Old Chestnut - rotating DBs?

[THG]

 This is a bit of an old chestnut, but I think the main reason was that the people who fitted the rotating daggerboards were considered to be a bit anarchic and were not acting within the spirit of the rule.  Ironically those young turks included John Sears, Dave Peacock, Mike Hoyle and myself, who are probably considered to be the more establishment figures today!

The idea was a good one, although the systems did increase the complexity of the boats slightly, the daggerboards made the boats rock steady downwind and gybing, but would knock up if you grounded, which was in our opinion the intention of the rule.  The real downside was if you did an involuntary gybe with the daggerboard up, but then this is the same with any daggerboard.

David
N3461


Am rather intrigued by this - seems an innovative solution to getting around the problem of being able to 'rotate' a daggerboard.  Would this be quite easily retrofitted into the standard CB slot we have now?  Seems to offer 'best' of both worlds - although a gybe with DB up would be a problem.  Maybe we were and still are stick in the muds about changes??

Kean

[Mikey C]

[quote by=Kean link=Blah.cgi?b=Cool,m=1164220275,s=0 date=1164220275]
Maybe we were and still are stick in the muds about changes??

Kean [/quote]

Yes

[Jimbo41]

Hmmmm. I know what you mean boys, but there must be a good reason for not wanting too many changes into this class too fast. It might be that a critical mass is needed for a change. An example is boat weight. (NO I'm NOT saying I'm a proponent at this time.) Reduce by say 10Kg, that makes all boats not capable of removing 10 Kg of (lead) weight out of date. Mike, I don't have to say any more, do I? (Further) stratification of the class would result. I'm wondering though, what would happen after a few years, just supposing we did reduce the minimum weight by 10 Kg and this did bring in more sailors. Would they still be with the class? Would the class demographic evolution shift to a younger set, who have a tendency to move on, not having kids and all that to teach sailing to yet (for which the 12 is ideal). My feeling is that such a demographic shift might easily occur and that it would be to the detriment of the class.

If things are to be changed at all, let's start with things which don't involve major structural modifications to the older DB and AC boats' hulls - yes we have had DBs for 10 years now - those not involving weight reduction, for example. Rotating masts,  fully battened sails and so on. A universally recognised handicap system would help where modification were not possible. But let's not get to the stage where the AC boats just can't keep up the pace anymore, since this seems to be the major route into the class - it was for me.

Ok. empathic, onesided monolog over....

Jim N3130 and N3470

(I'm still going to sail Nuttyshell - even when I get my hands on  Passion Pudding  )

[rick perkins]

Why do people go on about rule change all the time?

Why do you think it will help?

Isn't the point of a development class to develop new ideas within the rule set to create advantage rather than to chase a set of moving goal posts.

If you keep moving the goal posts all you do is create obsolete boats faster ... evolution not revolution...

Rick

[Mikey C]

Thats fine provided you are not in an evolutionary tight spot and can't keep technical members in the fleet because of it.

[Jimbo41]

Rick, at the moment I agree with you entirely.....

Just playing avocatus diabolis....

Jim N3130 and N3470 ( Wood - natural empathy)

[Jimbo41]

Mike,

Don't understand. Do you mean yourself? I think you don't want to leave 12s alone entirely. Am I right?

Jim

[THG]

[quote by=rick_perkins link=Blah.cgi?b=Cool,m=1164220275,s=3 date=1164273964]Why do people go on about rule change all the time?

Why do you think it will help?

Isn't the point of a development class to develop new ideas within the rule set to create advantage rather than to chase a set of moving goal posts.

If you keep moving the goal posts all you do is create obsolete boats faster ... evolution not revolution...

Rick[/quote]

Rick - that was my point exactly looks like folks DID develop within the rules BUT then the rule was changed afterwards to ban it!  My comment was if there is evolution within the rules that then gets banned whats the point?  The discussion / debate on weight is a different issue - you have to change the rule to allow boats to be sailed lighter - currently there is no restriction (is there??) on how light a boat you can build - but then we add lead to take it up to the min weight.

The last article on weight by Mr Cooke senior got me thinking that maybe we are stick in the muds - the Class is already effectively fragmented - the old heavy Clinker boats originally built are no where near competitive with todays boats.  Effectively we have sub Classes already old Clinkers, 4 planks, one plank / ACs, then the DBs.  If we created a new lower weight limit some of the DBs may not be able to reduce the weight but a new 'lighter' DB set would be created.  The top bods would still sail the latest and fastest and potentially more new boats might be built - is one of our issues that the number of new boats being built is very low still??

