Ideas for Improving the Top section

sigh....

In this posting (in this thread) are two photographs of an actual prototype composite spar which has, originally, been developed for the 4.7 and Radial. Its less than 5% carbon, the rest fiberglass, and it is not cutting edge technology (according to my board sailing buddies here in San Francisco - but what do they know? they are all kite sailors now...). The construction technique does produce a very uniform spar, reducing by a lot the variation between the current aluminum spar. And, not being super high tech, it is relatively cheap.

Note that the collar is molded into the spar - no rivet and no directionality.

Both PSE and Vanguard are now sourcing their aluminum top sections from a brand new production facility in Hungary which, we're told, has the best "processing" capabilities of any available aluminum extruder and these spars are considered to be the best possible within the current specifications of the Laser Construction Manual. They are certainly not off the shelf items... in fact I've been told that worldwide use of aluminum tubing (presumably primarily for irrigation) has dropped dramatically in favor of cheaper alternatives (e.g. pvc). But I am not an aluminum tubing expert and am only relating what I have been told (well, when I drive home from work the local farm fields do seem to use pvc irrigation piping).

Now... sleeving the top section at the joint might help solve some of the permanent bend problems but wouldn't that result in a stiffer top section? I suppose as someone weighing in at 90kg I shouldn't complain about this idea, but I'm not sure that the bulk of the Laser Class wants to move in that direction.

During testing of the previous round of composite spars (tubes from a different company), there was a serious look at developing a "cup" for inserting the top section into the bottom section. I believe it got to the prototype stage before being abandoned as not a viable solution. A major problem is accommodating the tolerances on the ID of the bottom and OD of the top. We already see part of this, the effect of the ID on the bottom section, that's why its hard to find a top section that fits snugly into a bottom section without liberal use of tape.

Ok, I have the advantage of getting to hold a composite top section in my hands and even go sailing with it. What I see is the choice between something that looks like it has the ability to solve all the problems with the aluminum spars (variability, lifetime, permanent bending, etc.) versus continuing to try to band aid solutions onto something that was never intended to be used as it is today.

I agree that adopting these composite spars for the Laser Standard is problematic in that the spar is more flexible than the aluminum uppers (and, again, at 90kg I'm not looking for something that reduces my competitiveness). In fact, feedback I have had from testers (in Radials) in semi-racing conditions is that unless the breeze is up they feel disadvantaged relative to the aluminum uppers. On the other hand, the composite spars "restore" more quickly than the aluminum... its not clear to me that what is perceived to be a disadvantage now might not go away as people adjust their sailing styles to the spar. If these spars really turn out to be vastly superior to the aluminum perhaps it is worth the trade off.

As to price... I don't know that the builders will try to retail them for. As has been stated in this thread, Ned Jones wrote in his "Builder's Column" in The Laser Sailor that they would go for somewhere between 2.5-3 times the current uppers. The question to the Class is "what would you pay for a spar which promises not to develop permanent bends or break because of corrosion around the rivet?"
 
I havent had time to read this whole post but i have used the radial carbon top section in Cabarete DR and i have to say it was the most amazing thing i have ever sailed with, you can feel more power in the sail because it bends higher in the mast than a standard top section yet it is perfect its balanced, lighter and much more innovative. As soon as they hit the markets im going to get one.
 
Ok, I have the advantage of getting to hold a composite top section in my hands and even go sailing with it. What I see is the choice between something that looks like it has the ability to solve all the problems with the aluminum spars (variability, lifetime, permanent bending, etc.) versus continuing to try to band aid solutions onto something that was never intended to be used as it is today.

well there's the solution then. Ditch the Laser from the Olympics, put it back in it's place of weekend knockabout.

Gee I feel much better. What class shall I move into?
 
Re: Top section

Thanks for update - amazing that with all the adhesives the aerospace guys are cranking out that we can't bond aluminum and plastic.. back to the mixing pail

Been using it glued for the last year.... no issues of slippage at all.
 
