mast you can make it plenty stiff by increasing diameter.  It doesn't need variable bend characteristics over it's length, so why waste money on making it out of carbon? 

It hurts less when you get your head in the way!

Really? A heavier boom may carry more momentum, but a lighter boom will accelerate to faster speed. The total amount of energy in the impact will be the same, and that comes from the sail. 

A alloy boom can be pretty light, even compared to a carbon one once you extend out the diameter. Extending out the diameter will also make it a significantly more blunt object, which I would think would have more effect on the damage should it hit you on your head. 

I note the more developed prototype seems to have a nice carbon boom and GNAV. Makes sense to me.


Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:32am
Originally posted by mozzy

Originally posted by PeterG

Regarding the alloy boom: In a SMOD I see no reason to go carbon. Unlike a mast you can make it plenty stiff by increasing diameter.  It doesn't need variable bend characteristics over it's length, so why waste money on making it out of carbon? 

It hurts less when you get your head in the way!

Really? A heavier boom may carry more momentum, but a lighter boom will accelerate to faster speed. The total amount of energy in the impact will be the same, and that comes from the sail. 

A alloy boom can be pretty light, even compared to a carbon one once you extend out the diameter. Extending out the diameter will also make it a significantly more blunt object, which I would think would have more effect on the damage should it hit you on your head. 

Having been smacked square in the face by both types of boom I can assure you a carbon boom doesnt hurt anywhere near as much as an ali boom. I barely felt the carbon boom, the ali boom gave me concussion for 3 days.


-------------
Paul
---------------------------
D-Zero GBR188
Ex Rooster 8.1 '11'
Ex Laser 167534
Ex Blaze 655


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:34am
What stops the moving pole munching the kite into the tube?
When your kite is as old as mine, it sticks to things.....


Posted By: mozzy
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:38am
Originally posted by jeffers

Having been smacked square in the face by both types of boom I can assure you a carbon boom doesnt hurt anywhere near as much as an ali boom. I barely felt the carbon boom, the ali boom gave me concussion for 3 days.

I'll defer to your great knowledge of being smacked in the face by a boom! LOL


-------------
https://www.youtube.com/user/656mozzy/" rel="nofollow - YouTube Channel
RS200 1382
RS800 1144


Posted By: H2
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:39am
Having been whacked in the head by both metal and carbon booms - alot - I know which one I prefer and it aint metal


Posted By: mozzy
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:48am
Originally posted by H2

Having been whacked in the head by both metal and carbon booms - alot - I know which one I prefer and it aint metal

LOL bloody hell you lot! Is being hit in the head really a genuine issue when choosing materials for boom?!

You need helmets. Or padded booms! 


-------------
https://www.youtube.com/user/656mozzy/" rel="nofollow - YouTube Channel
RS200 1382
RS800 1144


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 10:55am
Don't get too excited by the alloy boom ... production boats would almost certainly have a carbon one as default.  The test being run was actually to compare/contrast the boat with a GNAV first and then conventional kicker - they don't run on the same booms of course and we just had a spare alloy tube lying around for the 'conventional' testing.  Both work fine.  Both could also be an option but I suspect the overseas market involved will simply opt for a standard GNAV - I'd prefer conventional myself, there is plenty of room for the crew work anyway, it does not disturb the mainsail setting as much, is less complex, lighter and of course cheaper.

BTW Jim has identified some of the features and considerations rather accurately.  The spinnaker is cut with a high clew to aid visibility - hence the first block each side being further back than otherwise ...  The pole also exits at an upward angle off the bow for the same reason (and if you look carefully you will see it largely sits in a recessed guiding channel under the foredeck to get a decent angle).  The deck mounted jib cleats are there to keep them out of the way really (off the floor) although in a production version they will be partially recessed in the edge of the deck - not mounted on the surface as in the photos.

