| Author |
Topic: New style wings |
 |
Pete Lindley |
Posted: 10-Mar-04 19:50 |
|
|
|
Ok new thread as per Mr Perry's request.
How about same style / shape wing, but the same mould style of the 49er? The wing is double skinned but thinner than current ISO wing (about 2/3 of the thickness). The outer edge (parallel to the gunwhale - the bit you stand on and the bit the helms arses are supposed to hang over) is curved down. The starboard wing looks like ¬
How about that for a thought? Maybe same construction as the 49er as well? The really to seem robust!
Pete |
| |
|
rob |
Posted: 10-Mar-04 21:19 |
|
|
|
If the fleet decide to introduce wings that make a substantial difference it will split the fleet three ways: old wings new wings no wings. as far as the results of last year prove the wings dont seem to hinder that much as noted on the old message board most of the top boats in the fleet have wings therefore they cant be slowing you down or hindering people that much. |
| |
|
Bob Ladell |
Posted: 10-Mar-04 22:06 |
|
|
|
Let's remember the design intent behind the wings. To equalise weight advantage between light and heavy crews - hence ISO, derived from the Greek word meaning equal.
A light crew is weighted down by the 20lbs per wing and gains leverage by being further out so evening things up against a heavy crew. Simple and clearly works.
For a new wing to maintain that design principle, whether tubular, 49er or any other style, it would have to have both size and weight. And we would need to maintain the weight point, currently 78kg.
So why have a new wing ? The answers I've heard so far are :- Looks; option to remove weight at a later date - breaking this design principle; availability in the event of breakage.
It only affects about half the fleet - >78kg crews can't sail with them anyway. Provided the ISO design principle is maintained, a style change certainly does not split the fleet at all but does retain wing availability and boats on the water - which is the prime objective. |
| |
|
Ian Moss |
Posted: 10-Mar-04 22:43 |
|
|
|
<quote>A light crew is weighted down by the 20lbs per wing and gains leverage by being further out so evening things up against a heavy crew. Simple and clearly works.</quote>
Possibly have to dissagree on this quote Bob. Simple, yes, but where is the evidence that it clearly works?
I was under the impression that *most* of the top teams are light weights who use wings, if anyone asks should they they use wings the answer is always yes! I have always read this as the wing rule clearly doesn't work and favours the light weights.
In light winds it seems far more important where the weight is rather than how much weight is in the boat. In heavy winds boat setup seems more important than the leverage provided by the wings, as Pete and Annie proved at the Hoo!
Why not make the ISO truly equal and scrap the wing equalisation rule altogether - All boats completely equal!
[Edited by Ian Moss on 10-Mar-04 22:45] |
| |
|
steveb |
Posted: 11-Mar-04 09:02 |
|
|
|
If we were to follow Ian's logic and have everyone equal - No wings for everyone would work.
Declan & I can't use wings, so we would not agree to changes that favour wing users and give them an even bigger advantage. We want to win races too.
|
| |
|
Mike Perry |
Posted: 11-Mar-04 12:42 |
|
|
|
Just a quick comment to Ian's observation that "*most* of the top teams are light weights who use wings".
Looking at the membership statistics for 2003, just marginally over 2/3rds sail with wings, and looking at the top 3 results for the 2 major events of 2003 - Garda and the Nationals which had the larger attendances giving a good representation of the class. Of these 2/3rds were sailed with wings.
In my view the equalisation works adequately well and is straight forward to work and administer.
This is an item that past ISO Committees have discussed / considered many times over the past 10 years, but todate seen it not appropriate to change. But now that we are looking at some reasonable improvements to the ISO, I am not advocating that the wings should be ignored.
Keep your views coming.
Mike |
| |
|
GBR507 |
Posted: 11-Mar-04 18:32 |
|
|
|
One good reason not to change to a 49er style wing - this is the most common reason for the boats breaking. It's a really bad system which looks good - I've sailed 49ers and they are good systems for one thing, packing up the boat and trailing off...ooh bitchy I know.
Agree with Bob - its called an ISO so lets not forget what it really means - plus there dead cumfy for the helm...hehehe.
Mark |
| |
|
graham_737 |
Posted: 12-Mar-04 08:01 |
|
|
|
you all seem so keen on the 49er and 800... if you want to change the iso into one of these then why not just get one?! The iso is unique in that it is the only boat to have weight in the wings. THis is a fantastic system. If you go to the system from say the 800 or the 49er then you have to go about things completely differently... as follows ;
(just a quick note that from my history the 80-0 def. favours the heavier crews with the system below)
1. Wing length depends on leverage of the crew and helm. So ppl lie down on a plank of wood with one end on a weighing scale. The less the leverage.. the firther out the racks go.
2. Your weight is measured and dependant on what catagory you fit into you carry lead weights at the bottom of the boat. This is what the Iso is risking slipping into.
