Okay, I will mail you in private. Watch your catsailor private mail. I will send a mail to you within 24 hours.
With respect to this forum I will not debate you, only present the info I have on items were you statements are "extremely unique" I do this so novice sailors can weight the comments and judge for themselfs which statement to believe.
I say you can easily transport four adults on a typical motorcycle.
Of cours I'm not telling anybody that FOR ME a REAL motorcycle is the kind with 4 wheels, a steering wheel, front and back seats and a trunk. It is not MY problem everybody else prefers to call these a car or automobile nowadays.
Same as with your comment about leehelm and spis
I don't a problem with the rating per se or with Darline Hobock about it. Only with the way you presented the story before the race and how you presented the win of the ARC afterwards. Before hand you told a poster on this forum that a low 60's PN rating was a realist one for the new ARC-17. Than when Rick gives you the 71 rating (Low 70's) you of course immediately requested that Rick would scored you at the more realistic rating; just to make things fair to the other racers ? I guess Rick refused to give you a faster rating ?
Of course afterward all other designs didn't know what they were doing because well you beat them on a 70's technology cat (your words) than was newly designed in 2002/2003 and was using a rtign of 71 when the makes of other designers were all sailing of mid and low 60 numbers !
Simply put you would NOT have won that regatta if you would have sailed of your own admitted realistic rating. The boats of other designers would have beaten you.
That is the whole story you aren't telling novices on this forum.
That is the issue I have with you and your public postings on this forum. This has nothing to do with Rick White and Darline Hobock who both do excellent work. Don't hide behind them.
You are not named as a record holder. As far as we can tell you never set a record at Texel. Sorry there is simply no paper trail. However I WILL contact my friends at the Texel committee and see if they can confirm your claim.
Yet you have quote the SC20 record set at Texel OUTSIDE the race format many times on this forum. So either all is admissable or you'll loose the SC20 record as well.
But only a few posts ago you were certain that trend of the selftacking jibs on beach cats could be tracked back to a single arc22 going to France in earlier 90's.
Which one is it ? You know for certain or you don't know for certain. Or respectively you can write these claims in post with ground or you can not.
Probably it was only featured on a handful of ARC 22 ?
You see how all these things just immediately point back at yourself ?
Yet all F18's and F20's incl US I-20 are using this very system and are beating Tornado's and you on elapsed time while sailing an SC or ARC cat ? Of course you nail them on handicaps but we already discussed this issue.
Surely this qualifies them as high performance designs ? If mean if they are not and they beat you on elasped time than your designs are not as well.
Pointing back, pointing back, pointing back. It never stops.
How many times do I need to repeat myself. I and several others have CURVED track and DO NOT have a second control line to position the jib car along the track. I'm in good company as mr Darren Bundock uses the same setup.
I've told you this is 4 different posts now but you still keep telling everybody that you can't have a curved track without a second control line. How big a plate can you have in front of your eyes ?
This is not hot air this is about propelling falshoods and sending off novice sailor on a wild goose chase in serious business. It is very much important that it is clear which parts of your comments are true and which are obviously in conflict with reality. So excuse me for being a little fanatical here.
You may consider that we are in agrrement with regard to all other points and statement you made in your post. I would only react to your "Unique remarks"
Wouter
Bill,
Jake has the right set up. The wire is probably better for overall adjustments, but it really is hard on the legs of the crew. However, instead of wire, you can use non-stretch line that will be lot more forgiving.., and still give you the ability to test different jib cleat settings.
However, on my Taipan I have the loops. <img src=
alt=
/>
Rick
On my H-20 I replaced the wire with 12 strand and it was much frendlier and cheaper and easier than adding the loops.
Wouter,
This is not a contest of which person to believe.
>On the spinnaker question: With a full size or max size spinnaker a beach cat it will develope leehelm when flying this spinnaker if the CB is located at the shroud chainplate. Your experience and many other technical people in Europe found no leehelm problem with the high aspect ratio spinnaker sheeted to the main beam with the CB located at the shroud chainplate. Looking at the two setups, I think both are technically correct for the sail geometries they apply to. I think this is the information the people reading this forum need. They do not need to hear that Bill Roberts is a misleading people or saying things that are not true.
I do not understand your motorcycle car stuff.
