2001 E Scow Rudder Experiment
A Review
Prepared by Robert Biwer, V-222 for the Rules and NCESA Directors Meeting, Nov. 10, 2001
|
2001 E Scow Rudder Experiment
A Review
Prepared by Robert Biwer, V-222 for the Rules and NCESA Directors Meeting, Nov. 10, 2001 |
At the fall 2000 NCESA Board meeting a request for an experiment was approved. The project was to develop and test rudder configurations that would increase control and maneuverability, maintain / reduce cost of manufacture, and provide limited increase and/or no decrease in speed.
Initial testing of rudder shapes and sizes was done through the fall of 2000, on Lake Geneva, by Melges Boat Works, primarily Harry Melges and Andy Burdick. The boat used for testing was built in the spring of 1998. This testing was single-boat, single crew evaluation of designs.
The methodology that was planned called for multiple sets of rudders to be dispersed geographically through the fleet. As of mid-summer no testing had occurred, and no experimental rudders were available. There were numerous reasons why the methodology was not adhered to:
• Melges' attention on getting boat orders filled.
• Target boats were required in Zenda for a fitting (rudderpost lengths are not constant). To be done right, the boat was required at Melges.
• Only one fleet member pursued testing the rudders.
A substantial effort was not made to get multiple tests started. A number of people were contacted, but the requirement that the boat make a trip to Zenda seemed to be an insurmountable obstacle (take the boat apart, run to Zenda, back to Zenda when the boat is ready, put the boat back together - all between home lake series races).
The boat that provided the test platform was built in 1998. It was not being "campaigned" in the Pewaukee season series, so it was more easily available. It had also been the boat used in the initial tests.
No organized boat-on-boat comparisons were made. The evaluations of speed and maneuverability that are contained herein come almost exclusively from regatta racing, rather than a two-boat, head-to-head comparison. The late availability of the experimental rudders, coming in August at the beginning of "regatta season", made the organization of a head-to-head test difficult.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The first presentation of the experimental rudders was at the 2001 ILYA Championship at Lake Minnetonka in mid-August. The initial impressions were:
• Aesthetically, proportional, clean, glossy - they looked good.
• The rudders provided much tighter control of the boat when straight line sailing.
Slight movements to the tiller provided movement to the bow.
Conditions:
Day 1: Medium to heavy wind with waves;
Day 2: Light air and flat water;
Day 3: Blustery with waves.
• The rudders provided control through a jibe from a standing start in 10+ mph. Having experienced a loss of steerage with the existing rudder configuration when trying to do a 360-degree turn, an attempt was made to jibe, from a standing start. The boat moved forward and down as the jib was trimmed, and as the boat reached a run, followed through to jibe without the rudders losing their "bite". Past experience was that the existing rudders would lose effectiveness as the boat's helm increased and following through the jibe was difficult.
• Speed: Comparable to some, faster than some, slower than others. We placed 18th in a fleet of 50 at the ILYA. We had speed when the wind was up. We were heavy (740-750 lbs.) had brand new sails, and we have sailed in wind before. When the wind was light, we were in the wrong place a lot.
Invitations were made to other helmsmen to experience the feel of the experimental rudders, but no one accepted. The interest of the fleet was not huge.
The second opportunity for us to test the rudders was at the E Nationals, held at Torch Lake in early September. Although there was substantial conversation (I was told) at the fleet meeting that preceded the racing, the fleet expressed little interest in seeing the rudders during the first half of the event. Few (1 or 2) people stopped by to see them.
Our race results were much better than at the ILYA. We had changed the tune of the boat to include more mid-mast sag. We hoped to improve our light air performance. It seemed to help. We had good speed straight through the water in all conditions. Also, lady luck was certainly on our side, as we were in the right place often. Conditions were as follows:
Day 1: Medium then dying to light;
Day 2: Medium + with waves;
Day 3: Breezy with big waves.
Our advantage was with large seas. We were able to drive the boat hard up the breeze, keeping the nose out of "head on" collisions with the approaching waves. We were heavy (again 740-750 lbs.), kept the rig forward (33'11"), near the top of the clue board on the jib, and would foot (not pinch) as much as possible. We also did not tack much. Downwind in the breeze and seas we sailed with the big chute, all four of us on the rail and always conscious of driving around the wave backs that were approaching.
