Welcome to the UKWA Home Page Forums Technical wish list for anew Wayfarer

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4820
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    so (to be clear…) you won’t complain if you get thrashed upwind by non-hartleys?

    #4821
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    G.O’Rilla wrote…

    > However, I will only complain again when my beloved woodie gets thrashed upwind by a new hartley W with a suspiciously long waterline length……….

    I don’t believe that the new builder would risk investing in new tooling which produced a hull significantly different to the present series 2 +S. The UKWA have the right under the existing WIC rules to measure the mould (rule 2.3), and I would encourage them to do so, if only to reassure any cynics amongst us that all is well.

    However I do hope that Hartley/Morrison can do a better job of the internal design than Proctor/Porter have done (e.g. SD and World). The +S still mimics the original wooden boat designed almost 50 years ago!

    Richard

    #4823
    G.ORilla
    Member

    As an honorary member of the Wayfarer cannon fodder, I get thrashed on all points of sailing not just upwind – it is just the degree of thrashing……..

    #4824
    G.ORilla
    Member

    Richard,

    Not just same hull shape, but also similar weight distribution. If those two are normalised and proven to be so then I and many others will be happy – and with a new modern internal design we will have a boat that can compete with the external market

    #4827
    Swiebertje
    Participant
    G.O’Rilla wrote:
    Not just same hull shape, but also similar weight distribution. If those two are normalised and proven to be so then I and many others will be happy

    It is not just the hull shape and the position of the centre of gravity (CG) that are important. More important then the position of the CG is the moment of inertia, or rather the position of the axis of that moment. That determines the roll and yaw characteristics. Of course it is true that if the position of the CG is changed the inertia changes as well, but we should be looking fort similar inertia characteristics in a new boat.

    Here is how the Finn class determines the axis of inertia and the CG by a simple swing test: http://www.finnclass.org/interestingstuff/swingtest.htm

    Please bear in mind that such a test is not needed for every new boat, only for the first one of a series. The results should be compared to those of an existing boat. For that we would first need to establish what a Wayfarer is…..

    I strongly believe that the roll and yaw characteristics (defined by the moment of inertia) are as important as the hull shape. They determine how the hull behaves in waves and wind. In other words; how the the below the water line hull shape changes (A/O changes in the water line length) while the boat is rocking about. I also believe that this effect may be one of the main factors why our different marks behave differently.

    Cheers,
    Ton

    #4828
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    never seen a wave in holland anyway (or in waldringfield either for that matter), so do we really care about moment of inertia?

    #4830
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @8848 wrote:

    never seen a wave in holland anyway (or in waldringfield either for that matter), so do we really care about moment of inertia?

    With a low polar moment of inertia they tack quicker and without losing as much speed…

    #4831
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @8848 wrote:

    never seen a wave in holland anyway (or in waldringfield either for that matter), so do we really care about moment of inertia?

    And Lowestoft, Shoreham, Hayling, Weymouth… ?

    Mmt of inertia is likely to be of greatest importance at the most important event, the Nats, if it’s a sea venue.

    #4832
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    And Lowestoft, Shoreham, Hayling, Weymouth… ?

    I know, I was just being flippant.

    I suspect that the MI for a new design will not be much different from current designs.

    #4837
    Swiebertje
    Participant

    Ok, Richard, let’s try and contribute to the thread’s discussion then:

    If the new boat could be made self draining it could meet CE class B. (The current plus-s is class C). Class B makes it safe for coastal waters (cough cough).

    On the other hand all double bottomed marks so far are “wet boats”. You cannot sail them in plain clothes on a sunday afternoon in light winds. On of the features I like about the designs with floor boards is they are “dry boats”.

    I am curious about the capsize recovery characteristics of a new self draining design. So far none of the double bottom designs were capsize friendly, to say the least. Obviously a double bottom design has consequenses on CG and inertia as well. I am curious how the designers are solving these issues. For the time being I prefer the CE-class-C design of the current plus-S because:

    1. It is easier to recover from a capsize. I think, because of this, it is safer then a self draining design despite the fact I have to manualy bail it out and it only complies to CE-class-C.

    2. I can keep my feet dry.

    3. Weight distribution is far better (Inertia & CG).

    4. Easier to maintain. The inside of a double bottom is pretty hard to get in, for example for a hull repair.

    Having visited Porter’s on several occasions. I think that Hartley’s should first look at the production proces or rather at the quality management. They should improove not just the production process but also the purchase processes and everyting else that is related to the production of a boat. I am convinced the costs of the current design, as produced by Porter’s, can be significantly lowered. Perhaps as much that a new design isn’t really needed. A few tweaks in the current design may just do the trick…

    Ton

    #4838
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Hi Veggies,

    I’m not clear why a double floor is bad for MI. (Not saying you’re wrong, just I don’t understand why.)

    If a plus s (say) is built to approx minimum weight, then the front-to-back weight distribution would be similar to a double floor design built to the same weight. I don’t see more weight concentration in the middle of the boat for one design over the other.

    By the way National 12’s seem to go faster when they’re double floor not single floor because they’re stiffer.

    Also one safety issue to bear in mind is that currently a righted Wayfarer full of water is very unstable and in waves can be a bugger to keep upright. Getting rid of that water quickly is important. Not saying we need a double floor necessarily, but we do need a way to get rid of the water quickly once righted, and bucketing is not quick (esp. in waves!).

    #4839
    Swiebertje
    Participant
    8848 wrote:
    Hi Veggies,

    Babbelfish fun….

