relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by Endo » Mon, 20 Nov 2000 04:00:00


I would tend to think that these twisty head sails have less power but
more range. I got a 6.0m2 and am going for a 7.5m2 as my next sail up.
My friend just got a Supersonic 7.4m2 and he was amazed how
controllable it was in gusts. This is a BIG advantage in gusty lake
conditions.

Endo

Quote:

>Does the floppy leech/twist off head of newer sails mean that they have
>less power than older (say early '90s) sails of the same size??  I'm
>trying to build a quiver of evenly 'spaced' old and new sails and am
>wondering if I can simply rely on the square meter sail area as a guide.

>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by chocks.. » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:06:12

Does the floppy leech/twist off head of newer sails mean that they have
less power than older (say early '90s) sails of the same size??  I'm
trying to build a quiver of evenly 'spaced' old and new sails and am
wondering if I can simply rely on the square meter sail area as a guide.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by sandri.. » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:15:05

You'll be happier if you go bigger.  The new sails may have similar
power to early 90's sails depending on the sail, but the all have much
better top end and (especially the no cam slalom sails) handle better.

Steve


Quote:

> Does the floppy leech/twist off head of newer sails mean that they
have
> less power than older (say early '90s) sails of the same size??  I'm
> trying to build a quiver of evenly 'spaced' old and new sails and am
> wondering if I can simply rely on the square meter sail area as a
guide.

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by Steven Sla » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:03:47

Quote:

> Does the floppy leech/twist off head of newer sails mean that they have
> less power than older (say early '90s) sails of the same size??  I'm
> trying to build a quiver of evenly 'spaced' old and new sails and am
> wondering if I can simply rely on the square meter sail area as a guide.

I would say definitely yes; of course even mixing 2000 sails from
different manufacturers will probably have different amount of power as
well (of course not as much of a difference compared to pre-92? sails
which tended to have deeper draft in them).

Steve.

--
 "The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is
that it has never tried to contact us" (Bill Watterson)                    

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by charlesi.. » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:24:00

Great Question...

Think about the older sails first.  For a specific sail size, say a 6.0
m2, the older sails had a certain amount of power you felt in your
hands, harness, and body -- what was the source of that force?  It was
a combination we could call lift and drag.  What you felt had a lot of
drag, such a tip vortexes and boundary separation.  Therefore a 6.0
could feel pretty powerful, quite "heavy" in the wind, but the usable
forces to propel you forward were only a part of what you felt.

Now consider a 2000 or 2001 vintage sail.  The same 6.0, depending on
design, could feel less "heavy" and require less force to control, but
it is designed to have less drag and reduced vortexes and separation,
so you have a relatively greater usable power, i.e., you can go
faster.  Now comes my premise that because of this you can handle more
than a 6.0 with the new designs for the same wind conditions.  Now you
can handle a 6.5 or even a 7.0 before the total force you feel is the
same as the older model sail with all its negative force components.
Net result is:  Yes you can handle a larger size and yes you get much
more usable power = you go faster.  People mistake the less heavy feel
for lack of low end sometimes, but they say once up to speed, a new
sail is better.  It is more likely they do not feel all the drag of the
older sails.  My original windsurfer sail felt like a granite block in
higher winds.  Today I use sails almost twice as large in similar winds
and go faster, and they do not feel so heavy one dialed in.

The flatter mid-sections (think frizbee) of some one-design racing
sails produce a net "lift minus drag" advantage, even though the lift
is less.  The idea is you lose a little lift, but you lose a lot of
drag, and therefore you are net better off.

These are my thoughts on the matter without much real analysis.  Sort
of like coffee table talk about the difference in foil designs.  Hope
someone who has analyzed this can confirm or refute the ideas...

CI

p.s.  I know power is the wrong word, but I'm trying to convey the
thoughts in touchy-feely words...

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by WinkingDo » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:40:55

All I can say is..  why would u want to use those shitty old windbags after
using modern balanced sails ?
Quote:

> Does the floppy leech/twist off head of newer sails mean that they have
> less power than older (say early '90s) sails of the same size??  I'm
> trying to build a quiver of evenly 'spaced' old and new sails and am
> wondering if I can simply rely on the square meter sail area as a guide.

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by Kev 8 » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:02:44

A trend I have noticed over the last few years with shorter masts is that
the new sails 'feel' bigger that the same size they replace. This can seen
in boom length. As the luff gets shorter the boom goes out to keep the same
measured area. My new NP V8 6.5 is 7cm longer and 30cm shorter than the my
old VX Ltd. It can handle the wind but boom length makes it feel & handle
bigger.

cheers
____________

*Life is reach and then you jibe*

Quote:

> Does the floppy leech/twist off head of newer sails mean that they have
> less power than older (say early '90s) sails of the same size??  I'm
> trying to build a quiver of evenly 'spaced' old and new sails and am
> wondering if I can simply rely on the square meter sail area as a guide.

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by dust » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> The flatter mid-sections (think frizbee) of some one-design racing
> sails produce a net "lift minus drag" advantage, even though the lift
> is less.  The idea is you lose a little lift, but you lose a lot of
> drag, and therefore you are net better off.

flatter mid sections are fine - but don't go thinking that a hooked leech
will be fast (reference to frizbee ^). A flat leech with a clean exit will
give lower drag than a hooked one in non stalled flow situations. if the
flow is stallled (not a fast way to windsurf but sometimes used in dinghy
racing) a hooked leech can have advantages but not in windsurfing.

cheers

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by Mike » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:00:00

No, you cannot go by size, even with sails of the same vintage. I've sailed many brands of the same
size in the same conditions (as in run ashore; plug another same-sized, similarly-rigged, different
brand sail into my board; and get planing again within two minutes), and find dramatic differences
in power among brands and even among models within a brand. Add the intentional power curve
differences between wave, slalom, and race sails, and the "problem" is multiplied.