If the new composite top gets introduced in the near future, I should still be able to use my old aluminium top and race it at international regattas.
If that composite top is softer, or in any other way inferior to the old aluminum top for a heavy sailor, then what??....
Will all new Lasers then be equipped with a composite top?
Will it be illegal to use an aluminium top on new boats delivered with the new mast top?

To supply an new mast top that is softer than the old one is not logic because the average weight of the general population is on the increase.

The Taser class is a good example of well managed change in a strictly one design environment - although it might cost a few dollars to stay competitive. They changed to a cheaper and better Mylar sail and at the same time increased the sail area slightly because of the above argument of weight increase in the general population.
 
If the new composite top gets introduced in the near future, I should still be able to use my old aluminium top and race it at international regattas.
If that composite top is softer, or in any other way inferior to the old aluminum top for a heavy sailor, then what??....
Will all new Lasers then be equipped with a composite top?
Will it be illegal to use an aluminium top on new boats delivered with the new mast top?

To supply an new mast top that is softer than the old one is not logic because the average weight of the general population is on the increase.

The Taser class is a good example of well managed change in a strictly one design environment - although it might cost a few dollars to stay competitive. They changed to a cheaper and better Mylar sail and at the same time increased the sail area slightly because of the above argument of weight increase in the general population.

the composite top section is for the LIGHT sailors, because it is softer
 
Is it class legal to glue it instead?
I suppose any rule is subject to interpretation. 26 (c) allows for alternative fastening methods as a means of preventive maintenance. My boat won't go any faster with glue instead of a rivet. All I'm doing is saving my equipment from premature failure.
 
Clive,
I'll have to look at the can tomorrow at work. It is an aviation adhesive, specifically designed to glue either plastic or aluminum to aluminum.
Pretty sure it's a PPG product, a 2 part contact cement. I'll post it tomorrow.
Ross,
yes it's simply glued on, no rivet.
 
gotta be a rule against that..

still pretty cool though, care to share some next time I'm up at ABYC?
 
Dunno where you'd get a top section that hadn't already been riveted here. The store has them already made up, in nice little triangular boxes...with a rivet through the top ring.

As far as I know, and I could be wrong, there is only two places you can get a laser top section here, one store in the North Island, one in the South, and they're different branches of the same store.
 
SFBayLaser; said:
I agree that adopting these composite spars for the Laser Standard is problematic in that the spar is more flexible than the aluminum uppers (and, again, at 90kg I'm not looking for something that reduces my competitiveness).

So if they did allow the composite spar for the Standard rig, too, would it close that weight gap between when you're too heavy to race a Radial and too light to race a full rig? (165-170lbs/75-77k) How light could one be and still be competitive in a full rig in a decent breeze with this spar?
 
So if they did allow the composite spar for the Standard rig, too, would it close that weight gap between when you're too heavy to race a Radial and too light to race a full rig? (165-170lbs/75-77k) How light could one be and still be competitive in a full rig in a decent breeze with this spar?

That's a question not yet answered. When I tried the composite spar at St Francis YC this past summer, I asked Tracy if it could be used for the standard rig. He said that they are not even supposed to try it that way, that it is only for the radial. So there hasn't been any testing with the standard rig, or if there has been, in my opinion, it's been under the radar.
 
Being right in that point between radial and standard (68 Kg) I would be keen on a composite top section for the standard. But I guess everything cannot happen at once. also, if there are differences in performance (bound to be really) then it would just be creating yet another variant. also, I can (probably will) but a radial rig and just use that when conditions dictate.


Ian
 
One question re: the sail (that I will be embarrassed if it has been raised already as I did have a look back). Does the composite top section use the same sail or does the sail have a different cut ?

Ian
 
One question re: the sail (that I will be embarrassed if it has been raised already as I did have a look back). Does the composite top section use the same sail or does the sail have a different cut ?

Ian

I used my Radial sail with it, along with my own Radial lower section.
 
