Chad,there are a lot of incredible developments taking place in full size sailing that could have relevance to rc sailing now or in the future. It is my understanding that the Pub affords a place for some discussion of those topics. Am I right or am I wrong?
Guidance in this area would be much appreciated…
–High Technology Sailing/Racing
Just my two cents, but there are lots of places to discuss developments in big boats, very few to discuss r/c sailing.
If a “full scale boat” development is being applied to r/c sailing, that’s when it should be discussed here. Otherwise, lets keep it about r/c.
If people are really desperate for information on full scale boat technology, post links to sites like Sailing Anarchy or Scuttlebut.
The nature of the pub is/was to resemble that of a regular pub after a regatta or a day on the lake. Now most of the time it has been my experience that many people talk about how the race went, how their boat sailed, and what could be improved…etc. But not nesscarily limited to just sailing or rcsailing.
ok heres the Idea…
The pub was kinda suppose to be like the General discussion forum but not as strict. It was to have the ability to go off topic sometimes or “just shoot the breeze”
Maybe even bring up some unapparent ideas
Hope that kinda helped clear it up.
My understanding of your answer ,Chad, would be that if the big boat topic was felt to be potentially important to the rc world or considered by the poster to be so interesting that it might come up in a discussion that you mention then it is ok. I will act on that basis…
–High Technology Sailing/Racing
Big boat topics like: proa, hula, catamaran, trimaran, canting/rotating keels, movable ballast etc are hardly applicable to rc. Thus, only radio control matters should be valid here. We must apply a strict validation plan.
i disagree here, but within reason. most of what applies to the big boats. does not apply to rc. but the same principals apply. nobody had tought of wings on a keel , untill ben lexen did it on australia II. no that idea worked on rc boats, the ribblets on satrs and stripes 87 did not work. so we have to watch what we say with regard to big boats. you cannot say for sure it will work. but we could discuss the possiblities.
I agree with you cougar. I think the main problem with using most of the ideas/developments from big boats is that once scaled down or reduced to fit r/c sailing the advantage becomes irrelevant.
Whaletail rudders work, but I can’t remember seeing foils on rudders on full size multi’s. There are others that I can think of, but I don’t want to go “off topic” that far.
Just one point on the winged keel. Are you aware that Bob Miller was playing with winglets on 18 foot skiffs way back in the 60’s?
i knew that peter
i am a big fan , AND i also know his real name was bob miller( rip) he was a great guy. but when he was palying with wings on his 18 footer. they were to create a lifting force. on the austrailia II boat. he was trying to put as much wieght as possible as low as possible. thus the appedanges that got called wings. i dont think they realy create any lift at all? but the boat was so stable. you can see how the appendages have now turn into the bulb designs that we now have, in the iacc boats
love live the cup
I still beleive that Australia 2 was a fluke. The reason I say this is that after the cup he designed a boat that had a winged keel called madame defarge that was a flop. The owner eventually took the wings off and fitted a normal fin keel and the boat performed somewhat better.
I think it came down to the depth of the keel on Australia 2 was just right for the wings to work, and that is the reason why wings worked well on America’s cup boats but not so well on other designs.
you may be right in thinking australia II was a fluke. but somehow i dont think so. the wings that ARE on it. the boat is in the museum still has the wings. but to get back to the topic. the wings are still on IACC boats now. are more in fact a more improve version of them. each bulb has winglets. why is this.simple to stop the flow of water down the fin. and directed it back. if you can use a litlle bit of imagination. look at the hull of liberty minus the keel. and the hull of ausssie 11, minus the keel. they look simular. but now look at the under keels. liberty has the conventional. but aussi II has a short "fin type of keel and a very crude bulb, the wings do act like a crude bulb. and the short stub , that was the keel could be taken as a fin
Ben Lexcen(Bob Miller) is a hero of mine and is the SOLE inventer of the winged keel; his briliant solution along with the vertical cut sails and crew teamwork used on Australia II resulted in the US losing the Cup after 140 years! His legacy went forward on EVERY CUP BOAT after 83 and continues to this day on IACC boats. His concept, though much refined is even being used on new state of the art canting keel boats and my own kFOIL was inspired by his work and is the first use of pivotably retracted wings.
His legacy further extends to countless cruising boats that use the winged keel concept to allow shallow draft with a low ballast CG.
One of the great travesties of modern times is that he has not been inducted to the America’s Cup hall of Fame!
