That is why I contemplated an addition to RG65 rules - so that all “National” events be held in the fall (maybe August or later) - giving northern folks time to re-learn during our short sailing season. Up here, we can put our boats away in early October - and not bring them out until April - or later depending on winter. Got no sympathy from those RG65 owners living in the south. :mad:
Mark - I’ll send you same photos I sent Claudio. Watch your home email. Dick
Here the "n"Arrow basic plan with a higher prismatic coefficient.
Transom a bit immersed in order to obtain a longer LWL with the mirror effect.
ClaudioD
Claudio:
I really like the designs you are posting… I’ve been following your developments since a couple of years, and as you know, I built my custom take on your Esterel65h. Now I am thinking on building a new RG65, and I was looking at the Goth65xp (good local results), Skinny (excellent results in Brasil, but no free plans available) and your “Narrow Deck” and “nArrow” designs. So I have to ask some difficult questions:
[ul]
[li]What have you ditched chines for the nArrow?
[/li][li]From your designs, which one do you think is the BEST overall?
[/li][li]What do you think of the Goth65xp?
[/li][li]What do you think of the Skinny?
[/li][/ul]
Everything you can say will be great input for me. We sail here in everything from 0.001kts to 25kts of wind, and up to 15cm waves.
Thanks!
Hi ,
I appreciate !
Should not be difficult to answer. All “calculated design” are very similar and close in performances. Copied and modified plans may presents unwanted caractheristics.
1- The "n"Arrow is already rather narrow and an eventual chine form would have reduced the inner volume and the Servo access.
2- This is the simplest question since do not exist the best boat. Each design is tailored for a predefined weather condition. This is why I always ask where the models are supposed to be used.
If the area is well known for predominant winds above 12/14 kt , then is better to design for a prismatic coefficient above 0.58. Of course, this same boat will be loosing performances with lower wind below 8/10kt.
Vice versa is also true. The most important parameters are the Tuning and Sail design. Good thumbs are helping a lot !!!
BTW, Sail design never discussed in this forum, strange, since sails are the boat engine
3- I refuse and unfair to judge designs made by others.
4- as above
If you are willing to race and fight for good results, then you may think about the possibility to have 2 models and a series of Rigs adapted for medium/low from 3 to10kt and one for 12/15kt.
Around 20/25kt is generally matter for survival and all remain with the correct Rig choice.
As standard, my models are designed around a PC of 0.57/0.58; and -3.5% of LWL for the LCB. This is what is called “All Rounder”. In principle all data are provided within my plans including the Curve of Areas, a sort of Boat I.D. Card , never seen elsewhere.
You may check the two "n"Arrow design in this tread, one with PC 0.54 and one with PC 0.57 and observe the drawing lines differences.
Cheers
ClaudioD
Thanks, Claudio - I downloaded that one for further consideration and inspection. Hard part is trying to identify “which” hull to go with. Probably will be the one for 10+ wind speeds. I can always go to a smaller rig. If I build the one for light winds, there is an upper sail area limit. Once can go smaller - but not bigger. 
Easter wishes to you and your family.
Dick
I just read the RG65 rules and was surprised to learn that the bow bumper dimensions are specified as 5mm +/-1mm, so a maximum of 6mm is allowed for the bumper.
correct.
but if you ended up with a longer bumper, but did not exceed the LOA rules I doubt anyone would complain…
Actually, the rules say hull length=650+/-5mm PLUS bumper 5+/-1mm (look at the diagram!). That gives a total LOA between 649mm to 661mm!
Anyway, the tolerances are there for building/measurement errors, so you shouldn’t take advantage of them…
(Granted, a tolerance of 5mm is a big one!)
Thanks for pointing out the diagram Thomas. I hadn’t interpreted rules 1 and 3 that way until seeing the picture. I’ve been having computer to reality issues when cutting out the bottom skin for my Esteral. My computer frames don’t have thickness so the real boat (with the same frame spacing) is longer than the bottom skin I printed out. This turned out to be true, even after I overcame the multi-page alignment difficulties. http://www.rcsailing.net/forum1/images/icons/icon12.png
As it turns out, the longer boat is ok and let’s me have a class legal bumper. I do note that Marc’s point is completely reasonable. Hopefully, I’ll have something reasonable to show soon.
