I saw a Boyer A cat for sale that had canted hulls listed as an upgrade? I did a quick search but didn't get a answer. Do they tip the hulls toward center? Does this make them better while flying the other hull?
Yea, angled in, so when you are at the optimal angle of heel the leeward hull is level in the water and a little more efficient. The windward hull is more or less out of the water so is unaffected from an efficiency point of view.
Thanks. Is this a mod that anyone outside A class is doing? It sounds like it could be done by shimming the beam connection. A rudder remount would be in order too?
I would do it just for fun.
Is this a mod that anyone outside A class is doing? It sounds like it could be done by shimming the beam connection. A rudder remount would be in order too?
here is an older discussion with tons of data about the topic and canted foils
https://www.catsailor.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=28737
MN3
ctcataman wrote: Thanks. Is this a mod that anyone outside A class is doing? It sounds like it could be done by shimming the beam connection. A rudder remount would be in order too?
I would do it just for fun.
Nah I dont think they remount the rudders. Still stays inline with the hulls I'd assume
Is this a mod that anyone outside A class is doing?
according to this post - EU Inter17's canted 6*
"If it is an Inter 17; it may be canted; all EU spec boats were canted at 6 degrees."
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/111535-canted-hulls/
MN3
They are canted out - bottoms are further outboard than the tops. This keeps the rudder and boards in a more vertical position when flying a hull.
The new foiling boats do not have canted hulls or foils. The object on them is to lift the hulls and sail them as flat as possible, sharing the lifting forces between all four foils. Or in the case of some of the new prototypes, the leeward foils are lifting, and the windward foils are pulling down, resulting in a level boat.
Or in the case of some of the new prototypes
Prototype ...
beachcats?
AC75?
Mono's?
MN3
Hobie Trifoiler used sensors to do level, which generally meant lee-lift, windward-low... my test ride was much fun, and the thing cornered like it was on RAILS... quite the G-force.
Randii
MN3 wrote:
Or in the case of some of the new prototypes
Prototype ...
beachcats?
AC75?
Mono's?
A-Class Cats
ctcataman wrote: Thanks. Is this a mod that anyone outside A class is doing? It sounds like it could be done by shimming the beam connection. A rudder remount would be in order too?
I would do it just for fun.
Going off of memory here, I think you’d be looking at somewhere around 15 or so degrees of cant. Basically figure out where the waterline of the leeward hull is and then how many degrees (minimum) you need to rotate the hull to get that plane below the plane of the bottom of the opposite hull. Bottom line, we’re not talking about canting one or two degrees here. You would have to place a significant shim under the beam for the cant to be anywhere near effective and that starts to have the potential to effect the structure/racking of the hull platform. There are probably many better things to spend time tinkering with that would have a much more significant speed impact (carbon mast, improved foils, spinnaker kit, lifting foils....).
sm
Steve M.
He said for fun, not for performance..
Don’t forget to adjust the trailer..
Andinista wrote: He said for fun, not for performance..
So it’s fun to spend hours working on boat projects that will likely have no perceptible performance benefit and which could potentially negatively impact the structure of your boat? Okey dokey.
sm
Steve M.
Dogboy wrote: [quote=Andinista]He said for fun, not for performance..
So it’s fun to spend hours working on boat projects that will likely have no perceptible performance benefit and which could potentially negatively impact the structure of your boat? Okey dokey.
sm
Ha, ha, I see what you did there. Unfortunately I have seen many examples of people spending massive amounts of time, money, and effort on boat projects that had marginal impact on actual performance and some even caused fundamental structural problems. Like a friend that recently modified a Hobie 18 with T rudders and C boards to make a foiling Hobie 18 without doing any sort of reinforcement of dagger trunks or transoms. Never even got up on foils before it ripped out one of the dagger trunks.
Edited by bradinjax on May 03, 2018 - 11:08 AM.
Did this to a H-18 many years ago. I used a few stainless washers as shims on the inside bolts and bedded the beams to the saddles with epoxy. That is an important step if you do this and will yield the most benefit especially on older boats. I would also argue that canting will increase righting moment as your moving the bottom of the hull outwards.
A profound waste of time.
Well designed non-foiling cats are at their intended optimal angle when being sailed with the windward hull just skimming the water.
Canting alters the intended structure and would only improve a poorly designed cat.
Any time you alter the bedding of the crossbars to the hulls you are planning a structural failure.
I hope no one gets hurt.
klozhald wrote: A profound waste of time.
Well designed non-foiling cats are at their intended optimal angle when being sailed with the windward hull just skimming the water.Canting alters the intended structure and would only improve a poorly designed cat.
Any time you alter the bedding of the crossbars to the hulls you are planning a structural failure.
I hope no one gets hurt.
Meh, the ideal angle of the windward hull just skimming the surface is based on reducing the wetting surface in the water, not based on the hydrodynamics of the leeward hull going through the water. You gain more in lost drag than you lose from the inefficiency of an angled hull in the water. That's where canted hulls came from. So that you not only reduce the wetting surface of the windward hull but also keep the leeward one level when you heel the boat.
klozhald wrote: A profound waste of time.
