Weight.

Use this forum to discuss the latest changes in the class
Steve Clark
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 2:26 pm

Post by Steve Clark » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:55 pm

I continue to be torn here.
Idealogicly I favor the 50 kg minimum weight.
I have some support that this is a good target.
Further I feel that the low minimum weight is an evocative selling point for the class.
I also have a highly trained marine composite structures professional saying that this number is too low, and it will unnecessarily prejudice the rule toward minimum beam ICs.

I think it is really stupid to ignore professional opinion.
A higher minimum makes it more possible to modify existing hulls to the new rule and that has significant value.
It is fairly easy to revisit this rule and lower it in the future. Particularly if we make it clear that we intend to get lighter if possible.
So I want to have a straw poll.
Pick one:
50 kg.
55 kg.
60 kg.
Please, those are the only numbers under consideration.
SHC
Beatings will continue until morale improves

Andy P
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:31 pm

Post by Andy P » Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:50 pm

My opinion is that the 50 kg minimum is fairly easy to meet, because this includes all the extra stuff that couild be made lighter than it is now.
phmillers spreadsheet :
I think we agree on panel weights of the hull etc, my boat may be smaller in surface area, and less structure, therefore it's lighter.
The weights of the extras may well be what current weights of these bits are, but they are only that heavy because there is no reason at present to reduce the weight. Once the boat carries 10kg of correctors, there is no incentive to get weight down further. If the min weight was lower, then there would be drive to trim weight everywhere.
The weights of the string, hardware, spars etc are more than they need be. It would be easily possible to trim at least 10kg from the spreadsheet weight, by careful gear selection, and system simplification. - thus making 50kg a good target, and still possible to make 40kg boats + 10kg of lead

my vote - 50kg !

jimc
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by jimc » Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:20 pm

50kg. There's loads of weight to lose by removing all the super adjustable wotsits.

Phil Stevenson
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:54 pm
Location: Australia

Post by Phil Stevenson » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:06 pm

I vote for 50kg.

If you set a heavier target no one will aim lower. They will just add stuff to make the limit like they do now.

Pauls spreadsheet does not take into account the future. The present IC rule was made when 80kg was considered light, now it is heavy because material technology has moved on. I am sure in the life of the new limit further developments will make 50kg heavy.

Not that ply is so bad, It is just that it is easier now to add strength to a ply shell with strategic carbon instead of heavy timber. I think it is also easy to trim some weight from his figures by reducing skin weight in the front and back metre of the hull, after all the loads are in the middle.

If you really must make the limit bigger than 50, increase the corrector limit to 20kg so at least when 50kg is proven viable the existing boats can be trimmed of lead.
Design perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing else to add but when there is nothing else which can be taken away.
http://philscanoes.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Christian AUS
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Christian AUS » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:18 am

As an owner of a brand new IC (which won't get down to 50kg), I vote for 50kg. I think a half measures will not encourage new 'box rule' boats to be built or Nethercotts to be modified.
Nethercotts will still be supported as classics or as AC's until we all come around to the Box Rule IC's (or get to old to play anymore).

Christian

sfrosh
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:42 am
Location: Australia

Post by sfrosh » Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:02 am

I vote for 50Kg. Not only is achievable by the use of foam carbon but also ply with some strategically placed carbon. Also I am in favour of losing most of the adjustable wotsits. The other reason is that 10 m of sail is not so much considering the RM of the seat, and the weight loss is necessary to significantly uplift performance.

GBR242
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 10:08 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by GBR242 » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:45 am

As an amateur builder (Colin Newman called me a 'dreamer'...and maybe he's right) who I am sure will find it hard to get down to 50Kg...

I vote for 50Kg!

Even if I can't get quite down to 50Kg, I would much prefer as a builder to have something to aspire to. I am sure that pro-built boats will soon be carrying lead....even at 50Kg.