An example is this... My old 800.. we used to carry 3 lumps of lead in the bottom of the boat and have the wings 2/3 of the way out. All the top boats with this system were heavy crews with the wings in and carrying no lead in the bottom of the boat. If you switch to wings then oyu have this problem... Plus.. where do oyu fix the wights?! Wherever you fit them there is going to be and argument about the position.
PLease leave the Iso as it is... it looks fantastic and the wing system works in theory better than any other boat i know or have sailed. This includes doing a couple of 49er circuit events, and the 800 circuit. Please leave this lovely boat?!!?
Please let me know what your opinion is on this,
Thanks,
Graham |
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 12-Mar-04 08:38 |
|
|
|
There seems ot be an assumption that 'new' wings have to be lighter ! Many of the contributions make the point very clearly that this simply is not necessarily the case. Ditto for width. All the arguments for equalisation are as just as valid with tubular wings weighing 8kg each as they are for GRP ones weighting 8kg each.
If a liberalisation in the rules comes then this alternative does not put any pressure on anyone to 'buy to remain competitive'. It would most likely be one of preference, cost necessity if your GRP ones are 'beyond the pale' and/or down to individual choice. Many crews prefer tubes as a trapezing platform and many of us helms also prefer tubes as well. Why keep comparing the ISO with other classes, its the people who make a class NOT one particular feature of the boat. The ISO is distinctive of course and would remain so. But we can adapt and learn from others as well.
To my mind only those with under-weight GRP wings (and there are some around it is rumoured) should possibly be concerned. Whatever happens I'm in favour of weighing all pairs of wings at the Nationals - GRP or tubular, whether or not tubes are allowed. Be easy enough on some ordinary bathroom scales after all. Let's just see what variability is out there already. Im sure those who cannot use wings would find this one particularly interesting as well !
If maintaining equalisiation with a wing alternative is our key objective this can thus easily be preserved without equalisation rule changes. That is fair. It is even fairer if all GRP (and just possibly tubular) wings are weighted to ensure the original design intent is maintained.
Regards - Mike Lyons '653'
|
| |
|
Pete Lindley |
Posted: 12-Mar-04 12:01 |
|
|
|
In my opinion:
The wings are what makes the ISO look like an ISO.
Wings are used by light weighted people.
Lighter people usually (not always) are small short people. (except for me who is small, short and not light!)
The wings are provided to make things equal.
Tall light people can get out onto the wings, heavy people can get onto the gunwhales, light short people STRUGGLE to get out onto the wings!
If racks are used then it would make it easier for the short people to get onto the wing / rack, by providing an intermediate step.
Saying this, I definitely don't have a problem when crewing, and if I helm properly, neither does Annie.
So on making things easier to sail for all, racks win.
On looks (I know they were prototype) I think the wings are part of the ISO.
If racks, how is the helm to get in and out onto them without falling through the gap? Put a tramp on them and it is a 4000. I agree that they will be comfier to hike on. (Hike what's that?)
Anyway, that's my opinion. Carry on!
Pete
ISO 1013 'Team RWO'
PS: It was boat set up that helped at Hoo, not just wings. It was survival weather and the boat was set up correctly and survived. All racing tactics etc, were kind of left on the shore! Might have been better if I sailed a bit better, but we are now confident in any wind strength that we race in after that Sunday!
|
| |
|
Tim |
Posted: 12-Mar-04 13:12 |
|
|
|
Pete,
You are quite right about rig setup being far more important than wings in heavy weather. I was crewing with wings at Hoo and weigh about two Annie's and we could barely keep the thing upright. If anything without wings would of been better then it's easier to climb back in to the boat !!! Then as you pointed out, so would of sailing better might of helped us too...
Tim
PS Helm falling through racks? I suggest a bigger backsides !! |
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 12-Mar-04 15:08 |
|
|
|
"Falling through the gap ?!" It's not that wide, honestly. Many boats that are wide enough to justify tramps (with the exception of the 4000 etc) have wide spaced lacing anyway and always have a gap about the same width as we would have. Come Blaze sailing some time and you will see some do without tramps with the wings on maximum (but that IS getting silly ...) Suppose we could always have 'granny' option with a second bar like the B14's and a 'mini tramp'- more like a 'thong' that wide really. Still whatever turns you on. It would still have to have weights to get near GRP weight though.
Anyway it's a good debate. Don't understand about the wings making an ISO an ISO though. I always had to sail without years ago and never thought I wasn't sailing an ISO but I did think it looked better and the crew prefered it anyway getting out on the wire. Also hated trailing the boat on the odd occasion I needed to take the wings along - bloody awkward however you pack them and they like to have a go at gelcoat or car interior given half a chance. Then to add insult to injury they would leak salt water over everything - the same water they had taken on during sailing of course making them even heavier than intended. Not like a simple set of 'breakdown' tubes !!