I've also overlaid sails (unrigged, rolled out flat), and have found variances bigger than half a
meter/10% (i.e., some 4.0s are bigger than some 4.5s). For example, some makers include luff sleeves
in their area, some do not, and that alone might make a difference of many sq ft.

And for whatever reason (size? planform? shape? karma? color?) I'm getting convinced my sails are
MUCH more powerful, size for size, than another brand noted for its power, a brand I sailed for
years and know well. I'm beginning to think I see a power difference of at least 15% (my 2.8 seems
to have more power than the other brand's 3.2).

And why can't I find the original post of this thread? I think I'm missing MANY original posts,
judging by, well, the large number of original posts I can't access. (Lucky for you folks!) Am I the
only one experiencing this the last five days?

Mike \m/

--
To reply directly, remove the SpamDam.

Quote:

> Three of us bought new V8's and we definitely fel that this is the
> case. Your old sail may very well seem more powerful than the new
> sail. But the range of the new ones will blow your mind. :)


> >Does the floppy leech/twist off head of newer sails mean that they have
> >less power than older (say early '90s) sails of the same size??  I'm
> >trying to build a quiver of evenly 'spaced' old and new sails and am
> >wondering if I can simply rely on the square meter sail area as a guide.

> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.

> Get your rec.windsurfing gear at http://www.surfingsports.com/rec.windsurfing.asp

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by charlesi.. » Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:00:00

Yes quite true, a hooked leech is one of the worst shapes.  By frizbee
shape I meant only a flatter mid section, not the whole nine yards of
shape.  In the foil design business years ago at North Sails, the
concept of a flatter mid-section was bandied about as "like a Frizbee
shape".  Some of the first sails of this type I actually tested and
sailed in one-design racing and not only did I point higher, I was
faster except on broad reaches.  In other words, when lifting mode was
present, the lower lift, much lower drag model was better than the high
lift, higher drag model.

Hope this helps,
CI

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by Mark H » Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:18:13

This is a good subject I had on my mind to query for some time, although I
had an inkling that I already knew the answer,
BUT...
I expect that with older large sails, there is much greater range,
especially top end, and greater performance overall to be gained with newer
sails.  How about smaller, older RAFs?  Are they obsolete?
For example, I have an '88 5.1 Windwing Convertible.  It has always
performed excellently for me in the conditions for which it's appropriate.
Granted, I still have it because I am not a sailor that frequents those
conditions very often, although the sails were built bulletproof.  Top end
it has always had.  Always has allowed me to handle the biggest gusts.  Now,
maybe lowend is greater in newer sails that size, so if I upgrade I will get
through the lulls better?
How about late '80s RAFs, what were billed as "wave" sails - in the 4.5-5
range, Hurricane or Simmer sails?  Opinions?

Mark H.
The Bronx

Quote:
>Mike F wrote...
> And why can't I find the original post of this thread? I think I'm missing

MANY original posts,
Quote:
> judging by, well, the large number of original posts I can't access.

(Lucky for you folks!) Am I the

Quote:
> only one experiencing this the last five days?

Could be your server...probs in the NW...What is your browser?  MS Outlook?
Sometimes the application "burps" and you need to reset your headers.  At
least that was a fix when I was missing posts a couple months back.
 
 
 

relative effective sail size - new vs old sails

Post by NLW TFW » Wed, 22 Nov 2000 04:00:00

You can't PRY old Hurricanes out of many Gorge sailors' hands since Doug quit
making them. But as good as they were, there are many RAFs/camless sails these
days whose top end wind range will eat up a 1990 Hurricane. Jeez, very few
things rule for 10 years without changes. But the guys on late model Hurricanes
ain't lettin' go for good reason. But leech twist was prettty hard to come by
in 1988, so the worst sails of today probably have greater top end stability
than the best of 1988, at least if they're the same type. But bottom end
(lulls) may be a different story; old sails had grunt in spades.

As for the newsgroup post issue ... Earthlink's Newsgroup Technical Support
Forum contains many scores, maybe hundreds, of complaints. I am not alone. Of
course., Earthlink denies any problems exist.

Mike \m/
Ignore the NLWTFWNM crap; blame Earthlink

Subject: Re: relative effective sail size - new vs old sails
"Mark H." wrote
"I expect that [compared to] older large sails, there is much greater range,
especially top end, and greater performance overall to be gained with newer
sails.  How about smaller, older RAFs?  Are they obsolete?
For example, I have an '88 5.1 Windwing Convertible.  It has always
performed excellently for me in the conditions for which it's appropriate.
Granted, I still have it because I am not a sailor that frequents those
conditions very often, although the sails were built bulletproof.  Top end
it has always had.  Always has allowed me to handle the biggest gusts.  Now,
maybe lowend is greater in newer sails that size, so if I upgrade I will get
through the lulls better?
How about late '80s RAFs, what were billed as "wave" sails - in the 4.5-5
range, Hurricane or Simmer sails?  Opinions?

Mark H.
The Bronx

Quote:
>Mike F wrote...
> And why can't I find the original post of this thread? I think I'm missing

MANY original posts,
Quote:
> judging by, well, the large number of original posts I can't access.

(Lucky for you folks!) Am I the

Quote:
> only one experiencing this the last five days?

Could be your server...probs in the NW...What is your browser?  MS Outlook?
Sometimes the application "burps" and you need to reset your headers.  At
least that was a fix when I was missing posts a couple months back.