    8848 wrote:
    I’m not clear why a double floor is bad for MI. (Not saying you’re wrong, just I don’t understand why.)

    Perhaps because the weight concentration is more to the ends in a plus-s?

    I imagine that a double bottom design distributes the weight more evenly over the whole of the hull, effectively shortening the arm of the moment of inertia. (a moment [tork] is a force [weight] multiplied by an arm [distance, leverage]). Also the CG may be lower in a double floor design.

    Nothing is imposible, so I am curious how the designer will solve this issue.

    8848 wrote:
    By the way National 12’s seem to go faster when they’re double floor not single floor because they’re stiffer.

    It all depends how the two floors support each other. If it is only in a very few places it will not stiffen the boat at all. Worse, the hull may go wobbely over the ribs. A much more reliable way to stiffen the hull is by a sandwich construction. Not as crude as in the current plus-s. This technique was state of the art in the early 90-ies but today there are better solutions. Foam sandwich works, but its quite a thick laminate and the foam plates are hard to form. Not over the large areas of course, but in the all important corners where they should exactly join. Using a honeycombe filler renders a thinner hull that is just as stiff and much easier to make. Perhaps it weighs less too, not sure.

    8848 wrote:
    Also one safety issue to bear in mind is that currently a righted Wayfarer full of water is very unstable and in waves can be a bugger to keep upright. Getting rid of that water quickly is important. Not saying we need a double floor necessarily, but we do need a way to get rid of the water quickly once righted, and bucketing is not quick (esp. in waves!).

    True, but if you have a choise:

    1. Not self bailing but easy to right.
    – Bucket bailing

    2. Self bailing but goes turtle immediatly and is very hard to get up again.
    – CB that is too high up in the air.
    – much higher righting moment.

    What would you prefer?

    I am one that is not convinced self bailing is safer. I may be better of in an instable boat that is upright then in a self bailing one that has gone turtle and that I can’t get up again.

    What would be the cruisers view?
    I mean; they lack the convenience of a rescue boat….

    Ton

    #4896
    matoi
    Member

    I bought a new Wayfarer World this spring with the intention of daysailing and cruising. We had a great summer and I am very happy with the boat as it came. But still, there are a few details that could be improved from my current point of view:

    – Rowing could be improved. Current rowlocks are too low or not close enough to the edge of the deck. Also, with current nonremovable thwart, it is not possible to store one-piece oars of sufficient length on the floor (maximum oar length is cca. 245cm, but requires very complicated maneuvering around foot straps to store on the floor). I have no experience with two-piece oars yet, maybe these would solve the problem. Also, some kind of foot support for rowers would be nice if it could be made so that it doesen’t interefere with sailing.

    – Floor in the bow compartment doesn’t seem to me to be robust enough for storing hard or heavy items with piece of mind.

    – Aft storage box should be lockable and also easily locked to the boat itself.

    – Mooring cleats. It would be nice if the boat came with mooring cleats installed. They should be such that they don’t interfere with sailing.

    – Second reef in the mainsail should be corrected. There is something wrong or missing with current set-up.

    – Road trailer should have bigger wheels.

    Regards,

    Mato
    W10435

    #4905
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    A wish list for the more mature owner:

    Apart from a self draining hull which is stable when full and easy to remount when inverted:

    1. Increase open meeting attendance by making it easy to rig & de-rig. For us that means an undercover (split transversly at shrouds / hull support?) that that doesn’t need superman to lift the boat into and a spi halyard and pole uphaul that can be rigged & de-rigged without double joints and a periscope. Plus mast sock with sheet stowage and bungies for securing disconnected shrounds and forestay. Plus trailer board mounted on rudder pintles with supports for mast foot and boom.
    2. A reliable and salt-tolerant halyard stowage mechanism for pump action spi hoist.
    3. A chute launched spi plus twin self-launching spi-poles.
    4.Front bulkhead far enough forward or rear tank front face far enough aft for boom to stow in boat below the level of tiller (not possible in a +S)
    5.Front of forward side benches far enough aft to fit a decent sizes spi bags.
    6.Decent spi bags with kit pockets
    7.A slot gasket that last longer than 2 seasons and is easy to change by two lightweights without turning the boat over – or do away with the sodding thing provided that the boat performs as well as existing ones without it.
    8.Spi guy cleat / reaching hook of a type and in a position that a relatively weak female crew can pull the guy and pole back off the luff in a blow – perhaps with additional guy thwart fairleading to enable the helm to assist with his mainsheet hand.
    9.Single double-ended twinning line with length adjustable from from in boat.

    #4940
    Bob Harland
    Participant

    matoi raises the point about rowlock position, I never understood why Porters insisted on putting them in the sidedeck on the World. On our own (Porters) boat we used a custom stainless fitting through the rollover gunwhale – from a rowing point this is the perfect location and it is much stronger than the sidedeck.

    We can easily stow our 9′ (2.7m) oars on the floor either side of the centreboard case – but we don’t bother with the aft stowage box, with so much stowage forward why do you need it for day-sailing?

    And I also agree with matoi on the floor of the bow compartment – that’s why we had some extra foam sandwich in ours.

    Mooring cleats – fit one on the side of mast tabernacle – big enough to take your anchor warp, this is about the strongest part of the boat and you can easily bolt through it. Aft lines can be secured to the wood trim across the rudder cutout.

    When it comes to fitting out details on a boat I would recommend you do these yourself. If you want a builder to do it then you have to go to great lengths to discuss what you want and then carefully specifiy it exactly.
    bob

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.