"gotta be a rule against that.." Ross B referring to a "glued" sleeve. I though this would be a correct assumption, based on "if it doesn't say you can do it, you can't".

But, I thought I'd look here:

http://www.laserinternational.org/rules/rules07.pdf

26 (c)

Preventative maintenance shall include the
replacement of fastenings with alternatives and
the reversing of spars provided that the fittings
are replaced in accordance with the Measurement
Diagrams...


Yikes, that's pretty clear. So, that rivet and hole can be gone, if we reverse the top, and we don't even have to wait til it bends, as it can be a preventative measure. I assume if we find the superglue, say 5200 or better, that once glued, it's permanent, and there ain't gonna be no more end-for-ending possible....

Al "MTR" R
 
So, at risk of being accused of trying to kill our one-design game, what would be so bad about Laser doing a bit of a redesign? Composite top section AND a slightly modified sail design?

After all, most of the complaints that go on this forum involve either broken top sections, or new sails being worthless after a week.

It wouldn't take much effort for the sailmaker to add a tiny bit of luff curve higher up, which would let us use a softer section without any major loss of performance. Sure, we may need to re-learn how to use our cunningham and vang, but it wouldn't take us long!
 
26 (c)

Preventative maintenance shall include the
replacement of fastenings with alternatives and
the reversing of spars provided that the fittings
are replaced in accordance with the Measurement
Diagrams...

Yikes, that's pretty clear. So, that rivet and hole can be gone, if we reverse the top, and we don't even have to wait til it bends, as it can be a preventative measure. I assume if we find the superglue, say 5200 or better, that once glued, it's permanent, and there ain't gonna be no more end-for-ending possible....
Al "MTR" R
I'm glad at least one other skipper read it the way I did. I didn't get a chance to look up the adhesive today at work, will get it tomorrow. As for end for ending, it can still be done, but you'll probably have to cut off the sleeve. Hopefully without the weak spot, end for ending won't be necessary.
 
"gotta be a rule against that.." Ross B referring to a "glued" sleeve. I though this would be a correct assumption, based on "if it doesn't say you can do it, you can't".

But, I thought I'd look here:

http://www.laserinternational.org/rules/rules07.pdf

26 (c)

Preventative maintenance shall include the
replacement of fastenings with alternatives and
the reversing of spars provided that the fittings
are replaced in accordance with the Measurement
Diagrams...


Yikes, that's pretty clear. So, that rivet and hole can be gone, if we reverse the top, and we don't even have to wait til it bends, as it can be a preventative measure. I assume if we find the superglue, say 5200 or better, that once glued, it's permanent, and there ain't gonna be no more end-for-ending possible....

Al "MTR" R

My interpretation of the rules leads me to the conclusion that use of an adhesive to secure the sleeve to the top section is illegal.

The problem is that you have both missed the official interpretation of "fastenings," which is on the bottom of page 38 of the PDF version of the ILCA 2007 Rules. The interpretation reads:

"1. Fastenings (Rule 26(c)) shall include screws, bolts, nuts, washers and rivets." (emphasis added)

Since an official interpretation of the meaning of fasteners is provided in the rules, the standard proviso applies, i.e. if it's not specifically allowed then it's illegal. The sleeve is secured to the top section with a fastening. Replacement of fastenings with alternatives is allowed. Fastenings (and presumably all their allowable "alternatives") include "screws, bolts, nuts, washers and rivets". Adhesives are not specifically listed among the allowed fastenings, so the use of an adhesive to secure the sleeve to the top section is therefore against the ILCA rules.
 
Well, illegal or not, hopefully Tracy is reading this and reporting back to the technical committee that there is indeed at least one adhesive that appears to be working.

We also have VTGent's solution of moving the rivet into the lower portion of the collar.