The 'white’ sails (main/jib) are smaller than their Icon equivalents as this boat carries that 3rd sail - and the boom is higher on the mast which is itself slightly shorter.  The concept is to maintain an easy to manage boat that gets its pace from a very low resistance hull and relative lightness and that can be used across the wind range.  It points impressively high and the helm balance is great already so the basics are right for sure .. but we are still working on all the important details that remain.    The spinnaker in particular will get a lot of attention very soon so when we do screw it up, as we will, at Burghfield in the next few months expect to see a few photos of the bright yellow thing here.   We will also be asking a few outside the project to give it a go ... you don’t want to end up believing too much of your own propaganda in this game.

What stops the moving pole munching the kite into the tube? 
The spinnaker is stored/gathered within a generous sock - the pole is underneath the sock and is anyway channeled in a  recess.



Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 11:07am
My question about the jib fairlead positions was really curiosity about whether it makes it hard to get the vertical sheet angle right? Do you just deal with that by moving the tack up/down?
I quite like the idea of the cleats being in front of the crew rather than astern as per the 400.

Bit curious about the big lump of shiny at the back of the chute?
Surely that could be lighter and cheaper in GRP?
Or do we need a bit of chrome for some markets?  :-)


Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 11:08am
Originally posted by mozzy

Originally posted by H2

Having been whacked in the head by both metal and carbon booms - alot - I know which one I prefer and it aint metal

LOL bloody hell you lot! Is being hit in the head really a genuine issue when choosing materials for boom?!

You need helmets. Or padded booms! 

Neither IMO

both were unexpected gybes so the boom came across very quickly (one was running by the lee in a Laser).


-------------
Paul
---------------------------
D-Zero GBR188
Ex Rooster 8.1 '11'
Ex Laser 167534
Ex Blaze 655


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 11:14am
After several iterations this was my preferred Cherub layout. Track on the front bulkhead so fastenings are in shear, cam cleat on the track for height adjustment on the barber hauler, just pin stops on the track for slot width. ISTR I drilled a couple of extra ones in the critical area.


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 11:15am
Bit curious about the big lump of shiny at the back of the chute?  Surely that could be lighter and cheaper in GRP? Or do we need a bit of chrome for some markets?  :-)

Lightweight stainless ... always 'slippery' and not prone to damage from lines.  There for good technical reasons - although it does look rather good as well !  


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 11:22am
Yeah, the stainless is a good call on a production boat. A laminate will end up grooved and goodness knows what else. If there was space I'd prefer a large diameter alloy tube, but I strongly suspect there wasn't. Also rather more expensive to fabricate curved I imagine. I ended up with a layer of kevlar mixed with graphite filler, which lasts, but is not aesthetic.


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 9:38pm
Racing in IRC Events 'Big Brother'


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 07 Mar 18 at 11:29pm
Originally posted by mozzy

Originally posted by PeterG

Regarding the alloy boom: In a SMOD I see no reason to go carbon. Unlike a mast you can make it plenty stiff by increasing diameter.  It doesn't need variable bend characteristics over it's length, so why waste money on making it out of carbon? 

It hurts less when you get your head in the way!

Really? A heavier boom may carry more momentum, but a lighter boom will accelerate to faster speed. The total amount of energy in the impact will be the same, and that comes from the sail. 

A alloy boom can be pretty light, even compared to a carbon one once you extend out the diameter. Extending out the diameter will also make it a significantly more blunt object, which I would think would have more effect on the damage should it hit you on your head. 

That would be true if the boom was the only element being accelerated but it is attached to the mainsail which generates the acceleration. I suspect with either a carbon or ally boom the resulting terminal velocity in a gybe (or tack) will be related to the sail with the boom having a very minor effect, but when it makes contact with your noggin it's, to all intents and purposes, floating around loose so the one with least mass hurts less......