>As far as PNs for any boat in a race go, I cannot change them. I cannot raise the PN or lower the PN of a boat I sail. The person registering the boats is the boss. In the USA US Sailing rules apply. What I think does not matter. What was done at Tradewinds Race 2004 was the SC17 PN at 73.3 was adjusted for the square top mainsail and spinnaker for the ARC17. That resulted in an adjusted PN of 70. That was what we sailed with. I was sailing with an inexperienced crew, first time on a catamaran, and since the wind was blowing hard, we did not fly the chute. It was a total surprise to me that we won on corrected time. My conclusion after that race experience was that the boat actually sailed to a 70 PN without using the spinnaker, therefore a more correct PN for the boat might be, should be, 70 x .96 for the spinnaker or 67.2. This is only one race but based on the data at hand, this 67.2 PN could be concluded. This is what really happened and how the 67.2 PN was calculated "after the race".
The 2003 ARC17 was built in the same molds as the 1980 SC17 with the same beams and the same rudders and the same mast as the 1980 SC17. There was no new anything except for the sails on the ARC17.
>Texel speed record--- I did not know the SC Texel Race record that stood for 20 years or so was not set during a race. At the trophy presentation of the Texel Race where I sailed across the finish line first, it was announced that the ET we demonstrated was the lowest for the race so far. I was totally surprised because twice we turned around and sailed back toward the fleet for about a mile each time. Once we found ourselves confronted with a dredge pipe that went to shore that we could not sail through so we turned around and sailed out to the dredge machine itself to clear this pipe line and the second time we could not find the VC bouy in a squall but finally spotted it after the squall cleared and we had already passed the mark. Therefore we had to sail back to it to windward. Having sailed through obstacles like these and be told you have set the low ET for the race was indeed a surprise.
>An ARC22 went to France in 1992 or 1993. The owner was very excited and impressed with his boat and its rigging. He sent me a letter to thank me for the boat, which I had nothing to with--Aquarius Sails built the boat. He went on to say that many sailors from France and other countries had come to see the boat and the special rigging. They were especially impressed with the self tacking jib and many photos were made. Conclude what you may from these happenings but the next sailing season the self tacking jib systems began showing up on european beach cats with curved tracks just like the ARC22.
Every ARC product built since 1992 has had the self tacking jib system. This includes all ARC22s.
>I don't know what F18 and I20 races or data you are talking about. The Tornado in this year's Steeplechase Race beat all of the F18s and I20s on corrected time. The SC20 won the low CT trophy only because we did not register with spinnaker and take the 0.96 hit on our PN. With the 0.96 factor we would not have won. Everyone else in the race registered with spinnaker and were only able to use it about 5 miles out of a 110 mile long race. They paid a 4% CT penalty and only used the spinnaker for 0.5% of the race.
>Wouter, all curved tracks are not equal. A slightly curved track like the ARC22 will work mechanically just like the straight track. Only one control line required. The extreme curved track, curved to the radius of the foot of the jib, does require the separate control line to position the jib traveller car along the track. A track bent on a radius greater than the length of the foot of the jib does not require the traveller car control line because it has a delta L/delta theata term greater than zero when the car moves to leeward and this causes the car to come to rest in a force balance situation. When the traveller track radius equals the radius of the foot of the jib, the delta L/delta theata term goes to zero and so a separate control line is needed to position the jib car along the track.
I'm tired of this. Let's move on!
Bill
There is nothing in your post I feel compelled to comment on. It has all been covered before and yes you still say things that don't check out.
But I'm going to leave it. For now.
Wouter
Hi Jake,
You have your logic just backwards. The more mechanical advantage between the car and jib clew, the further out the car positions itself. This is because for a given jib leech tension, sail shape, there is less tension in the jib sheet. The force that tends to center the jib traveller car is the sideways to boat center line component of the tension in the jib sheet on the leg between the car and the jib tack. As the jib sheet tension goes down for a given jib leech tension (because of higher car to clew mechanical advantage), the further outboard the jib car will position itself.
Bill
That's what I said.
Hi Rolf,
The mechanics of the self tacking jib system is complex and highly variable. With your curved track you get more change in traveller car position as the sail force changes than on a straighter track. Also the mechanical advantage between the jib car and jib clew effects the sensitivity between the jib car movement and sail pressure.
Also with your present system when the jib car moves inboard the jib leech tension is eased at the same time which should tend to let the jib leech open. Like I said, it is complicated.
Bill
Hi Rolf,
The mechanics of the self tacking jib system are complex and highly variable and interactive. With your curved track you get more change in traveller car position as the sail force changes than on a straighter track. Also the mechanical advantage between the jib car and jib clew effects the sensitivity between the jib car movement and sail pressure.