Comparison of speed to others was hard because of all the other variables. We were fast, but the conditions did not lend themselves to speed testing. We never set up next to another boat for a run up the lake. While racing, we made a conscious effort to avoid packs, and stayed away from situations where we would end up with boats on our lee bow (so we could foot). We concentrated on getting clear / free of traffic as quickly as possible and going straight (few tacks).
On Saturday morning (the last day of the event) a number of people (six or seven) expressed interest. Gordy Bowers and Bill Allen both approached me with questions and an inspection interest (as did a few others). Some walked by and took a look. Nobody accepted the invitation to take it for a spin.
The third venue for evaluating the rudders was at Pewaukee for the Blue Chip. The conditions were much more moderate, with flat water and light breeze.
Our speed seemed to be very comparable to others, in that we were beaten to the wrong side of the course on a couple of occasions. Our luck seemed to be the same as experienced at Torch Lake (tremendously good), in that we twice came back from extremely poor fist legs to finish in the top third. In both instances new breeze from behind on the first run, and dumb luck with a shift were the causes. Certainly, speed through the water was not the defining factor.
On another occasion, a competitor tacked on our lee-bow. We had anticipated his tack and helped him miss by heading down slightly prior to his joining us on port.
With new breeze above, and a port lift, we pinched away from him. When the new breeze got to us, we headed down and rolled him. Rudders? They didn't hurt us, but this situation was not the rudders.
Two incidents that we were not involved with are worth noting here.
Incident one was between the assembly and preparatory signals for race one at the ILYA. It is my understanding that the I-49 was on starboard tack, approached by the M-1 on port. The M-1 did not see the I-49 and tried to duck - late. They did not make it, and a collision occurred, bending the rudder on the I-49. I am told that it was the opinion of both parties (Brian and Rob) that the lack of tight control of the boat was a significant factor in the collision.
The second incident occurred in race two of the ILYA. David Ferguson (M-67) was leading at the first mark. His crew was Jeff Ecklund, Harry Melges, and (I believe) his wife, Lucy. They jibed, lost steerage in the medium to heavy wind, and rolled. I was told that Harry told him that they would not have capsized…that they could have maintained control and not "spun-out"… had they been using the foiled rudders.
The point is that the additional control provided by the foiled, larger rudders, addresses very directly a control issue that has been discussed for the last few years. There is no question that the experimental rudders provide greater control.
Overall evaluation: the rudders helped us drive around the waves at the Nationals, and were, in that regard, of substantial benefit. With the fact that they are thirty to forty percent larger than the existing rudders, it makes sense that we would have better control. The added surface area did not negatively effect our speed.
The race results at the ILYA establish that if the boat is pointed the wrong way, the rudders helped to be mediocre. In that same vane, with the luck of being on the correct side of shifts / the race course, and with enough confidence to work with the conditions presented, the experimental rudders provided a level of control that the existing rudder configuration does not provide. That control manifests itself in fewer panic situations, capsizes, and collisions.
QUESTIONS
What would the result of head to head speed testing be?
• Should we set up equivalent boats, with similarly sized (weight) crews, and compare?
• What are we going to learn? We already know that:
The new rudders do not hinder speed.
Control is greatly enhanced.
Should the project be continued another season in order to test more thoroughly, and more closely adhere to the test methodology?
• What more are we going to learn?
Is there now enough interest in the project to get individuals from multiple venues to participate in the testing?
I think that the answer to this question is yes.
What are the costs of conversion?
• With all deference to Melges Boat Works
Older boats:
Convert rudderposts
Provide new rudders
Newer boats:
New rudders
Re-configured rudders
POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS
• Discontinue the experiment, stop testing and stay with the current rudders.
• Continue the experiment for another season so as to continue the testing.
• Multiple sets of rudders in multiple geographic areas;
• Organized boat-on-boat speed evaluation;
• Approve the Experimental rudders.
• Requires rule change.
Back to the E-scow Web Site Top Level