1) How will you get a handicap for this boat if its a one
off?
Actually this is quite easy. I do a few races in the boat, just
recording finishing times. I then stuff those in a spreadsheet along
with results from last seasons races when I sailed a boat that did have
a handicap number, and then calculate a PY number that results in
similar positions to those I would have expected in the old boat. Over
the course of the season the number can be refined. As I'm not a top
class helmsman who expects to win races its unlikely to be controversial
anyway!
2) Why's the Class called ++?
It probably will never be a class, but on the sail I was originally
going to have CH++, being a derivation of Cherub,
the major influence, Harrier, the obscure single hander
that its a successor to, and ++ to indicate its much more
than both. Of course this also puns with a computer programming language
and I'm in that business, even if I'm not a code cutter. However that
lacks a certain ring, so I abbreviated it to Plus Plus. By co-incidence
- at least consciously - I learnt to race sailboats as a teenager in a
now obscure 11 ft two hander called an 11+ or Plus!
3) So what's wrong with an XXX like I sail?
For you, probably nothing! For me the critical factors were
· Upwind planing capability, eliminating all boats without at
least one of large wings, trapeze and sliding seat.
· Sub 120kg sailing weight required, eliminating virtually
everything except the International Moth and the RS600.
· Sit out boat rather than trapeze, eliminating the RS600.
· Able to cope with my expanding waistline (i.e. 200lb or
possibly more), eliminating the International Moth.
Here's some thoughts on new classes that have arrived since I started the project.
Heatwave
Singlehander from the board of Keith Callaghan, a well known Merlin
designer in the 60s and 70s who also designed the Harrier, as mentioned
above, the old singlehander I played while I was thinking about this
project in the first place. I'm somewhat neutral about this one. Bearing
in mind the Merlin background I think its perhaps a bit narrow overall
beam, and maybe a bit wide on the waterline and a tad heavy. On the
other hand it certainly works better than the Solos and Phantoms of this
world. I haven't sailed one, but its got to be in the same sort of
territoty as the Megabyte I guess.
RS300.
14 footer from Racing Sailboats/Clive Everest. The basic dimensions are
very similar to the original concept I came up with for my boat, and I
suspect we both started from a similar basic thought (I'm second
guessing Clive here, I haven't talked to him about this boat, so this
could be complete nonsense). However from there I suspect we took quite
separate routes.
The RS300 is quite definitely intended as a mass market boat, and I'm
sure they'd love to see it replace Lasers in many Clubs round the world.
This is reflected in the high priority that has obviously been given to
ease of sailing - although the waterline beam is narrow - definite signs
of Clive's time in the Moths - the cross section of the hull is similar
to a Merlin Rocket or National 12, with no distinct wing or flare, and
the soft sail with an unstayed mast also appears not to have been
primarily selected for ultimate performance.
All this should make it an excellent club boat, perhaps replacing Lasers
and Solos and such like, and I think it should do very well in that
environment, if a bit tricky to sail for the inexperienced. One
reflection is that it must have been tricky to draw up and build a jig
for - there's a lot of very complex curvature where the flare out to the
sitting out area runs into the more normal sectioned bow area. I'm sure
its a computer designed boat.
Megabyte
Farr Associates (presumably Farr/Bowler) 14ft singlehander. More
conventional than the 300, the Megabyte is at very first sight vaguely
in the Laser mould. However the hull shape is quite sophisticated, with
a moderately fine straight waterline bow that is probably best described
as a V section running into a U right at the bottom. Its round bilge,
albeit with a pretty firm turn to the bilge, quite wide on the waterline
with a fairly flat bottom at max beam - probably about 65% from bow, but
with the aft sections moving towards more of a V shape, more by
manipulating section shape than by increasing the rise of floor at the
turn of the bilge. The transom is quite narrow for a modern boat, and it
has moderate rocker, with the rocker fairly evenly distributed along the
length of the boat. You couldn't really say it bears a resemblance to
the 1972 Farr Cherub I have -
although the stern is vaguely similar the mid sections and rocker are
quite different.
I've only sailed one in force 0/1, but in those conditions it was a very
pleasant boat to sail, not in the least sticky (unlike the ++ ), and
exceedingly responsive to kinetics... The rig is unstayed carbon
stick/full length top batten, so nothing radical.Again, like the 300, it
should be an excellent club boat, and a boat I could recommend. It will,
I suspect, suite a heavier weight range than the 300, not be quite as
quick, but easier to sail. Nice layout - the strings are laid out almost
identically to my boat in fact, although I didn't like the mainsheet
block that made it difficult to play the mainsheet from the boom.
Unusually its not self draining, with a reasonable amount of freeboard
and quite a deep cockpit aft, which will make it comfortable to sail,
but it has a low tank back to aft of the daggerboard rather like we used
to do in Cherubs. It also has a daggerboard rudder. Loud cheers!
Laser EPS
Lets just say that it doesn't altogether fit in well with my theories on
monohull design...