Also with your present system when the jib car moves inboard the jib leech tension is eased at the same time which should tend to let the jib leech open. Like I said, it is complicated.
Bill
By using the line feed system that cranes use you can get rid of the componentn that pulls the car back in completely. Thus solving most problems of the straight track selftacker.
Imagine it like this.
Two 360 degree swivel cleats on the beam on either side of the mast say 0.5 mtr away from mast.
Line goes from cleat to pully on car and than to pully on tack of jib, continues by going back to another pully on the car and then proceeds to the other cleat. If you want more purchase then just extra pullies on car and clew.
Now the car does not experience any RESULTING force that pulls it towards the centreline. The position of the car is now complete determined by the set distance between car and clew of the jib AND the way the jib curves up. No fine tuning with purchase ratio etc required; only add purchase when the pull on the sheet is too high for your taste.
Simple effective and cheap.
It is still not as optimal as a curved track becuase you have less control over tension on foot c.q. leech and the curve of the jib sail but it will come close.
Wouter
Don't put Rolf on a wild goose chase, Bill.
Wouter
Wouter, is it really necessary to insult someone when you have a difference of opinion? 
You are right Mary.
I will clean up the post.
I will say that Bill is again wrong and leave it at that.
I do think it to be really a sign of having an "unique character" to keep posting comments in reply to less knowledgeable readers that are sooo obviously wrong.
And yes I can provide proof to the wrong fullness of the statements in question.
But back to the main topic of your post Mary; you've made a good call my reaction should put it straight.
Wouter
Hi Wouter,
I don't want to get rid of the component of jib sheet tension that tends to center the jib car. With a fixed jib sheet, when the car moves in, the jib clew moves up slightly and the leech tension is eased and therefore it opens slightly. The slot does not become closed off. Actually the set of the sail changes very little because the pressure of the wind on the sail is down and the sail is not trimmed as tighly at the same time.
Another question: When you say "curved track", do you mean a track bent to the radius of the foot of the jib or do you mean a radius greater than that but less than the radius of a straight track?
Bill
Curved track is just that, any track that it not straight.
Nor do I think that there significant difference between a curved track and a curved track that is exactly at the radius of the foot of the sail. Actually there is a smooth transition in behaviour from a Curved track at foot radius to a curved track to a straight track. The straighter the track the more it will behave like your system. The more curved it is and the more it will behave like the curved track at radius = foot jib. I get the impression that you think that there is a jump somewhere.
Don't agree here. Why would the car move in (when using the setup I described) when the sheet is left as is ? It will not do that as a result of any chance in wind force. It can actually move in ONLY when the curve in the jib sail alters for some reason (backwinding it ?) but your system does that as well and at extreme angles even the F18/Tornado systems will do that. In the very extreme case this is called "SELFTACKING". Anyway, point is the initial assumption of your statement is wrong as it doesn't happen withoiut the crew actually forcing that movement and therefor the following conclusions are meaningless. In all other aspects the system is quite similar to your setup.
Wouter
OK, I'll add my two cents to this mess...
All the Tboats I have seen recetly (US Nationals two months ago) are using curved jib tracks with simple limiters/stoppers on the track. Here's a couple of links to how my boat came:
I have since replaced the loops of line through the holes in the track with quick-releasing pip-pins so that we can easily change the car travel range while racing. I am thinking about changing this to a single line running fromt he center of the track to the car, which will allow even easier, fine adjustment. Bill's point that such a line MUST be adjusted at the mast, requiring crew to come off the wire is solved by running a (doubled) control line to the beam ends, just like every other major control line on the boat. I have seen one other setup on a Tboat, where the jib car was placed along the track by a windward & separate leeward control line, kinda like some old style main traveller setups. This requires uncleating, re-positioning with each tack...and therefore you lose the self-tacking advantage.
Re. Jake's comments on full-battened jibs...I have transitioned from a "soft" jib to the full battened Tboat jib. I find the new setup less responsive in light air. Also, you lose the ability to run a furler...not an issue on class legal Tornados, but the F18 crowd will likely not embrace this...
Mike.
Wouter,
I am not talking about your fantasie system. I'm talking about the real world systems being discussed on the forum, hardware that has been built and tried and in production.