I think the IC should be a 'state or the art' development boat, which means it should be a challenge to build as well as sail.

Also....as a very amateur builder, I would suggest that working in foam seems a lot more inviting than working in wood, for a number of reasons. At moment I have two IC's in my workshop an old cold-moulded boat (stu's K127) and my very overweight foam boat (GBR 242). The wood boat is very rewarding to work on and is starting to look great, but I can do twice as much work in half the time on the plastic boat. It is easier to work with foam and much faster. Wood might be a bit cheaper, but I doubt that it is if you try and factor in the build time.

just my pennyworth

cheers

eib
Ed Bremner
GBR314 - Silver Surfer
GBR242 - For sale
Lowly forum moderator
Classic & Vintage Racing Dinghy Association
http://www.cvrda.org

phmiller
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:57 am
Location: USA

Post by phmiller » Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:24 pm

While I’m quite willing to put my boat out to pasture and go out and build a new carbon/nomex boat to the 50 kg limit, I don’t think that is in the best interest of the class. These seem to be the current arguments for each weight target. Both have good points.

50 kg
1. A lighter weight is a selling point and is more encouraging to people thinking about signing up
2. It will push construction farther and we want to be high tech as a selling point
3. The current boats are overweight because of a high minimum weight and it is easy to take 33.5 kg (40%) out of them.
4. Cherubs have been durable and 50 kg for years, so ICs can be.
5. Future construction techniques will make it even easier to meet 50 kg
6. A lighter boat is easier to car top.
7. Lighter is faster and faster is more fun (I added that one!)


A higher weight

1. No matter what weight we choose, Moths will be lighter, and foilers, sailboards, catamarans and kite boards will be faster.
2. At anything below about 70 kg we will be the “second lightest” and probably “second fastest” of the singlehanded sailing dinghies. (unless we go to foils).
3. Is there a significant selling point difference between 50 and 60 kg?
4. We will still be high tech at 60 kg. (as evidenced by the fact that we are high tech at 83.5)
5. The 12’ Cherub minimum weight of 50 kg does not include the rig, centerboard, rudder, running rigging, etc. The IC rule includes everything except sails. Even at 60 kg the IC will be lighter than a Cherub and a lot longer.
6. Recently built Nethercotts put on severe diets can probably get to 60-65 kg. This provides a better transition from the existing fleet.
7. 60 kg is less type-forming than 50 kg. Boats at both ends of the design rule can be built without taking a weight penalty.
8. More weight allows more room for higher loads when sail areas and seat lengths are increased in the next rule change...!
9. While foam/carbon is a nice way to build boats, it is not the easiest or cheapest way for many in different countries. A key thing we need to do is think internationally. Cheaper and easier to build boats are more popular. This makes the class more inclusive rather than exclusive.
10. The cheapest, quickest and easiest way to homebuild a canoe (if you don’t have a set of molds) is stitch-and-glue ply covered by light glass. That will be about 60 kg. Lighter weights than that will start pushing the costs up. The one growth area in US homebuilding is the “boat in a box” concept using precut panels. This is an exciting opportunity for new entry in to the class. See http://www.clcboats.com/ Kits like these (or just their cut files) can be cheaply sent to any country as a fleet starter.
11. The concept that the boats are heavy because of the current minimum weight is only slightly true. The true part is the hull, deck and some hardware and rigging. All of the parts listed in the spreadsheet are either current “best practices” that have developed from trial and error or projections based on current construction technology. People have been reducing the weights of the items farthest away from the cg for decades. Rigs, foils, seats, etc. are near their practical, cost-effective limits.
12. The spreadsheet weight includes skins for minimum puncture, abrasion and moisture resistance and has a weight for local reinforcements, but no allowance for heavy framing. Weight reduction at the very ends is minimal.
13. It is easier to lower a minimum weight than to raise it! This addresses the “future construction methods” point.
14. To counter the argument that there is more performance in an extra 10 kg reduction (which there obviously is, although the total displacement difference is only about 7%) the flip side is that the lighter we go, the more sensitive the boat will become to helm weights.
15. Heavier boats can be more durable and more durable boats are good for class longevity.