-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: maxibuddah
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 7:00am
I've been hit by a round carbon boom, a round ali boom and an ali Finn boom, and they hurt the least to worst in that order. Im thinking it doesn't matter how fast they go but how easy it is to deflect their current trajectory when they hit. Those with the least mass are probably going to deflect the easiest. Oh and round is obviously better than square

-------------
Everything I say is my opinion, honest


Posted By: mozzy
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 10:40am
Do booms 'float loose'? The kicker will stop it deflecting up. The energy and force comes from the sail, so I can't see the weight of either carbon or alloy having any effect. You have the weight and momentum of the sail and the air which would surely make the weight of boom less significant. I can imagine a round and larger diameter would hurt much less. 

Obviously, there seems to be a consensus that carbon booms hurt less, but you all admit suffering many blows to the head too... so... Ermm

I am genuinely surprised that people consider how much it hurts when selecting materials for a boom! Maybe consider shape in a training boat, but this is a racer! Carbon or alloy, both are pretty bloody hard. If you're getting hit regularly enough for it to be an issue wear a helmet or put padding on the boom. 

Anyway, sounds like they're going with a carbon boom... I guess it will fatigue less and avoid some corrosion issues so the outlay may be worth it over time. But i'd take a SMOD that was £500 quid cheaper over one with a carbon boom, or one that had £500 better mast, or £500 better sails, that's all. 


-------------
https://www.youtube.com/user/656mozzy/" rel="nofollow - YouTube Channel
RS200 1382
RS800 1144


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 11:05am
Carbon (ie light) booms are better for many reasons. 

But on the one issue of  its effect on contact (with head or whatever) try to imagine it being made not of carbon or of alloy but let's say steel, nice heavy gauge industrial steel ....   who still wants to suggest that mass/weight makes no difference ?   .... on your head be it !

It might initally be slow to get moving in a gybe because it has to be accelerated but once it gets going just keep out of its way !  This is of  course only a mind experiment - so just make sure you don't place your head in its way in some sort of real but totally bonkers practical experiment.




Posted By: Old Timer
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 11:10am
Looks nice; carbon boom is defiantly superior for a whole range of reasons including being bashed about the skull.

I would have tried to juggle the jib and chute mouth to put the chute ahead of the jib tack but too late for that now...

Good luck; who is building it?


Posted By: mozzy
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 11:18am
Originally posted by Cirrus

This is of  course only a mind experiment - so just make sure you don't place your head in its way in some sort of real but totally bonkers practical experiment.
Me this weekend: [TUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxdd4q90B0E[/TUBE]


-------------
https://www.youtube.com/user/656mozzy/" rel="nofollow - YouTube Channel
RS200 1382
RS800 1144


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 11:37am
Good to see they're sensible with kids and helmets even if the rest of the world is more concerned with buoyancy vests than something that is more likely to do you permanent damage and clearly has, I wonder just how much boom induced head injury plays a part in PYAG decision making.

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 11:43am

I would have tried to juggle the jib and chute mouth to put the chute ahead of the jib tack but too late for that now...

Old Timer / Mike ... See previous/earlier discussion on the reasons - on balance it is much better to have an easy (much larger) opening behind the jib than a smaller one in front.  We also wanted the pole to exit upwards at an angle - this means it exits the hull just where you might otherwise have wanted to put the chute opening.  (I rather like to see where we are going !!)




Posted By: Old Timer
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 11:57am
I would have moved the jib tack to behind on that stainless bar ... raised the foredeck a bit to increase the mouth area .... but you have made you choice and I am sure you are happy with that ...

I doubt there will be any fleet racing so easy of use would have been my priority.


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 12:49pm
You might wish to consider why the kite equipped Int Canoes universally have the kite chute behind the jib even though their jibs are well set back from the bow. There are are always pros and cons to every arrangement, but for whatever my experience is worth I would not consider having a chute in front of the forestay on that boat.


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 2:03pm

Old Timer ....