The straight track produces the greatest change in leech tension for an inch change in car position along the track for reasons of geometry. The curved track bent to the radius of the foot of the jib produces no change in leech tension for any and all movements of the traveller car. For this reason this set up requires an additional control line to set the position of the jib car along the track. Jib tracks bent to a radius less than the straight track but greater than the jib foot radius have various gradients of jib leech tension change for a given amount of car movement along the track. For example, a track bent on a radius only slightly greater than the foot length of the jib will move the jib car along the track a large amount for a small change in wind pressure and leech tension change. On the other hand a car running on a straight track will move very little for the same change in wind pressure and leech tension.
I'm not saying what is good or bad here. I'm just trying to explain the nature of the beast.
Bill
Mike,
I only said what I did because at the T class Mid Winters and Olympic Training Regatta at the Miami YC I saw several boats with small jam cleats beside the mast for adusting the jib car travel control line. I can see that with practice and experience this adjustment could easily become two position. With a well practiced team, I can see this as a minor point.
Bill
Well Bill, I'm getting swamped in NMBR rating system work so we'll just have to end our discussion.
My last comments are that you continiously put up straw man arguments (that bear rather strenious relationships with reality) so you can knock them with your straigh track setup.
This is deceiving less knowlegdable sailors. And yes Bill both I and many others have done quite some testing on these systems as well. You are not the only one, so please don't continue "I'm superstar, who are you ?" approach.
That is again your ignorance speaking. Does ORMA racing tris, Open 60 mono's and classic Dutch working sailbaots design sound real life enough for you ?
You are only describing the straight rail selftacker accurately. You are NOT describing the curved ones accurately.
And I will, for thr 7th time give the following reply to your statement :
I HAVE a curved traveller (and so does Darren Bundock) that HAS as good as the same radius as the fot of the jib (NO selftacker in realy life has exactly the same radius as the foot, that is only seen in mind experiments) and I DO NOT have a second control line positioning the traveller car NOR do I need one optimal performance while sailing typical bouy races on a spinnaker equipped boat.
Now either Darren Bundocak and guys like Booth (and myself in this example) are all crazy and you are the only one in the world that is not OR the reverse is true.
Fact of the matter is. Your descriptions of curved selftackers is noticeable flawed and I think I can say that with good ground considering the big names on my side.
ohh by the way I haven't send you a private mail yet as I have far more serious things to do with NMBR. You were the first victom I'm afraid as I do not think a private mail to you serves any purpose
Good luck.
Wouter
wouter,
Although I am no engineer, It does not take a genius to figure this out.
The curved track must compensate for the radius at which it turns causing slack in the leech unless it is then again manually sheeted.
As the wind force forces the car to leeward on the straight track, the leech must tighten, there is nowhere for the car to go other than further away from the clew unless manually travelled to open the slot.
Actually that's not the case. Because the track is curved at the same radius as the jib travels through the leech tension does NOT change - outside of some very minor tolerance things, it practically sees no change in sail sheeting tension throughout the full travel of the track. We hardly ever adjust the jib traveler position for racing around the cans. When adjusting for downwind, we only ease the sheet slightly to crack off for the spin run. My fingers are going numb.
You're welcome to inspect the geometry on mine this weekend while I hold your beer. 
Ok, and then we'll report back to the group.
Hopefully Bill and Wouter can make it too.
Actually,
I would love to meet you and Bill also once in my life. But it is not going to be this year I'm afraid. Besides weren't you there at spring fever 2002. I did meet Jake and the other boys like W.F. and Sam Evans. So who says I'm afraid to meet my protagonists ?
Eric, good luck at Tradewinds.
Wouter
Seems alot of the same issues occur with the straight vs curved traveller tracks on the main. A cats and a few others run curved tracks while the rest of us use straights. Perhaps Bill & Wouter can fill us in on all the advantages/disadvantages of curved vs straight for the main.
Mike.
Mike,
What are you doing!?
I pass. Got to complete other work now.
Last week was fun but I'm not planning on being another week ill.
Wouter
Oh, just throwing a little gas on the flame... 
What are you doing!?
That's not EVEN funny.....
How about if the jib track had a smaller radius than the sweep of the jib?
Then it would open the leech when you travelled out and close it when you travelled in.
It is very easy to rig the traveller sheet to work from both hulls.
First the use of the describtion of SWEEP of the jib. This is always smaller than the foot of the jib sail !
Secondly, this would do something you want. Open up the leech with increasing winds or when going on a LONG reach. On short reaches you just slack the jib sheet a bit and forget about that 1 or 2 seconds low of speed.
Wouter