I don’t think the topic is dead by a long shot and I think it has plenty of relevance to rc sailing.
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>
With double the posts of the second most poster this is clearly Doug’s bully pulpit. This thread has been everywhere and has now been redefined by Doug to be an RC IACC use of CBTF thread. The marketplace has clearly proven that spinnakers on RC sailboats has little relevance. To date, there’s no production CBTF solution only promises of it’s domination. Maybe in 2004?
You couldn’t be more wrong if you worked at it ,Rob-We have almost twenty spinnaker boats in two different classes sailing across the US and soon in Europe. Our spinnaker system is still the only production spinnaker system available anywhere.It is the ONLY spinnaker system I’ve ever seen or heard of that allows the spinnaker to be carried from a beam reach to a beam reach and gybed at will. Numerous individuals are using the system on boats from here to the UK to Germany and to Australia or versions of their own inspired buy our system. Our marketing has been poor but to say the spinnaker has no relevance is uninformed and ridiculous. We are developing a 36" spinnaker boat in two variations -one for the new 3R class and one for the 36/600 class(and so is the 36/600 National Champion with our help).These smaller boats will finaly bring the cost down to under a thousand.
There is no spinnaker system anywhere that works as well as our system…
As to the IACC model, gee, it sounds like you may not be interested but before you make up your mind you should know that it was a SUGGESTION of a possible solution to producing a high performance IACC model–and I did not mention CBTF once in my previous post. There is already a production canting keel model being built in New Zealand and I’ve talked to people that have sailed it and they say it performs well. Now -get over your techno phobia Rob because it is a natural progression to combine a canting keel with a spinnaker and no matter who does it both technologies are here to stay and proven reliable systems. My previous post and the one prior to that were SUGGESTIONS of a course that development could take–and sooner or later will take. Of course,now that you mention it CBTF would be the best canting keel solution(for now) .
But I’ve got a question for you Rob: if you don’t like the idea and are not interested in discussing the possibilities why do you even bother to post? It’s sure not going to shut me up and seems like a wholly negative waste of your time…
UPDATE: see the new Model Yachting page 42 for some outstanding shots of AC number 88 sailing with a poleless asymetrical! Pretty cool! Way to go to Gary Mueller of Chicago!!
Doug Lord microsail.com monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing
A first generation Whitbread 60 could sail circles around one. It’s not like the IACC rule was meant to create the fastest thing out even in 1992. If it was about making the fastest boat it wouldn’t even be in monohulls anymore. That alone is a speed handicap.
If the IACC model has a canting keel then would it be a model of an IACC anymore? Real IACC boats are heavy displacement. Why should the model be any different.
Its a design thing Ryan: if you scale down an IACC boat the rig will be too big and the displacement way too light. So to do a model IACC boat design compromises have to be made. On my America One we tried a scale rig and it was too much even with an 18lb bulb 20" below the boat so we reduced sail area experimentally until we were satisfied we had it right. Same decisions have to be made on the spinnaker because how you’re going to use it ,whether or not you want to change one every 5 -7MPH etc have to be considered. What hasn’t been considered in the design equation until now is the use of a canting keel to dramatically increase power to carry sail which would result in a more realistic model. You don’t see the canting keel when its in the water so the appearance of an IACC model with a canting keel would simply be more realistic and its performance vastly improved. Since HUGE compromises have to be made in scaling down a model in the first place the adaptation of a canting keel would simply reduce the effect of some of the design compromises making the model more fun to sail and definitely improving model IACC performance over fixed keel ,non -spinnaker versions.
Ok, so now not only are virtually all model yacht racing classes unacceptable and backward, but the full size IACC class is no longer relevant because they didn’t adopt canting keels?
And yet the so called “new classes” that you tout as being up to date still haven’t attracted enough people to gain recognition by any national or international r/c sailing organization.
And finally another sailing season has come and gone and not a single apprearance in any race of any of the many innovations “claimed” to be the future of r/c sailing.
Maybe the problem isn’t the “marketing” its the lack of results?
Roy, the IACC guys have probably put themselves in a bind that may or may not be a negative for the next Cup–having so much new technology outside the AC hasn’t happened before that I can remember. I sure think they’ve made a bad mistake.Russel Coutts was for using a canting keel… As to results I think considering their cost and lack of marketing our spinnaker boats have done quite well–thanks. And the interet in spinnakers on rc boats is world wide-- a smaller less expesive system may be the ticket.
Yo Dick, the discussion of an IACC model using a canting keel and a spinnaker is not much off the topic especially since over half the posts on this “topic” were referring to model CBTF boats.
A model IACC boat using a canting keel is not being suggested because of anything the AC management did or didn’t do-It was being suggested as a means to allow a more scale like IACC model. I think its probably a good suggestion that would allow a much more effective model of an America’s Cup boat(Corporate Cup boat?)