Each to their own ... but the specification called for a LARGE opening in any event.  Several of those influencing the design have 'fought' with keyhole ones in previous classes.  Compromised chute aperture sizing frankly really is the worst of all worlds wherever the chute goes.. in our opinion at least.  I'm sure the spinnaker equipped canoes need ease of operation even more than we do in a crew boat and like  this boat their bows do not permit a large opening right on the bow wherever you put the forestay !  This boat is all about efficiency and therefore only needs moderate sized sails.. one of our key objectives btw.  Sure we could have made the hull half a metre longer - but but then more weight etc etc and then larger sails required and that includes the spinnaker. 

If you look back a couple of pages there is a pic of a Viper sportsboat - all 23' of it plus bowsprit.  It has a large spinnaker and consequently a large chute ... and it is still sat behind the forestay.   Size might not be everything - but so is position ... Wink

Oh ... we did forget to say earleir the boat is known as ‘Venom’... (work it out ...)



Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 2:30pm
Such bollox trying to justify dragging your kite around the forestay time and again when a simple system stops all that.

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: fab100
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by Cirrus

I would have tried to juggle the jib and chute mouth to put the chute ahead of the jib tack but too late for that now...

Old Timer / Mike ... See previous/earlier discussion on the reasons - on balance it is much better to have an easy (much larger) opening behind the jib than a smaller one in front.  We also wanted the pole to exit upwards at an angle - this means it exits the hull just where you might otherwise have wanted to put the chute opening.  (I rather like to see where we are going !!)



I am not sure that spinny is going to set so well on port with neither sheet in front of the forestay


-------------
http://clubsailor.co.uk/wp/club-sailor-from-back-to-front/" rel="nofollow - Great new book for Club Sailors here


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 5:30pm
I am not sure that spinny is going to set so well on port with neither sheet in front of the forestay...

Of course 100 ... But with no spinnaker in the sock it will not set either side really !!   ... and all lines are simply tied off anywhere to hand.  Big smile

GRFi ... It is not like Venom was developed for you really.   Those who have forsaken the spinnaker thing (for reasons still unknown ?)  don't really get a say here ....  Stick to hanging around a while on that spare rigging dangling off the mast on your new ride (nothing there that 2' on hull length would not solve btw - just saying) ... LOL


Posted By: Riv
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 5:41pm
I've never liked dragging expensive, carefully crafted spinnakers through holes in any deck in any position and nor do I like bags.

Just came across a video of a Weta beating an FD around a course so it must be quite fast and it has a Screecher which stays up all the time and does seem to work well. So apart from drag and weight in the wrong place (doesn't seem to hurt the Weta) why don't asymetric boats use a furler instead of a chute? Is the performance loss so massive or is it now traditional?



-------------
Now proud owner of Mistral Div II prototype board


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 5:58pm
Originally posted by JimC

You might wish to consider why the kite equipped Int Canoes universally have the kite chute behind the jib even though their jibs are well set back from the bow. There are are always pros and cons to every arrangement, but for whatever my experience is worth I would not consider having a chute in front of the forestay on that boat.

I don't think the canoe is relevant.
They have very narrow bows, where it's also very wet.
It's notable that their forestays are set well back from the bow.
The kind of racing they are optimised for is probably quite different from the kind of club racing where a chute in front  of the stay scores because we tend to hoist and drop on both tacks.


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 7:05pm
    where a chute in front  of the stay scores because we tend to hoist and drop on both tacks.

So do we ... but it is dead easy both sides if the chute itself is of decent size - honestly !  Biggest problem by a country mile is up/down resistance - always was and nothing has changed recently.  Big hole + big sock - QED  otherwise why on earth would we do it ?  (and it does not knacker the sail constantly ...)

It's not ever going to be an issue for you and GRFi though is it  .... Wink  



Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 08 Mar 18 at 9:49pm
Can't really see the problem, bigger chute seems to make sense, though I'm sure a nosedive will flood the boat just as easily as a small chute forwards of the forestay. Such is sailing.