Laser Vortex
Well of course this "1.5maran" is really quite different from
anything else. I've had a quick ride in one, and its by no means an
unpleasant boat to sail. I quite failed, however, to get it to
"Wild Thing" downwind, although it was certainly a very odd
experience sailing on a moderately windy broad reach standing on the
leeward side! As I've said elsewhere I believe that the prototype Vortex
sail was cut by Caws, a few months after they did
my sail, and it seems to me that there's something of a family
resemblance in the two rigs. I'd love to kid myself that there's some
influence from my ideas on the production boat, but fear that any
resemblances come purely from the Sailmaker...
Topper Blaze
My mother used to say "If you can't say anything nice, don't
say anything at all".
4) I want one! How much will it cost?
That, of course, is between you and your local friendly boat builder or
materials supplier. If you want to build one to your own design here are some rules! If you want to build one
to my design then email me, and I will mail you a set of offsets and a Hullform file covering the
underwater shape in exchange for a very modest fee. If you want one
built for you then Bloodaxe
Boats, who are built the main shell of my boat for me to finish, are the
people to get hold of.
5) Why not have an Asymmetric Spinnaker?
I'd love too, if I thought it was practical, and if we keep having all
running courses at my club I may yet do it! The big problem with
designing a singlehander is that the sail that is big enough for top
speed downwind is far too big upwind, and vice versa. No worries
for a two hander as you just put a s*****g great kite on, and no problem
for an Ice boat because the apparent wind is so huge you don't need the
extra rag anyway. So I did seriously consider it, and spent some time
sailing my asymmetric rigged Cherub single handed to gain relevant
experience. The conclusions I've come to are that 75% of the time you
can handle the asymmetric solo on the Cherub without any great problem,
but the issues come in two areas.
The first is when you've just overtaken *half* of that huge pack of
Lasers, and the others are all about. Then you get a big gust coming up
to the leeward mark with the bank of the reservoir approaching at high
speed.
The second is when you get hit by a big gust on the reach, and you need
to bear away like crazy, dump the mainsail, and keep the kite filling.
In both cases you need a third hand, and quickly! Its one thing to be in
that situation in a heavy boat, or one with very little sail, but in a
boat as light and responsive as this one is then life will get extremely
tricky - and possibly expensive - very quickly.
The halfway house will be to develop a rig with sufficient gust response
and ability to depower efficiently that one can carry a total ridiculous
amount of sail upwind, and then power it up for reaches.
International Canoe sailors are experimenting with asymmetrics, and I
shall follow what they do with interest. Apparently, however, the
technique for the Canoe is to cleat main and jib and just play the
spinnaker. I have my doubts as to whether, on a relatively short boat,
it will be possible to bear away fast enough using just the rudder. On
the Cherub, which is of course even shorter, and so is more of an
extreme position, the rudder isn't always powerful enough to overcome
the effect of the mainsail in keeping the boat pointing up, and attempts
to bear away without dumping the mainsail in extreme conditions at best
result in a broach, and at worst - if the gear isn't up to it - in a
rudder or gantry failure. The mainsail is used primarily as a "trim
tab" to control the pointing angle and the technique for downwind
sailing is basically to play the main and to a lesser extent the rudder
so that the boat is kept bolt upright and fully powered up. I suspect
this boat will behave rather more like the Cherub than like the Canoe
6) Could I build one out of wood?
Several people have asked me this one. The answer comes in several
stages!
I think virtually any boat can be built out of any material, but some
are better choices than others. I'd have my doubts about a glass taped
ply car ferry, or a steel International Moth! I modestly believe that as
good a place as any to read about lightweight boat building on the web
is a site I run, that of the UK
Cherub Class. There are articles on both foam sandwich and ply sandwich
building.
I believe that foam sandwich is the easiest material for the amateur to
successfully build a boat of this type with. It's much easier than wood
and you need less in the way of good tools. I've come to this conclusion
after having owned many ply Cherubs, and then migrating to foam sandwich
about 1989.
On the other hand this boat is the sort of size and weight that
Australians and New Zealanders have been successfully building light ply
boats to since the 1960s, but the techniques and skills aren't widely
distributed elsewhere in the world. The average Enterprise builder would
have some trouble. The best bet would, if you can't use foam for some
reason, be to use ply sandwich like the technique described on the
Cherub site above.
If however epoxies and glass are out for health reasons or something of
the like then its going to be necessary to use more traditional
techniques. The hull shape round the bow, where the curvature gets
pretty three-dimensional, would be especially tricky. I haven't
discussed this with Andy Paterson, but in the days before epoxies and
decent glass he used to build some excellent Cherubs by cold moulding
the bottom of the hull, and then using ply above the chines. As the
shape above the chines on this boat is pretty much flat sections (and
non-critical anyway) that technique ought to work reasonably well. You'd
probably have to have some sort of side deck arrangement to get adequate
torsional stiffness, and it would be appallingly easy to end up with a
boat that's 20 or 30lbs overweight, and this shape just won't work if
its too heavy… If you've got the necessary skills and experience to
build skiff type boats (Cherubs, Australian 14s, NS14s, etc etc) in ply
then to build one of these the same way will not present you with any
great challenge. If you don't have that background - or appropriately
experienced people to consult then I fear your first one will be at risk
of ending up too heavy and/or not strong enough. I suppose you might be
able to build one out of glass/cedar, but I know nothing about building
light boats like that...
8) Why didn't you do the ISAF Single Hander Trials?
They wanted a SMOD with a big company behind it. Quite a different
philosophy to this boat.