UPDATE: Yo, Dick #2- the only other discussion of an IACC type model with a spinnaker and canting keel is was one posted under New Classes and specifically addressing concerns of some in that class-which is a one design. The discussion here is entirely appropriate for General Discussion since it is regarding an idea for an IACC development/one design class as opposed to an already existing one design like America One.And it discusses the idea of using a canting keel(and spinnaker) in a somewhat different light : not as a technical improvement in and of itself but as part of a plan to allow a new development/one design class to more closely replicate the look of a full size IACC boat–a subject not discussed anywhere before.
Further(as I sort of said before), the combination of canting keel and spinnaker on an IACC model is at least as relevent as the discussion regarding model CBTF which was such a part of this discussion earlier. If you don’t like the discussion or are not interested in the ideas perhaps you might want to find another topic that is more interesting to you.But you usually have somewhat interesting things to say if you think about the topic first…
Doug Lord microsail.com monofoiler.com
High Technology Sailing/Racing
Yo, Yo ,Dick: please if the topic’s ebb and flow disturbs you don’t read it–there is plenty else to read on the internet . The discussion has morphed several times form full size IACC to model CBTF now to model IACC ideas–not mature enough ideas to warrant being placed under “New Classes” since the idea is a long way from even having a boat built but I find it an interesting topic worthy of discussion.
If you don’t thats ok -don’t feel bad…
I believe since there are already production boats sailing using both the technologies I suggest incorporating into an IACC model what has to be considered is whether or not a development class using this technology is the way to go or is a one design the answer.Most builders would probably feel that the technology was out of reach so I don’t know.
What I do know is that a model designed well and making use of a canting keel and a spinnaker would be the ultimate IACC model from a performance perspective. But costs could be a major concern any way its done…
Sorry, Dick but you couldn’t be more wrong-quite an uninformed diatribe on your part old buddy. I’ve looked at all the topics posted and there are many variations to each- especially as to the ebb and flow of a long topic.
There is no way that the subjects you bring up can be limited to a couple of categories -there are too many important variations ,too many technical subtleties to limit those topics. I suggest that you don’t read what you’re not interested in because I won’t change the way I post. I don’t post just for the hell of it -I usually have something that I think is important to say-- if you don’t want to read what I write that is your choice but quit trying to be a forum moderater wannabe especially when what you say is not accurate… There are many topics that may have something in common with other topics -that is to be expected in the realm of new ideas and consistent with the the discussion of the technical variations of such things as hydrofoils and canting keels–no one topic can cover it all.
No one forces you or Greg to read what I write -don’t read it and save yourself the apparent aggravation–as for me I’ll continue to explore various ideas and subjects as throughly as I possibly can.
You?re missing the point Doug, Its impossible to not read your postings because they?re all over the place. Your postings are like political campaign adds all the do is annoy most people. I?d like to be able to log on to the forum just once and not have to here the personal ramblings of Doug Lord.
And for your personal information it?s not the technology that many of us have a problem with, it?s you personally. Case in point you constantly ramble about how great this stuff is, with no poof that it actually works in race conditions for MODELS in a recognized class.
Can you give any results from a single recognized AMYA class where any of this technology won a race?
Thanks ,Dan. There is not one recognized class where both the spinnaker and canting keel are legal. Not a single recognized AMYA or International class allows movable ballast. Only the 36/600 of all the recognized classes allows a practical spinnaker–and only recently has it been found to be possible to install a system on a boat that small.I’m helping the 36/600 National Champion put a spinnaker system on his boat and will also have a very unique version of the spinnaker system-very light-on the new 3R I will produce.
A model IACC class using both systems would have to be in the ange of 60" or longer to be practical and even then there are problems–none that couldn’t be solved though.
I’m afraid I don’t understand Dick, are you for the idea of an IACC model utilizing a canting keel and a spinnaker or against it and why?.
I don’t think hydrofoils will do much good on an IACC boat but you never can tell.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see foils on a monohull like an Open 60 before too long or models using a canting keel and foils.
There is so much exciting development taking place I can see where some people have a hard time understanding the implications of it all.
As a point of interest: people might want to get the most recent issue of Marine Modelling Internatinal: there are pictures of the French IACC models–about 8 feet long and about 14-16’ off the ground judging by the skippers standing next to them–simply awesome!
Applying canting keels and /or CBTF to an IACC model has a real practical benefit in reducing some of the most negative effects of scaling down a Cup boat. And an IACC model really ought to have a spinnaker. Right now the most significant issue- technically- with doing a boat like this is the winch required to move the canting keel; the spinnaker system is well proven as long as the size doesn’t get too great.