The more I think about it the older boats will hardly ever be competive to the newer designs - as long as we are able to support the older designs and give them good racing then we have a growing Class.  Some of the older boats can certainly (in the right hands) beat newer boats - but I'm realistic even if I had say Toms boat given to me would I win any Opens in it - I doubt it!!  I can still have fun in my AC 12, sail other ACers, aim to try to get ahead of some of the DBs and enjoy the satisfaction of that.

Are we not akin somewhat to say F1 - the cars have developed so much in the past years - OK they don't race against each other in the same races now but I'm sure there are still events for old F1s to go out on the track.  There isn't such a performance differential in 12s that makes sailing N1 vs N3505 dangerous on the same water - admittedly N1 may take its time getting around the course.

The concern I see is that if you "obsolete" boats too quickly this could put off new entrants to the Class - however having development could let more boats onto the 2nd hand market and promote growth and this is maybe why we have relatively few new builds going on or the newer DBs coming onto the market.

Maybe we are holding on to history too much and not being more open to change to help drive future growth - the example of the rotating dagger board seemd to be an evolutionary step within the rules - if allowed would we all be sailing with them today??

Kean

[rick perkins]

[quote by=Mikey_C link=Blah.cgi?b=Cool,m=1164220275,s=4 date=1164277082]Thats fine provided you are not in an evolutionary tight spot and can't keep technical members in the fleet because of it.[/quote]

Are you saying that we are now sailing the perfect 12 and that no improvement can be made within the current rule set - that seems unlikley; there is still the whole sphere of T foil rudders and their impact on hull shape to be explored plus perhaps many other design options.

That is the challenge - to find the opportunities, not just change the rules ...

Rick

[Mikey C]

Hi Rick,

Hull shape is an open court, we have good alrounders, good in a breeze, good in a chop, good in light airs. You take your pick, you can tweak each in directions to suit and this is actually the best part about the 12's - hull rules are pretty open.

Rig is one design, or might as well be and has been for 30 years. all the quarter heights are made to as close as max as the life of the sail will allow. Tons of restrictions here, why are rotating rigs banned, why only one set of spreaders, hardly as expense compared to the rest of the boat.

The 12 is too heavy and too slow to make use of any form of lifting foils under the boat. They dont start to compensate for their own drag until 7 knots at least and a 12 will not touch that speed upwind except on rare occasions.

When the 12 was invented its intention was to be as fast and affordable as possible, Uffa was the king (pun, heheh) of making small boats that would piss of the owners of bigger more expensive boats. I think that has been lost somewhere down the line and he would probably turn in his grave if he could see the amount of lead in my last boat. We have turned into the owners of the expensive boats and get laughed at by RS 200 sailors instead.

Jim, not just me, I've been sailing these a while and see a lot of people with similar interests as mine get frustrated with the lack of a play area or retrospective banning of their ideas and go find other classes. I'm not saying the boat is wrong, there is just not enough scope for development any more. No names, I'm standing on my own here.

I've been over the rules a lot (fun part of the job...) and struggle to find any direction that I would wish to take my next boat, therefore it doesnt exist, and probably won't exist for a fair while at this rate.

[rick perkins]

[quote by=Mikey_C link=Blah.cgi?b=Cool,m=1164220275,s=9 date=1164305470]We have turned into the owners of the expensive boats and get laughed at by RS 200 sailors instead.
[/quote]

I would guess that the N12 is in the region of 25kgs lighter on the water than the RS200 so weight isn't really the issue on that comparison - it's the kite ...

How much lead does the AVERAGE DB boat have and how much in an extreme case?

Rick

[Mikey C]

I think its a rarity that a DB boat doesnt have 5+ kilo's in it. There are very few that have less than this. An extreme case would be 22 kilos. Kevan Bloor will have a list of the Nationals entries and corrector weights.

I'm not sure its just the kite, we're targeting similar folks as the RS200, but the 12 is slower and therefore less "fun". If the 12 was quicker, and still didnt have a kite i think that would be pretty appealing. As it is, it doesnt justify the expense.

[rick perkins]

Do you really think a 12 with no kite but some rules mods could be faster than an RS200?

The RS200 has 20msq downwind sail area (and is a foot longer)  - even if you dropped the 12 weight & had a rotating mast and odd dagger/centerboard arrangement you'd still not make up for the short fall in downwind sail area ...

Rick

PS Is a current 12 faster than the RS200 upwind today?

[Jimbo41]

[JohnMurrell]

Mike,

this is possiblly the next logical step.............. http://www.12footskiff.com/