Best F16 for 1-up?

Good question!

I dont think it matters that much which platform to go with. The real gains would be in the rig and sails I believe.

What was the name of the boat Gary built from an old A-cat? Altered? Am I wrong if I think I remember something about that boat would have been faster with more hull volume?

A modified A-Cat, even a something like a DNA would be short on volume I'd think.

Aussie Blade or Taipan.

F16 Uni-rig only =

All carbon platform, carbon mast, load path membrane mainsail, spinnaker pole 38cm shorter, rudders with winglets, and most importantly; 1-2kg underweight. Hull design: who cares as long as you can bear away! This is what I would have in a F16 singlehanded boat.

Heavy (most but not all existing platforms) for a singlehander is not an option so heavy would/should never be considered.

BC <img src="<>/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink" height="15" width="15" />

Why the shorter spin pole Bob?

Daniel,

Getting a mainsail that is cut for your weight and/or a carbon mast are the items that are important.
> mainsail specially cut not to have too much power to fast
> carbon mast > safety to right the boat in all conditions (a waterbag might help in almost all conditions too and if ofcourse cheaper, however with the carbon stick you're 100% sure to right it at all times).

With the new carbon masts Matt is making now the special cut mainsail becomes less critical too as you can really trim the sail flat with cunningham and in very windy conditions some additional diamond wire tension. The advantage is it keeps the sail fully fitted for 2 up sailing too.

I think the added volume on for example the Falcon, compared to the Taipan or Blade is not a must for single handed sailing, but definately adds additional comfort as you are a bit higher out of the water (especially if you sail in areas where you can get some waves).

Gill

I chased the design spiral on this for 12 months before deciding you couldn't come up with a single handed boat that had an advantage or would in fact be equal to the double handers around the course. That does not however mean there aren't things you can do to optimise a single handed boat.

From the top down:
A Carbon mast is a given. If you look at the new generation A class rigs they are stiffer sideways and more flexible length wise. Given you'll use the main as a back stay anyway down wind these traits would be equally attarcive on an F16 mast.

A well designed String sail would be worth its weight in gold Both myself at the back of the fleet and the winner of this year's Australian Taipan nations used a Landy string sail and we both feel it is incredably automatic giving you time to make the nessary adjustments that would be handled by the crew on a sloop.

Kite. will need to be as flat as your sail maker can make work within the rules if you're going to trap down wind or actually a bit fuller than the sloop ones allowing you to sit in and point down more.

Hulls can have a lot less volume, modern theory suggests that this should be achieved by reducing rocker not beam but you'll probably reduce both to some extent. Given there is no good reason to reduce transom height this will give you a flatter and faster run aft. If you raise the forefoot slightly you should be able to create a hull that has the bow immersed upwind but slightly above the water line down wind without excessive trim (have a look at the AC45s) this will help generate lift under kite but will also give you some reserve buoyancy to stop you going down the mine without adding too much drag.

Centreboards will only need to be 2/3rds the size of the sloop ones as asumming you're going the same straight line speed upwind then the required area is directly proposionaly to righting moment. If you make the boards very high aspect then you can make small adjustments to control heeling arm very easily. Boards can be moved aft a little but don't get carried away as having them forward makes the boat easier to drive if you do get the occasional reaching leg with the kite up, however, if you have the boards to far fwd you put a lot of load on the rudders, this can be offset by rudder rake but the more load you put on your rudders the narrower your steering band will be.

Finally because you've saved weight by building smaller hulls you can upspec the beams and make your boat stupidly stiff.

I'd agree with the other posts that pretty much any EXISTING F16 can be fashioned into an effective solo-sailing boat - from the Taipan 4.9 to the latest Falcon, Viper, N16, etc.

A bit flatter sailplan and a mast that can bend to flatten out the main (for less drag - you don't need as much power since you're lighter than a 2-up boat). Maybe some tapered battens to help with that, too, if you're using a main cut for 2-up sailing (a deeper draft profile)?

Less daggarboard than a 2-up boat in the same conditions should reduce the excess heeling typical in a 1-up boat.

Downhill you may want to think of different sailing angles than your 2-up crew next to you. Or a different spin cut

Sailing balance.

<img src="<>/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink" height="15" width="15" />

I was hoping for a more in depth response. Not ripping on you, just in what ways would it be more balanced? I was under the impression that a longer pole created more lift, but I've noticed lee helm is more pronounced singlehanded.

Perhaps that's why (lee helm) he's saying a shorter spin pole?

I find the length of the spinpole only an issue if you really try and sail the same angles downwind as the 2 ups and even than in most cases it's because your main is not properly trimmed but you can't adjust as you already have the helm and spin.
As you are alone on the boat steering the same angles as the 2 up boats is definately not necessary. You can sail at least 5° deeper without loosing too much in speed (deeper angle definately makes up).
With a well balanced rig the length of the pole is no issue.

I am not sure about that Gilo. The center of effort in the sails is moving about quite a lot when you set the spi. This surely will load up the foils quite differently compared to going upwind.

I think shortening the spi pole might be a thing well worth testing with two otherwise identical boats.

Some really good answers and insights in this thread.

Rolf, I agree, but not more than it is on a 2up boat?

Hi Gilo,

I dont know how that works out. Does the added weight allow the boat to counteract the forces generated by the spi without loading up the foils in the same way? I need to sit down with some paper and draw vectors..

Perhaps this is something Scarecrow can be enticed to speculate on for 30 sec and comment on? <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />

Been away for a few weeks and just reading all the replies on the Single handed boats. Most things we have been over at various stages but a nice winter rehash may get us interested in sailing again.