My vote for the proposed rule is for 60 kg, but with the understanding that it can be voted lower in the future.
Paul
USA-212

Karl Wittnebel
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Karl Wittnebel » Fri May 05, 2006 2:35 pm

This from Bill Beaver:

Hi Karl,

I believe that I could build a stich and glue boat similar to Sock Puppet that would meet a 50 kg minimum weight. Sock Puppet (an arc bottomed double chine boat built to my design by John Williamson about 5 years ago) is not a minimal boat relative to the development canoe rule currently being considered. It is 38.5 wide and just meets the 32" beam at the 4 inch waterline amidships, with a max waterline beam of about 34 inches. Were I building, I would build the whole boat from 3mm ockume ply.

The hull would have 5.8 oz carbon inside and out. The aft deck would have 5.1 oz kevlar on the backside and nothing on the top, and the fordeck would have no reinforcement at all. I'm thinking that puts me at about a 74 lb hull w/carriage and that with care on the other bits 50 kg is attainable.

Obviously such a boat would not be as bomb proof as my current boat, but what good does it do me if my boat survives a nucular blast and I don't?

I sail canoes because I like the challenge, both sailing and building. I feel that a 50kg minimum weight is very aggresive, but with all the clever people we have around, it should be attainable without requiring someone to resort to aerospace technology. And it should only get more acheivable as time progresses and we work on it.

Bill
Karl Wittnebel
NC USA 193 (Lust Puppet)

Roland Whitehead
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:43 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Roland Whitehead » Fri May 05, 2006 9:54 pm

Well I've just designed to 140Kg. That's 50Kg boat; 80kg me; and 7kg for the rig. The 3kg is for my seasonal variation in weight...

I've also designed to the same rules as Wonk and Andy P's boat so if the rules are going to change, can you do it quick because otherwise it will be too late for me?

Its going to be from ply but with some trick interior. Speed of contruction is the most important thing as I don't have enough time to make a mold and faff around with sandwich construction. I'm also worried that 10 years on from sailing my last canoe my balance may not be quite as good as it should.

Oh, and my bow would fail the 340mm rule bit if that comes in but it isn't "Wonk"y. No foils. More details will follow.

Barry Watkin
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Barry Watkin » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:15 pm

I've watched this debate with certain degrees of interest and untill recently I didnt own a canoe, now I do It's an elderly beast in which I only expect to club race (well maybe the odd open!) Studying the various inputs you might be led to thinking everyone is keen to drop to 50kg & go out & build new boats, my thoughts are... will they? There seem to be few comments from newer boat owners, afterall it,s their current invesments that are most at risk, Traditionally older boats get sold down to newcomers who would hope that with practice they might have a go at club/regional frontrunners. What chance of attracting these people into the class when all current boats are obselite overnight. I've watched the growth in junior sailing here in the UK & it's mainly based around Mum & Dad providing Junior with a 2-5 year old boat to cut thier teeth on.Juniors dont wont to know if their boat is uncompetative. The point of these meanderings is I dont believe that ammount of new boats created would counter the disencharntment (crap spelling!) of a vast amount of existing owners. I may of course be wrong but I can only see the class fragmenting into IC, AC, 50kc, DC, etc. Maybe thats the way with 3-4 starts at open & national. I note that A wise old head suggested that the more recent boats that have a chance of getting to 60kg would be the way to go coupled to a maximum 10kg of correctors. Then at least we'd see just how many new builds actually went ahead, again then perhaps in 5 years or so the majority could decide. So it may be unfasionable but 60kg & a new box gets my vote.
ps have just renovated this canoe with approx 20kg in black bags gone to the tip. Snag about 15kg gone back on!! I'll never learn!!!
Barry GBR 176.5!
BMW

Phil Stevenson
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:54 pm
Location: Australia

Post by Phil Stevenson » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:38 pm

Barry your argument goes back about two years to the reason the DC rule was proposed and consequnetly why people like Andy, Jim and I became interested.