Furling a flat cut kite then dropping it like a sausage seemed to work on big cats, but no idea if it is a goer on a dinghy. The flat cut for one would limit things on a medium speed boat.

-------------
Firefly 2324, Lightning 130, Puffin 229, Topper 44496, Minisail 3131, Minisail 3446


Posted By: Old Timer
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 9:50am
Originally posted by Cirrus

   
It's not ever going to be an issue for you and GRFi though is it  .... Wink  


Why even start this thread if you are going to get snippy about comments ... 


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 10:33am
Originally posted by Cirrus


   
It's not ever going to be an issue for you and GRFi though is it  .... Wink  




Well if it ever was again I've already designed a fully functioning solution with swinging pole which worked really well.

https://flic.kr/p/ALchPT" rel="nofollow"> https://flic.kr/p/ALchPT" rel="nofollow -

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 11:29am
Originally posted by Cirrus

  ....
It's not ever going to be an issue for you and GRFi though is it  .... Wink  


If that was directed at me, my only issue is to understand a little more about design influences on boats.  I doubt I'll be in the market for another dinghy by the time any improvement on the RS400 (in its niche) hits the UK market. Which is a shame, as I fancy something basically of the same concept but updated and seriously lighter.
The chute mouth of the 400 ought to be bigger. The system on the RS800 seems pretty good to me, albeit lacking the foredeck to provide an endplate effect on the jib. Considering these and other issues, I'd like to understand more about the possibilities of different main:jib ratios. Looking partculary at certain Merlins.....

Of course, this is a product intended for a completely different market. Where the 400 has barely been heard of.


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 12:52pm
No need for anyone to be offended and that is never the intention ... this is a relatively civilised but still necessarily robust forum on occasion.  There are usually more ways to do stuff than just one in most things.  This works both ways.  Anyone else may have followed a very different decision path to you - or us.   

Blimey it is still fairly probable the 3-sail version may never even become available in this country.   But at least I/we do get to enjoy the boat for a while yet.... Big smile  

(PS - So do you want to know why we did not go for a swinging pole next ?  Apart from GRF's picture that is .... )


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 1:04pm
Originally posted by Cirrus

(PS - So do you want to know why we did not go for a swinging pole next ? 

Ultimately its a solution looking for a problem.


Posted By: turnturtle
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 1:50pm
Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by Cirrus

(PS - So do you want to know why we did not go for a swinging pole next ? 

Ultimately its a solution looking for a problem.


And a blessed layer on complexity to an otherwise simpler approach to larger downwind sail area


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 2:10pm
Swinging pole does have its uses, but the RS400 type is perhaps not going to swing far enough to be worthwhile if the bow is finer?
Perhaps also, you wanted the racing to be about gybing rather than running deep?
Because at the end of the day, the nature of the game is to design a boat (and/or a pack of rules) which give the best all-round racing for the target buyers, not to make the boat as fast as possible on every point of sail. You could obviously make it go faster at times by adding a trapeze and/or a raking rig.
A lot depends whether you are looking for a boat to do w/l, triangle or those lake courses where the race officer sets a series of marks using a 12-sided die (and then the wind shifts 40 degrees).

 I think a point people sometimes miss about the 400's swinging pole is that it operates with a standard issue SMOD kite. It extends the compromise of the kite to cover tighter reaches by having a fairly flat kite and wanging it to go a bit deeper. On a boat of similar power:weight with open choice of sails, we'd be finding that the best kite for club racing with lots of random reaches might be very different from the best kite for w/l courses. Even assuming people will use one kite for all wind speeds.

Or maybe Mr Morrison has a patent on the wing-wang system and the other systems are too complex/fragile/heavy?


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 2:24pm
Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by Cirrus

(PS - So do you want to know why we did not go for a swinging pole next ? 

Ultimately its a solution looking for a problem.