A man of historic stature that I greatly admire and respect!
–High Technology Sailing/Racing
I agree with lorsail!
Ben Lexcen’s innovations are impressive. But every designer is depending on equally impressive sailors in the America’s Cup. In case of Austraila III and IV Ben Lexcen had installed a front rudder or cajard keel. Beashel couldn’t master the skills of resigning Bertrand. Guilmore parhaps could, and the defender bacame Kokaburra. Kokaburra was the design counterpart to Stars and Stripes. “So somewone must have been wrong”, as one could read in Yachting World. The Kokaburra chief designer afterwards said something about bad correlations of the towing-test vs real scale. Having designed a number of fast 18-footers and dinghy-like IOR racers he was quite famous in Astralia, and still is. Do we remember the designer’s name?
The guy you are thinking of is Iain Murray.
Iain was principal helmsman on Kookaburra with Gilly as starting helm.
West Australian John Swarbrick was principal designer for the team with input from Iain Murray & Ian Burns if i can remember.
Col Beashel was/still is every bit the sailor of Bertrand. It was Colin that took the helm of Aus II when Bertrand broke the start in race2/3? , having a huge melt down to get the aussies back in a winning position.
Aus IV was a dog unfortunately for Colin & his team.
Beasho didn’t take the helm in the broken start, but he did put a rocket up Bertrand backside and got him back on track. It was race 5 he broke the start in.
As for my comments relating to Australia 2 being a fluke, Ben said that himself to Bob Ross. Bob is a well known yachting writer here in Australia. Ben came to this conclusion after the 83 cup and during testing for 87.
When you think back to 83 ben’s other boat Challenge 12 would have been a much better boat had it had the same budget as Australia 2. Challenge 12 was an extremely quick boat, I think that given the sail wardrobe of Australia 2 it would have been the boat to win the cup back then.
But that was then and this is now.
You are probably true about Beashel. Obviously even Ben Lexcen can make a dog. As I recall Beashel was in position to get an Olympic Silver Medal in Star in San Diego. In the start of the last race he was unfortunately early and Hans Walle’n and Bobby Lohse managed to grab the silver. Do we remember who took the Gold? Having broken the mast in one of the Olympic races his tender boat delivered a new one. During havy sea conditions he and his crew managed to step the new one. And the rest is history. Again, how was the guy?
I had been told the story of Colin taking the helm by crew members connected with the victory.Though it was a topic never mentioned in any of the films or documentries covering the great win.
Whatever transpired, it obviously worked!
Booster you’ll be pleased to know Colin will again be sailing Star’s for Aus in Athens, his 5th olympiad, with his younger brother Adam racing 49ers for NZL after gaining residency through the Team NZL campaign.
truly very talented sailors.
i agree with you that in 83 . if challenge 12 had the same budget it might have been in the top 4. but when you look at the field. victory 83, was beating everything ont he water not including aust II and canada 1, azzurra was fast and challenge 12 was there too. but the piont i am trying to make here. and most peole will agree with me here, is that austriala II was design to win in new port, not in the waters around Australia. so we can assume that the design was not a fluke. ( it won) but the same ideas could not win down under. you had to improve on them. in 95 nzl 32, destroyed everything on the water. if that was the breakthough boat. why did it not defend in 2000? , basicaly ben did not desing a fluke. and i include australia II with nzl 32 as superboats. i would have loved to see australia II vs freedoom. before the nyyc made the change. that would have been a good race
free beer to anybody that agree with the folowing statement
long live the cup
Without trying to cause an arguement here, I think that there have been two “quantum leap” designs in the class. The first was intrepid and the second was Australia 2. Anything that went well between these were good boats, anything after Australia 2 was improvements on what Ben started.
Forgive me if i’m wrong, but wasn’t 95 sailed in the new design class?
I lost some interest in the cup after 87, as I thought that it would keep bouncing around the world for quite a while. The defeat in 83 and then the hoped for defence was what I was really interested in.
the boats evolved from 12 meter to the iacc
You cant call Aussie IV a dog! She was my favourite boat. Initially she was a heavy weather speedster but was mofified to try and get more out of her in the light stuff, and was never the same. Interestingly, she was the only boat in Fremantle with tumblehome, quite old fashoined to look at, but was a big powerful boat built for upwind speed and reaching. She still finished second in the defender trials, although I think even the best Aussie boat would have struggled to make the challeneger semis.