The IC class was and is effectively only raced on any regular basis in the UK, and even there the class is moving more towards the AC version. The AC step has accurred because modern one up skiffs have proven faster than the IC, and conversion of an IC is still better value than a new OD skiff.

The IC no longer holds the honour of being the fastest one man single hull.

In US and Aust the few boats meet only once or twice a year. So in reality the IC as a class is effectively dead around the world.

Steve Clark and other IC enthusiasts who like the concept and layout of the Non Spinnacker version, conceived an upgrade of the canoe in an effort to attract new people and interest, which it has done even if not to the extent some of us would like.

The logic was that most of the race worthy ICs, at least in the UK would sooner or later be converted to ACs or at least could continue to race with the ACs while, ultimately the DC, or a consequent new OD, would replace the IC as the non spinnacker version.

The relaive small numbers of ICs in other countries which rarely race each other could potentially be converted to ACs or continue as lonely canoes sailing occasionally, either way their value is not lost if as a class they do not have any substantial value anyway. Just compare resale costs in these countries compared with new costs, and count the number of new boats over the last few years.

So for the new DC option to be a sucess it had to be attractive to both existing and potential canoe sailors, it had to be cheaper to build, it had to be just as challenging to sail, and most importantly it had to regain the mantle of fastest singlehander. And this means new lighter designs.

So if you follow the logic, the new rule is not about preserving the value of existing boats, not about being able to build exiting designs lighter, not about maintaining the status quo where the UK fleet is defecting to spinnackers and the other countries are rarely sailing.

The whole DC thing is about a few dedicated canoe sailors trying to re-invigorate canoe racing by building a modern fleet and attracting new people to boost their numbers. Only a few have been built so far, others are in planning or under construction. A lot of people are interested but cautious, waiting to see which designs work out.

Hopefully there will be enough DCs at McCrae for the rest of the canoe racing and general sailing world to see their value. If not it would appear that canoe sailing will shrink to just the AC class in UK.
Design perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing else to add but when there is nothing else which can be taken away.
http://philscanoes.blogspot.com/

jimc
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by jimc » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:52 pm

I get very worried when folk talk about investment in boats... I spend money on boats: if I'm lucky I may get *some* of it back when I sell it on, but that's it. I normally keep my boats ten years plus, so a £10,000 boat is only £1000 a year, which is a lot less than some of my colleagues spend on booze and ciggies. Investment in my dictionary is "money laid out for profit": boat, in someone elses', is "hole in the water into which money is poured" - rather like the booze and ciggies really! I think if you talk about investing in boats you can mislead yourself down some worrying avenues.

Paul Scott
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:56 am
Location: USA

Post by Paul Scott » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:42 am

B.O.A.T. = Blew Only Another Thousand.

B.O.A.T. Unit = One Thousand (Fill in Currency Here)

I believe that owning a boat fits into Click and Clack's definition of a Capital Depreciation Fund.

Paul 8)
"Exuberance is better than good taste" -Flaubert

User avatar
Christian AUS
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Christian AUS » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:53 am

I'm with Jim on this one, I put the money into boats for the pleasure I get out of sailing them. So the 20k (AUD) on water I paid for my brand new Tim Wilson built IC is worth it for the enjoyment I'm getting out of it.

Buying a restricted development/full development boat has pitfalls. Todays fast and sexy boat might be tomorrows Leyland P76, but if you enjoyed the ride then it's not all bad.
I'm a new boat owner and I say let's go 50kg, BUT let's ensure that Nethercotts (and other designs measurable as IC's) are supported through and beyond the class shift back to it's development roots.

Post Reply