Problems like being beaten by slower boats with symmetric kites in sub planing conditions?
(RS200 v L3K)
(470 v RS500)
(Merlin v Alto/RS400)
(Hornet v Alto/RS400)

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 2:26pm
Symetrical kites are underrated, offer far more venue options for a boat of this type.

-------------
Somewhere between lies and truth lies the truth


Posted By: Old Timer
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 2:41pm
Swing pole is only useful if you care about your VMG on an under canvased assy ...

For a fun boat why make life more complicated.


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 2:47pm
Originally posted by davidyacht

Symetrical kites are underrated, offer far more venue options for a boat of this type.

While I see plenty of merit in symetrical kites, a boat equipped with one would not be 'of this type'.
Do we need all these venue options? I'm quite happy to have a boat that is OK for fairly open water.
If I want to cross oceans or sail on a narrow river, then clearly a different boat will be best.
Why should the options of those who do proper sailing on the sea be limited by other people who want to sail on rivers and small bits of damp wasteland?


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by iGRF


Problems like being beaten by slower boats with symmetric kites in sub planing conditions?
(RS200 v L3K)

Unless I'm much mistaken both these have assys did you mean RS200 v L2?)


-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 3:00pm
Originally posted by Old Timer

Swing pole is only useful if you care about your VMG on an under canvased assy ...

For a fun boat why make life more complicated.

You're probably just trolling, but...
If you don't care about your VMG, you just end up hoovering from side to side and not making progress towards the mark.
I only sail for fun, but failing to get where you want to go is not fun, particulary when other classes then overtake.
The complication is two cleats and a few blocks. One release and one pull in a gybe.

Whether you consider boats like the 400 (and 4k) undercanvassed depends whether you are looking for w/l or RTC. The properly canvassed 59er was not a success.
For even more versatility, a symetric kite suits many people, but that will be even less canvas and less top speed.

All boats are compromises, there is a limited market for one-trick ponies, as many vendors keep  proving, but OTOH, trying to please everyone won't work either.


Posted By: Old Timer
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 3:36pm
Originally posted by RS400atC

Originally posted by Old Timer

Swing pole is only useful if you care about your VMG on an under canvased assy ...

For a fun boat why make life more complicated.

You're probably just trolling, but...
If you don't care about your VMG, you just end up hoovering from side to side and not making progress towards the mark.
I only sail for fun, but failing to get where you want to go is not fun, particulary when other classes then overtake.
The complication is two cleats and a few blocks. One release and one pull in a gybe.

Whether you consider boats like the 400 (and 4k) undercanvassed depends whether you are looking for w/l or RTC. The properly canvassed 59er was not a success.
For even more versatility, a symetric kite suits many people, but that will be even less canvas and less top speed.

All boats are compromises, there is a limited market for one-trick ponies, as many vendors keep  proving, but OTOH, trying to please everyone won't work either.

What I meant was that if you are out for non-racing fun you dont care about VMG so why have a more complex set up.

I have seen loads of people trying to haul down the 400 kite only to realise they have forgotten to uncleat the pole swinger ...

Assys were invented for boats that sailed on apparent to get down wind; then they were cobbled onto slower boats that did not achieve apparent in all but high winds so systems need to be invented to address that; i many cases a sym kite is superior but an assy avoids all the messing about with poles.


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 4:20pm
Old Timer .....

Your points are valid about the validity of asymetrics on slower boats - of course and I totally agree.  However this hull can take EITHER the 2-sail Icon rig OR the 3-sail Venom one .... It is a common hull for two boats.  So if you are in a market where both versions are supplied then you could make that choice based on where your sail and what and how you want to sail.    My view is that this avoids all the complexity, weight, and cost plus handling compromises inherent with the wing/wang approach.  It is very difficult indeed to be all things to all people or for one rig approach to not end up partly or wholly compromised.    If I wanted, unlikely though that is, to take a 3 sail asymetric boat down a river on a rare occasion I might simply goosewing a la early 200 style even.  If I was doing it every week I'd go for a symetrical spinnaker class or even 2-sail version of this boat or similar craft (ie Icon rig in UK).  

