A quad running in the Auckland Twisted Flow Tunnel – the results were positive enough to put a broad smile on the faces of those J Class crews of the 1930s – and their sailmakers. Note the very straight exit off the back of the quad with little or no return allowing the main to be sheeted well down-track for maximum drive force


look at sail design in the early days of DSS development, when it was clear that con- ventional sails were not the way to deal with the speeds and apparent wind angles these new craft can achieve. One configu- ration we investigated – both in CFD and then using the Auckland wind tunnel – was a reinvention of the quad headsail made famous by the J Class in the 1930s, which proved highly effective in a modern incarnation, sufficiently so that we added one to the Infiniti 36. Our modern quad proved extremely


efficient, covered a wide range of wind angles, was easy to handle using existing jib and kite sheets and greatly helped to balance a boat that regularly sails down- wind at 20kt+. However, despite the fact that the modern J Class had been using this sail and been rated accordingly, the normally accommodating IRC refused to accept the sail (ORC did prove a little more inclusive and we got many useful miles of testing done in the Med). For the fast-growing double-handed


division should be encouraged. On the plus side with two distinct divisions you will always be racing more like-for-like in terms of both the boats and, as importantly, the levels of crew competence as well. On the downside you will inevitably have smaller fleets; easily overlooked too is that many Corinthian owners still like to race against the very best sailors sometimes and, very rarely, have a shot at beating them. Then there is a third group, the owner


who runs a high-level ‘no stone unturned’ campaign but who does not want to be cor- ralled in with the TP52 or Fast40+ brigade. Think Maxi, IRC39 and IRC46 etc (it is among this third group, incidentally, that weaknesses in rules and their implementa- tion are most quickly exposed). But while boat design and build tech-


niques move on, the situation is less clear- cut with sails where stunning advances in materials and construction are compro- mised by some of the worst rule hangovers from days gone by; where the measurement of sail performance has lost relevance to how the boats are developing with the priority in sail design moving from outright power to aerodynamic efficiency. Put simply, the best sails for today’s


fastest boats often no longer match the shape and measurement template that we have used since before the dawn of IOR. The elephant in the room is, of course,


the still rather arbitrary distinction between upwind and downwind sails, with


42 SEAHORSE


top-end teams and sailmakers spending vast amounts of time and money trying to circumvent a philosophical divide that is well beyond its sell-by date. It’s akin to all the measurement point bumping and tortured sterns that went on in IOR – in retrospect you look back and ask what on earth were we thinking about… As the new breed of apparent-wind


yachts develop, then the traditional – upwind it’s a jib/genoa and downwind it’s a spinnaker/gennaker – model is far from satisfactory, still revolving as it does (under both rating systems) around the ancient mid-girth/foot length parameters and spinnaker number restrictions. With today’s boats we need freedom to


build whatever sail would simply be most efficient; if that means sail type ‘AN Other’ then that should be embraced, especially at the top level. (The counter argument, the cost of disenfranchising existing sails, is a red herring; the boats we are talking about replace their sails as fast as is necessary to remain competitive.) The need to take a macro – not micro –


look at the ‘measured sail’ becomes most urgent in the era of foil-assisted boats. We might be guilty of starting that particular ball rolling with the Dynamic Stability System (DSS), but it’s another layer of development that will bleed into the gen- eral fleet and will only exacerbate the need for a completely fresh approach. As an example, we took a broad new


contingent more useful, wider-range, easy to furl sails like the quad can surely only be a good thing, and if one sail can replace two or three others then it’s only the sail- makers who’ll complain. If we are allowed to take a fresh look at the ‘ideal sailplan’, unhindered by rules and preconceptions, be sure there are plenty of other such better solutions waiting to be discovered. In contrast to our rigid adherence to


historic sailplans, foil-assisted design is now being addressed by both IRC and ORC. Where those developments will lead is any- body’s guess but, given that we now have the knowledge and technology to fly our monohulls, there will be headaches ahead for the rating authorities, to the extent that a modicum of sympathy from us designers might be appropriate… And this is where we are right now. Fast


boats are here , much faster boats are on the way. Hulls, canting keels and foils are being tackled with varying degrees of success. But if we are to allow these wonderful new types of sailing boat the sails they require to perform at their best we must also find a new way o look at things. If the rating rules are not proactive in


anticipating the trend rather than respond- ing to events then be 100 per cent sure that we will only see more breakaway classes emerge with their own freedoms, further diluting our fleets. New foils under the water require a new look at the foils above the deck; don’t try to force old technology onto a new paradigm. History tells us where ‘too little, too late’ will always lead. Hugh Welbourn, Totnes, UK


q


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100