Well designed non-foiling cats are at their intended optimal angle when being sailed with the windward hull just skimming the water.Canting alters the intended structure and would only improve a poorly designed cat.
Any time you alter the bedding of the crossbars to the hulls you are planning a structural failure.
I hope no one gets hurt.
Not really sure how bedding the beams would alter the structure. Canting aside, the fact is, you sail a boat with horrible beam/seat tolerances. Most older boat saddles are horrible. In fact, one of the best things you can do to stiffen a boat like yours is bed the beams. If you doubt me pull one of the beams and look at the wear points. You will find that hardly any of the beam touches the saddle.
tatumpower1 wrote: Meh, the ideal angle of the windward hull just skimming the surface is based on reducing the wetting surface in the water, not based on the hydrodynamics of the leeward hull going through the water.
This is incorrect.
Look at the early Prindles for example. The 16 and 18 hulls have their decks at a significant angle because they were designed to be sailed with one hull out of the water. The factory- based Prindle Class Association published articles about this in the 1970's. The asymmetrical hulls provided the best lift to the windward mark when sailed in exactly this manner.
Here is a view of how far down the decks come inboard:
https://www.thebeachcats.com/pictures?g2_itemId=76540&g2_imageViewsIndex=1&g2_GALLERYSID=bdc8fa998b930dcc1ba2aca612cbca64
catman wrote: Canting aside, the fact is, you sail a boat with horrible beam/seat tolerances. Most older boat saddles are horrible. In fact, one of the best things you can do to stiffen a boat like yours is bed the beams.
Thank you for making my point. Bedding is important, and shimming up with washers etc. to cant the hulls creates pressure hot spots that the bedding was created to avoid, by spreading the load over a greater area.
Many of us here at thebeachcats have re-bedded our beams, aligned our hulls center to center and toe to toe, and are not sailing cats with horrible bedding.
Nor do we think of ourselves as smarter that the designers of these cats, though we do have materials available to us now that are far superior to what was.
klozhald wrote: [quote=tatumpower1]Meh, the ideal angle of the windward hull just skimming the surface is based on reducing the wetting surface in the water, not based on the hydrodynamics of the leeward hull going through the water.
This is incorrect.
Look at the early Prindles for example. The 16 and 18 hulls have their decks at a significant angle because they were designed to be sailed with one hull out of the water. The factory- based Prindle Class Association published articles about this in the 1970's. The asymmetrical hulls provided the best lift to the windward mark when sailed in exactly this manner.
Here is a view of how far down the decks come inboard:
https://www.thebeachcats.com/pictures?g2_itemId=76540&g2_imageViewsIndex=1&g2_GALLERYSID=bdc8fa998b930dcc1ba2aca612cbca64
What is incorrect? What you just said even though its talking about non symmetrical hulls still supports what I just said....that boats should be sailed upwind with the windward hull skimming the surface and that canting the hulls to match this intended angle sets the leeward hull at a level angle for it's most efficient angle and allows the daggers/rudders/ flat sides of the hulls to be perpendicular and provide the maximum slip resistance. Reducing the wetted surface makes a much bigger difference than the few degrees of angle induced into the leeward hull.
If any manual states that the primary purpose of lifting the windward hull to be just skimming the surface is that it sets the leeward hull at its optimal angle...it's flat incorrect.
What I understood you just said is that you shouldnt further angle already canted hulls? lol
Edited by tamumpower1 on May 11, 2018 - 07:25 PM.
tamumpower1 wrote: [quote=klozhald][quote=tatumpower1]Meh, the ideal angle of the windward hull just skimming the surface is based on reducing the wetting surface in the water, not based on the hydrodynamics of the leeward hull going through the water.
This is incorrect.
Look at the early Prindles for example. The 16 and 18 hulls have their decks at a significant angle because they were designed to be sailed with one hull out of the water. The factory- based Prindle Class Association published articles about this in the 1970's. The asymmetrical hulls provided the best lift to the windward mark when sailed in exactly this manner.
Here is a view of how far down the decks come inboard:
https://www.thebeachcats.com/pictures?g2_itemId=76540&g2_imageViewsIndex=1&g2_GALLERYSID=bdc8fa998b930dcc1ba2aca612cbca64
What is incorrect? What you just said even though its talking about non symmetrical hulls still supports what I just said....that boats should be sailed upwind with the windward hull skimming the surface and that canting the hulls to match this intended angle sets the leeward hull at a level angle for it's most efficient angle and allows the daggers/rudders/ flat sides of the hulls to be perpendicular and provide the maximum slip resistance. Reducing the wetted surface makes a much bigger difference than the few degrees of angle induced into the leeward hull.
If any manual states that the primary purpose of lifting the windward hull to be just skimming the surface is that it sets the leeward hull at its optimal angle...it's flat incorrect.
What I understood you just said is that you shouldnt further angle already canted hulls? lolEdited by tamumpower1 on May 11, 2018 - 07:25 PM.
Wasting your time with that one Matt.