Only my take on the issue raised of course.  


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 5:00pm
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons


Originally posted by iGRF

Problems like being beaten by slower boats with symmetric kites in sub planing conditions?
(RS200 v L3K)

Unless I'm much mistaken both these have assys did you mean RS200 v L2?)


No your right I'm remembering an incident very early in my sailing career of being unreasonably wound in by a 200 sailing ridulously low, then they are not really 'proper' assys are they? hence all the shenanigans forbidding goose winging the kite.

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 5:15pm
Originally posted by Old Timer

.....

What I meant was that if you are out for non-racing fun you dont care about VMG so why have a more complex set up.

I have seen loads of people trying to haul down the 400 kite only to realise they have forgotten to uncleat the pole swinger ...

Assys were invented for boats that sailed on apparent to get down wind; then they were cobbled onto slower boats that did not achieve apparent in all but high winds so systems need to be invented to address that; i many cases a sym kite is superior but an assy avoids all the messing about with poles.

I don't think people buying new boats of this genre for 'non racing fun' amounts to much of a market.
I guess the beach holiday operators might like a boat that was fun to reach across the bay repeatedly without making much progress downwind.
Fair comment about the releasing the wing wang. Maybe some genius will invent one which releases when you release the halyard and tack line.

As for the idea that asy's only work on very high power boats, the list of non-trapeze, non asy boats under 15ft with a py under 1000 would be limited to the Merlin, the Moth and some catamarans?
Show me a boat vaguely comparable to the 400 in size, weight and righting moment which goes as fast on average as a 400?
The various asy two handers with four figure PYs may be considered dogs/bandits/'just for kids to learn on'. Or some combination thereof.

People sometimes forget that the asymetric, is exactly that, it does not have to have the same camber on the leach as the luff. So it can be a more efficient reaching sail and we can carry more of it, more effectively. It's not just bigger and simpler.



Posted By: Old Timer
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 5:52pm
Originally posted by RS400atC


I don't think people buying new boats of this genre for 'non racing fun' amounts to much of a market.


I hope for Cirrus sake there is because fleet racing in dinghies in the good old US of A does not exist so I guess they hope to sell to schools, colleges and holiday clubs.

I think your defence of the 400 is misplaced/unnecessary; by not being a fan of the swing pole assy does not mean there is no recognition of the fact the 400 seems to be in reasonable health.

The fleet is a long way short of its heyday 20ish  years ago when it could turn out 100+ boats at a nationals but it seems it can still turn out reasonable fleets. 

I don't think this boat has any intention to try an compete with a 400.


Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 6:16pm
Originally posted by RS400atC

Originally posted by davidyacht

Symetrical kites are underrated, offer far more venue options for a boat of this type.

While I see plenty of merit in symetrical kites, a boat equipped with one would not be 'of this type'.
Do we need all these venue options? I'm quite happy to have a boat that is OK for fairly open water.
If I want to cross oceans or sail on a narrow river, then clearly a different boat will be best.
Why should the options of those who do proper sailing on the sea be limited by other people who want to sail on rivers and small bits of damp wasteland?
Having been one of the pioneering assymetric I14 sailors, and having sailed RS400s and RS200s around their inception it always struck me that their power to weight ratios missed the point if not the joy of soaking down and apparent wind sailing.  

To be fair to the RS200 and the RS400, these are well engineered and marketed boats, which have done much to keep dinghy sailors engaged with the sport, but I do think that symmetrical kites, particularly when combined with twin poles are a good solution.

The base of the pyramid of sailing waters was much stronger when there were thriving clubs on every River reach and gravel pit, sadly the development of many of the RS, ISO and Laser products, which jumped on the assymetric bandwagon, were unsuitable for the heartlands of dinghy sailing.