Cheers - Mike Lyons '653'
PS - Agree about the logo - must be a good graphic artist in the association somewhere. I've already removed mine from the sides of my boat and put a simple stick on pinstripe along each side over the horrible 90's gelcoat one. Would not know it to look at it either.
|
| |
|
gary |
Posted: 12-Mar-04 19:36 |
|
|
|
Ok so i dont have an iso anymore! but having bought 4 new ones over 7 years broken nearly every bit possible and want the class to prosper i hope that lets me into the discussion!!
Keep the wings, I cant see the point in changing them,they work and considering the punishment they take they are pretty tough.
They do make an ISO an ISO.
Pack them in a wing bag if they scratch, no problem there.
They are different weights though so weigh them at nationals.
If they could be self draining that would be better.
I recall topper a few years ago were keen to alter the layout of the
cleats etc as people trying the boat would smack knees shins etc on them. This was seen as a disadvantage over boats with a clean layout.
At the abersoch nationals we held a quiz about the Iso, do you know what the most expensive part on an Iso hull is?? The logos !!!over £175
regards Gary
|
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 12-Mar-04 21:40 |
|
|
|
As I said mine were 'self draining' but not necessarily at sea where they seemed to have an uncanny ability to pick it up and retain it.
Mike Lyons '653' |
| |
|
rob |
Posted: 14-Mar-04 16:40 |
|
|
|
I personally would say keep the old style wings even if the new ones would also be equal. If the new ones would be equal why change them.
If new tubular wings do come in avoiding entrapment should be a large concern. it is a problem which all trapeze boats are suffer from it would be mad to make the boat easier to get trapped in or under. also some people seem to struggle when capsizing in my opinion this is normally because whoever is meant to be on the board does not get there quick enough. Would a new shape wings slow this down any more. We don’t use wings so it won’t affect us too badly but I don’t want the class to make a rash decision on the bases that all of the currently "cool" boats don’t look quite like ours. The iso has already stood the test of time and I think the other ideas which won’t change the look of the boat will be enough to keep people interested.
|
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 15-Mar-04 20:19 |
|
|
|
Well if you don't use your wings please offer them for sale I'd buy them if priced reasonably and especially if they are a pair of those nice 'light' GRP specials we hear rumours about.
More seriously what we are concerned about is the long term availability of serviceable wings. It's little if anything to do with being 'trendy'. That's not the strongest argument left 'against' surely !! As the supporters have argued already tubular wings can truly be made equal. It's more about cost and the long term availability for hundreds of boats, some of which will need replacements sooner or later. This class has got to get more boats out there racing or die, the ratio of boats to those raced is dismal relatively. We should have 100+ championships to regain the position the class once had. But it's much more difficult if we cannot maintain / refurbish boats economically because we cannot get hold of reasonably priced spares. If some prefer tubes what's the problem with that anyway ? Enterprises used to have cotton sails and wood masts and lifting handles, Fireballs no trapeze and no spinnaker etc -but here we are not even trying to influence performance.
Just consider - If Sobstad suddenly charged £ 5000 a set or the Superspars M2 was no longer economically available could we just shrug and say "its a very strict one design and despite the cost etc its still fair for all and any change is simply to become 'trendy'. (By the way if you wanted to be 'trendy' 10 years ago you simply HAD to have an ISO - did no harm then at all!) If fashion did not have some small part to play why change the colour of the boats or sail trim over the years ?
Anyway alternative wings do not have to be tubular at all, that is not what is being said either - but can someone please fully cost out a GRP replacement and then perhaps justify the difference to those who might in fact need them. Its much easier to 'knock' a proposal than to assist in developing a better one - so you know we want it to be 1) low cost 2) totally retrofittable 3) self draining (or does that breach the 'fairness' principle) 4) comfortable for both on boat. A GRP alternative for that matter would be just as valid and perhaps more acceptable to the 'traditionalists' even if they don't need them themselves. I'm sure this would also be just as acceptable to those proposing the tubular alternative if the pricing was OK. However I suspect there would be a substantial difference plus considerable tooling costs.
Consider a rule: GRP OR tube + Minimum weight = 8kg per side + maximum width when measured in place from boat centreline so many mm. No pressure to buy to be competitive, no need to change rules, or your existing boat, completely fair, purchased only when needed etc. So can anyone tell us how much a set of GRP wings is these days anyway or do you just trade in the crew for a taller alternative and do without ?
Cheers - '653'
|
| |
|
Pete Lindley |
Posted: 15-Mar-04 23:39 |
|
|
|
As I have mentioned before, I would like the 49er style wing. More compact and slicker looking than current ISO stylie, as well as the same weight as the current ones.