It would be great to find out that the builders are following up (like contacting Steve L) on this and doing their own testing (and also a smart public relations move for them). Both are simple solutions, the adhesive adds some cost for the builder and makes it more costly for us to end for end the spar, moving the rivet doesn't.
 
the composite top section is for the LIGHT sailors, because it is softer


Hi, have you used one? I have, and in a fleet where the top three boats always finish within 5-10 seconds of each other opver a 60 minute race . Well it was 20 knots and guess what, I finished exactly wher I normally do, 2nd in race 1 and 3rd no race 2 - just like I would probably have if I had the standars aluminium section. I noticed NO NONE NIL performance advantage. The only advantage wqas it didn't permenently nbend.
 
Hi, have you used one? I have, and in a fleet where the top three boats always finish within 5-10 seconds of each other opver a 60 minute race . Well it was 20 knots and guess what, I finished exactly wher I normally do, 2nd in race 1 and 3rd no race 2 - just like I would probably have if I had the standars aluminium section. I noticed NO NONE NIL performance advantage. The only advantage wqas it didn't permenently nbend.

Was that with your normal (alu mast) sail or does it come with its own different sail (to account for its different bend characteristics) ? One would expect a mast with different bend characteristics to have a different shaped sail.

Ian
 
Was that with your normal (alu mast) sail or does it come with its own different sail (to account for its different bend characteristics) ? One would expect a mast with different bend characteristics to have a different shaped sail.

Ian

As I said before, I've used the composite top section, handed to me by Tracy Usher when I sailed with him at St Francis Yacht club in San Francisco. You use the current class legal Radial sail. There's no modified sail for it (yet?).
 
My reading of the rule is that adhesive may be legal in that in 26c it says that alternatives to fastenings are specifically allowed. The class rule interpretations only say that fastenings include screws, bolts, nuts, washers and rivets. 26c specifically allows alternatives which I would suggest can include adhesive. Any other legal opinions out there?
 
My reading of the rule is that adhesive may be legal in that in 26c it says that alternatives to fastenings are specifically allowed. The class rule interpretations only say that fastenings include screws, bolts, nuts, washers and rivets. 26c specifically allows alternatives which I would suggest can include adhesive. Any other legal opinions out there?

The alternatives could legally include an adhesive if the rules did not also contain the restriction that things not specifically allowed are illegal. Adhesive is something not specifically allowed. Adhesive is illegal.

I think adhesive is a good idea, but it the adhesive fails the top section would fall into the bottom section.

I think a better solution would be to replace the sleeve with a one piece, cup-shaped plastic molding that would be press-fit into the top of the bottom section. The top section would then be able to have symmetrical ends with no sleeves. The top section would fit snugly into the cup-shaped molding.
Alternatively, the cup-shaped molding could be attached to the top section, replacing the current sleeve and end cap. The end cap is a problematic part anyway, always getting stuck etc. In this version, the cup shaped molding would be press-fit onto the top section and would fit snugly into the bottom section (as the current sleeve fits now). If needed, an adhesive could be used to secure the molding to the top section to prevent if from slipping off when the top section is removed from the bottom section after sailing.
Both of these ideas could be implemented without rivets and would be simpler than the current system.
 
but remember what was said earlier, they tried it and had problems with it because not all lower sections are exactly the same size, and it is hard to get a good fit
 
I believe that Interpretation 1) may have been an attempt to narrow the alternatives, but it sure does this poorly.

26 (C) now reads that you can replace "Screws, bolts, nuts and rivets" with alternatives. It doesn't say "with alternative fasteners".

It's hard to believe that someone thought 1) clarified anything at all if the intent was to eliminate an alternative like adhesive. What it does do is clarify what can be replaced with alternatives.

If you are bothering to look at all these rules, then tell me what you think about moving the rivet down 2 inches when you end for end the top. It seems to fit ok under 26 a) and c). 26 b) says shall be placed in a position conforming to the measurment diagram. OK, but the diagrams don't mention rivets at all? So, maybe MTR is already legal and doesn't need a rule change like a CF spar, deep collar and the sleeve?



Al
 

Back
Top