Perhaps you don’t grasp the design issues when one considers scaling an 80’IACC boat down to 60-70 inches. Suffice it to say that the exact scale displacement is too low and the resulting sail area is too high. Therefore the designer of such a boat must work out some form of compromise to have a viable sailing model. Without any long term experience sailing an rc boat with a spinnaker you wouldn’t realize that because of the loss of pitch stability inheren’t in a scaled down hull there is a certain specific angle that the spinnaker must be set to in winds over 5-8mph so that as the wind hits the sail the bow lifts instead of burying. Spinnaker sizes CAN be varied for various conditions or the class can choose the size sail that gives the widest range of use within the foot girth constraints and halyard angle constraints.
Again,scale effect is a prominent consideration when trying to produce an IACC model that will be as close to a full size model as possible. Thats why a canting keel was mentioned as a COMPROMISE solution allowing either lighter weight or MUCH more righting moment or some of each. This is a concern since the righting moment loss from the big boat is HUGE and requires at a minimum a deep fixed keel to be even close to a scale rig. Knowing that a canting keel works on an existing production boat and has been succesfully tested from an electro-mechanical standpoint by me for some years including earlier this year it seems like a good addition to a first rate IACC model. No its not exact scale but neither will be virtually any part of the boat due to physics-but it can add much to the performance
of a scaled down model.And help it to capture the “look” of an IACC boat better than any existing boat.
In total using the best of available technology a “super” IACC model could be produced with more power to carry sail upwind and downwind with a huge jump in downwind sail area. Combining these technologies
seems to make a lot of sense if the idea is a trully high performance model.
I am calling it like I see it. Doug is using this forum as well as the wind power forum as cheap advertising to promote his boats and ideas. In other free forums in other parts of the internet it is considered bad taste. In many instances a moderator removes the postings that are obviously commercial. I don’t know but it looks like this is unmoderated forum so I would ask the members as to whether or not they would like to continue to get this propaganda (AKA BS) shoved down their throats-it is quite frankly endless and tiresome. Good taste would be to discuss ideas and not promote product, please do not signoff with yourcompany name and web address, it is too obvious and tasteless. There should be and end to this because it is not much more than spam at this point. By the way Doug, given all of your energies in the two major FREE forums I think you would be far better off in spending that time building boats and producing product than talking about it.
Bob, you’re way off base!!! Sure I “promote” the technology that I believe in so strongly you bet I do and I will continue to do so. But I go a lot further than that: I have literally given my spinnaker patent to anyone that wants to use it for FREE; I have passed on my long term experience with spinnakers in detail on this forum and on whindpower.
On this forum I have published the exact design specifications under General Discussion of my new F100CBTF that I paid over $3000 to get from Graham Bantock-exact details!
I have studied extensively how the CBTF system works and have got an exclusive contract with them as a manufacturer but I only agreed to the terms after they agreed that I could pass on the technical information FOR FREE to any individual that asks -and many have asked. Further, I have published on this forum a detailed chronologue of the design process involved with the F100CBTF including problems and their resolution.
With hydrofoils I have published on the multiONE site DETAILED information on how to make one work with links to that site from this site thanks to Chad. I have been 100% outgoing in detailed answers to questions about any of this technology whereas if I was promoting my own business I would have been better off to be quiet.
But I believe in what the new technology has to offer and I go out of my way to help others understand it and work with it.
I find your post disturbing and seriously misinformed!!!
Doug come down from that holier than thow approach [:-angel]and face the fact that you promote product on the discussion board. You may be able to provide information and good will but it to me is nothing more than like the president serving turkey in Iraq, a big campaign ploy [}}:-|>>]to sell boats rather than win votes. You should be able to freely discuss any of your ideas and topics but geeze do you have to use your company name and web address in every post as well as name your exclusive boat names like Monofoiler etc. I wouldnt care so much but its everywhere all the time, an occaisional name or something is ok but wow, I can’t believe how much is out there - my mother told me everything in moderation and she is usually right. Whats disturbing is the fact that it only took you 25 minutes to respond which is a little longer than I thought which means you must be hard at work in the shop delivering boats to folks right?
Why do you keep referring to it as “Corporate Cup” like it is an insult or that somehow Corporate sponsorship in the cub is a new thing that hasn’t existed for the past 100 years or so? Please tell us when the Cup hasn’t been sponsored by Corporations or the rich guys behind it. In what way is Oracle any different then all the J Class campaigns? Who built those? Oh yeah. Rich guys who owned large companies. What’s different today? Where is all the funding for this new technology and development going to come from without the corporate sponsors? Would there even still be a Cup without sponsorships? Doubtful.
It’s my own personal protest against the elimination of Nationalism --for all practical purposes— in the Cup. Maybe the masses will root for big multinational corporations instead of the various countries but I won’t…