I don't like the tubular look, mainly as it would tie us / make us look like a half hearted 4000. I do agree something needs to be done about them though.
If you pick my wings up, they make a right noise as all the loose gel coat rattles around inside. Mine are cracked to hell , but I will not change them due to the fact they do not leak.
They should be as you say - 1, 2, 3, 4, max width the same.
They should also be an optional extra (those whose wings currently leak would buy) If optional, then orders would be low.
Only my thoughts Mike. Sorry I cannot be of more assistance.
Pete |
| |
|
ISO 653 |
Posted: 16-Mar-04 17:40 |
|
|
|
Thanks for input Pete
But why relate it all to what the 4000 looks like ..... The ISO was 'damaged' as a class by it years ago we all know but that's no need for paranoia now. The ISO can prosper again if it’s supported well and the 'trendiness' of the 4000 itself has fallen away as well - many of the same sailors have now moved on again into the 800
The ISO will prosper if it appeals to the widest possible number and remains economical to own and race. It's very moderate by today’s standards, is easy to sail and in my view carries weight better than many other single trapeze boats. Encouraging people to take on 'old clunkers', sort them out and then race them can turn this class around fairly quickly. This is greatly helped if they do not have to put up with old creaking, leaking and poorly engineered equipment even if they can only do it on a tight budget. The availability of 'good wings' to replace the existing whether tubular or GRP to current or a future design is one issue that can help change the fortunes of the class. So other boats have tubes - who cares really ? If its economical and still fair but gets a few more out there is'nt that what its really about.
Liberalisation of the rules will not damage the class, and it could help turn it around completely by encouraging more of us ex-ISO or other helms to visit the 'used-ISO' swamp for a bargain and get old boats back out there racing. It an economic argument - old ISO's are cheap but we do want to put together the best working setup possible. That means sourcing replacements economically, when needed, for knackered wings as well as other items. I say this is one area, like rudder stocks and booms where the class needs to think to the future, with a view to attracting more into or back to the class.
I suspect a vote tomorrow might currently reject any wing alternative but that condemns some of us to possibly very great expense having to purchase replacements to the existing design or to have to try and repair suspect and knackered originals. If I had a late number boat perhaps I would not bang on about this so much - but I think it will be a missed opportunity for the class not to allow periodic change, additional choice, and help encourage 'old clunkers' out there again. The numbers raced need to rise for long term success.
Cheers - Mike Lyons '653'
|
| |
|
Ross Ashton |
Posted: 17-Mar-04 16:30 |
|
|
|
I don't know, I turn my back for 5 seconds (OK, it was several months) and the website looks different and so does the boat!
Firstly, let me just make the point that I am not set against all change, I just have a view that we need to be sensible and keep it an Iso. Otherwise why not just switch to some other class?
Secondly, I sail without wings which may colour my views on that topic.
So what do I think...?
1) boom - hard to argue against as no significant performance benefits but tougher and fairly cost neutral - let's do that one
2) rudder stock - again, no performance benefit but better availability - let's do that one
3) rudder/daggerboard profile - we're all the same so why change it?
4) rope tweaks - low cost, easy to achieve for everyone and don't make you go faster, just makes it easier to sail - let's do these, especially the clew outhaul and adjustable strop (but can we find a way of having one cleat on a system that automatically finds the centreline, rather than 2 cleats and lots of fiddling about to find the centreline?)
5) wings - assuming the principle of additional leverage for additional weight is adhered to I'm OK with this, but safety must be the first consideration so I think a tramp would be required. I am very definitely against wings that are lighter than the current ones, besides this would force people to change and spend the money.
6) sail plan - would surely split the class so NO
7) carbon mast & masthead kite - GET REAL & BUY A BOSS/49ER/ETC
8) New logo - may be important to 'outsiders', but I think the class would have to provide FOC on request as who would pay for this? (but I would pay for the old one to be removed!)
Obviously it's good to explore all these things and well done to all those involved.
Have I missed anything?
Ross (822)
[Edited by Ross Ashton on 17-Mar-04 16:32] |
| |
|
GBR507 |
Posted: 17-Mar-04 18:24 |
|
|
|
Old clunker hey? I probably own the oldest in the fleet but will be at near enough all the events - can we define especially as 507 is probably the most non-leaking and per square inch crack free boat...only joking!
I think we have to consider that those who need replacements need replacements and its probably about time this evolved anyhow. Having owned a B14 and sailed a B14e (which had exactly the proposed racks - just not weighted) we do need fully serviceable replacements, however for the helm there were no problems and the crew loved it, except the class decided to be the premier hiking boat and removed the trapeze, and now the class has grown/growing by the week. Why not just let a couple of boats trial the new rack, see how the performance ACTUALLY stands up to over a decent racing weekend open and report back then. All this talk really isn't getting it done...lets see some physical evidence!
M (ISO 507) |
| |