Having said all that, ICON 2 looks quite nice, and if it is light enough might be a better ride than a 400, not that we will ever find out!


-------------
Somewhere between lies and truth lies the truth


Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 6:48pm
The "of this type" comment is interesting. If the type is "3 sailed sitting out dinghy", then this boat is in there with Merlins, Larks, the 400, 2000 and all sorts of other things. Even the Mirror. We know from posts on here how varied a selection of boats people consider.

-------------
Firefly 2324, Lightning 130, Puffin 229, Topper 44496, Minisail 3131, Minisail 3446


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 7:02pm
Originally posted by Old Timer

Originally posted by RS400atC


I don't think people buying new boats of this genre for 'non racing fun' amounts to much of a market.


I hope for Cirrus sake there is because fleet racing in dinghies in the good old US of A does not exist so I guess they hope to sell to schools, colleges and holiday clubs.

I think your defence of the 400 is misplaced/unnecessary; by not being a fan of the swing pole assy does not mean there is no recognition of the fact the 400 seems to be in reasonable health.

The fleet is a long way short of its heyday 20ish  years ago when it could turn out 100+ boats at a nationals but it seems it can still turn out reasonable fleets. 

I don't think this boat has any intention to try an compete with a 400.

The 400 is just the obvious comparison.
Somebody ought to be trying to compete with it, it's been around quite a long time, surely we can improve on something designed that long ago?
I imagine the schools and colleges you speak of will be racing these boats?


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 7:18pm
As iGRF has said on several occasions about various boats, losing 30 or 40 kg's would make the 400 a better boat in many ways. It would be livelier, quicker to plane, more exciting to sail but also less stable and requiring of a higher skill level. It would also be more expensive and/or more fragile.



-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: iGRF
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 7:29pm
It would also be a damned site easier to launch and recover, I know of at least one complete crew thinking this might be the last season of hauling the great fat arse that s an RS400 across the beach.. RS need to take an Aero blowtorch to it.

-------------
https://www.corekite.co.uk/snow-accessories-11-c.asp" rel="nofollow - Snow Equipment Deals      https://www.corekite.co.uk" rel="nofollow - New Core Kite website


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 9:33pm
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons

As iGRF has said on several occasions about various boats, losing 30 or 40 kg's would make the 400 a better boat in many ways. It would be livelier, quicker to plane, more exciting to sail but also less stable and requiring of a higher skill level. It would also be more expensive and/or more fragile.


You can get a 36ft open water carbon kevlar rowing gig cheaper than an RS400 hull.
But I'm not talking about making the 400 a better boat. The 400 is the 400 end of.
I'm talking about making a better boat that fulfils a similar role.
You don't design a car today by tweaking a Rover 25.


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 9:46pm
Maybe not a Rover 25 but a Healey 3000 built with carbon fibre and modern running gear, brakes and engine; 250 BHP and weighing 900kg would be wonderful......

-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 09 Mar 18 at 9:47pm
But I get where you're coming from, the RS400 is what it is and is successful because of that Change it and it's something different (like a modern Supernova)........

-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"


Posted By: Cirrus
Date Posted: 10 Mar 18 at 12:41am
Look we only revealed a few details for interest since it was developed here in the UK ... Don't take what we are doing with Venom so seriously guys. 

This thread is in Y&Y 'dinghy development' category thread and since we are now doing the final bit openly and at a regular SC it seemed logical just to be a bit more open about it.  If you like what we are doing or are just curious / interested fine .. if not don't get too up tight about it.   You may never get to sail one or even against one ... but depending on exactly where you are, you never know one day, you just might .... .  Wink 


Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 10 Mar 18 at 6:53am
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons

But I get where you're coming from, the RS400 is what it is and is successful because of that Change it and it's something different (like a modern Supernova)........
More Vauxhall Nova if you're not careful.
Maybe even with some fake carbon like a chav bonnet wrap?



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com