A lot of the things people are saying about the main are not correct, flattening the sail makes the top of the sail really very aerodynamically draggy and with drag you get loss of speed and efficiency which in turn creates all the wrongs at the top of the mast which is the last place you want it.

Randy Smythe said to me once in an Email that the major difference between an A sail and one designed to have a jib is that they are designed completely opposite from top to bottom. With a jib you create extra wind speed at the base of the sail and therefore you build it to be much flatter than at the top where you want extra power to fly the hull with the two man ballast on the wire.

The opposite occurs on the A where you have limited wind speed over the bottom and therefore you have it much fuller to cope with the lower wind speed. At the top you just want just enough grunt to fly a hull with one man on the wire and yet create good efficient drive, basically pretty flat.

On Bitsa I tried a very flat Landenberger sail which with my weight just never seemed to get up and going, when you did get it in the groove and everything set, it was a sheer joy, unfortunately at my skill level that wasn't often enough. The present sail ( Micky Pink Hammer ) I have is a very deep sail at the bottom and still deepish at the top until with downhaul on it will flatten out, its not as fast as the Landy but around a course on average it is far superior most of the time, in effect it is a far better all round sail that most people will get 75% out of.

I also found the same scenario on two previous F16 compliant sails, so for a single handed sail you need loads of grunt at the bottom to create lots of drive low down ( remember we probably have to much sail area as a single hander ) and nice simple efficiency at the top to give that final smooth drive foward without lifting the hull too much.

Equally with the spinnaker, we tried at so many times to wire and not to wire, as soon as the wind got over 10 knots or so, those sitting in won everytime. Now with good practice and the top guys I would'nt be so sure. Now I have a spinnaker that was cut about flat as the rules would go and a nice fat rounded early generation Landy spinny. Sorry to say it but the really flat sail is fast but only in a very specific groove, its a bitch to keep flying and when it does set properly it generates so much power that you end up waggling the stick so much to prevent it over powering the boat. Its simply not smooth sailing and not smooth sailing means the brakes are on and you end up in and out on the wire and constantly adjusting the sail.

Now the big fat headed spinny, it seems to simply truck on at a moderate pace in a very broad range of angles. I think on average it is again faster all round but probably doesn't feel it on the water.

Yup most of us as single handers have ended up shortening our poles to get the boat balanced better, not sure why that is.

Beam width is a personal thing and to date I have found the boats at 2.3 metres to be better all round than the 2.5m, not sure why but there seems to be some diagonal forces that when pushed to the max seems to unsettle the boat and force the nose down. I've not sailed one of the new generation of hull design so that may now be countered some what.

So the single handed boat is quite differnt than the dual and as we progress, I think that will become more pronounced. I still think a cut off DNA would be a pretty good start though.

And if you thought you had it figured out, along comes a new 'twist'.

At the just completed Tradewinds Regatta, 9 races sailed in light air, the F16's and F18's with the deepest daggerboards kicked butt! We started right next to them several times, and they just walked away, pointing higher at the same speed, or same pointing but going faster, either way, I want some deep boards!

The new boards on both the F18's and F16's are DEEEEEEP! I would guess about 2' deeper. And when you think about it, it's no different than what we saw early in the F16 class, when the switch was made from the fatter, shorter boards, like the Taipan and original Vectorworks Blades had, to the longer, skinnier boards of the Viper and newer Blades and Falcons.

Now there are much longer boards available. I think the top 3 in the F16 class all had the deeper boards (and the lightest crews, which really helps in that light air) and 2 of the top 3 in the F18 class had the deeper boards as well (and light crews, who had to cary weight).

There were no fat guys on the podium, in any class, but lots of light boys and girls in every class.

So...if it's going to be light, get some long boards and a skinny little kid to crew for you!

Or

Surely you didn't mean to say the Falcon boards are TWO FEET deeper than your boards.

I would say they are about 18

-24

deeper, yes. So tall are they that Andi was not allowed to cary them through security and onto his flight back to Zurich, he had to check them.

I just hope Delta doesn't lose them or run them over with a tug!

Terry, if your P90X add is in reference to the light crews kicking butt, they were all skinny little teenage kids, not buff beef cakes like those Body Double types!

And you know Muscle weighs more than fat, right?

That's why I stay away from the gym!

I put a pair of C2 short boards in the overhead bin of a fluf..... I want about to check that much carbon.

Jeez. How wide? Any pictures to compare?

The package was about 6' tall, by 1' wide, so the clown at Security wouldn't let him through with them, he had to check them. They were well wrapped in bubble wrap and cardboard over that, with lots of tape to hold it all together, with the word FRAGILE written all over the package as well...so...we are keeping our fingers crossed they arrive in one piece!

Are you saying that the new boards are around 5 feet long and 10 inches chord?

Tim, how do they compare to your own boards?

I slipped one into my daggerboard slot, it fits right in, but the new ones are a good 18"+ longer. I didn't use them in the regatta, I only saw them up close because Andi is brining a set back to Switzerland for a new Falcon owner there.

BTW, Andi made it to Zurich, and the new boards also made it unharmed, as checked baggage.

That sounds about right, might be less than 10" chord, same chord as the standard Blade/Falcon boards. I'll measure mine later today and get back to you.

That sounds about right(ish)

The point here is, the new F18 and F16 boards are REALLY DEEP!

And guess what?

It WORKS!

Until you hit bottom on a fast reach that is!