Reply To: Hull corrector weight discussion
Forgive the length of this but I hope it’s worth it…
You won’t have seen me before on this site – it didn’t exist when I last sailed an OK – but I am considering re-joining the class (is there any better single-hander?… I think not!!) after much too long a break and have been visiting the site to look for boats.
I have been fascinated by the discussion about carbon masts and this thread about hull corrector weights.
So that you know where, I’m coming from – a brief history of me and OKs.
One of the reasons that I got an OK in the first place – at the ripe old age of 16 – was that it was then the only ‘one-design’ single hander available to me that I could sail competitively because of my (then!) relatively light weight.
It was also within a budget set for me at the time by my parents.
The ‘one-design’ element was important to me because I didn’t mind being beaten by better sailors but I did mind being beaten by expensive ‘fashionable’ development that I couldn’t have afforded.
My first OK (in 1966) was bang on minimum and by the available technology of the time, 158.5lbs (oh alright, 72kg) was considered relatively lightweight for a 4m boat.
Now read on…
On the basis that, if there were no other classes competing for sailors in the same market and technology had not moved on, there would be no reason whatsoever to even consider a change – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it…
However, we all know that there are other classes out there and technology has moved on.
Given that situation and in order to survive as a class in the face of competition from singlehanded classes that are aggressively and professionally marketed, surely the OK as a class has to make use of technological progress in whatever field is appropriate as and when it can.
So use all the modern materials that you can; provided that there isn’t a significant increase in cost or increase in performance that completely outclasses boats made from ‘original’ materials.
In terms of the Hull corrector weight discussion, isn’t the balanced solution change the rule as the chairman suggests but with one amendment; to split any corrector weights equally between the bow (somewhere in front of the mast step) and stern (on the floor as far aft as possible) tanks?
To take it to a ridiculous extreme to illustrate the point, a boat that only weighs in at, say 32Kg, would then have to have 20Kg at either end.
The balance would then be the same as a boat weighing in at 72kg and no correctors – wouldn’t it?
I believe this is a similar solution to that which the Finns went for many years ago (late ’60s’ I think). I also believe that they refined the processing by specifing the point of balance (POB) of the hull, suspending the hull at this POB and then checking what was then called the radius of gyration (ROG) to make sure that the hull balance was the same whatever weight of correctors were (or were not) in the boat. The ROG check stopped the practice that was developing at the time of building superlight boats with all the weight in the centre.
I don’t know whether they still do it but it had the desired effect at the time…
With regard to c/f spars, doesn’t the same principle apply? Do the research, make them available, try and keep the price / performance fairly close to existing technology. If you can do that, what’s the problem?
Look forward to any comments.
(ex K154, K468, K500, K619, and K1943)
PS I did have one other more recently but did not have a chance to sail….
PPS Out of curiosity does anyone know, where those boats are now?