>
> >My idea is to use your idea, and link it not to capsizing the rig,
> >but pulling up the board. That way when loads increase the boat
> just
> >skids to soak up the energy.
>
> Very interesting indeed.
> My first thought is that in gusty weather, how would behave a proa
> skiding sideway ? Interaction with waves may not lead to as much
> energy decrease as you expect. And here I return your argument of
> Time : how long would it take to reduce the load on the sail, would
> it be fast enough to prevent capsize ? Just questions. I have no
> answer to these.
> But I'm afraid of the complexity of the rudders in your system. HP
> rudders seem to already be complex pieces with 2, 3, 4 ( ?)
> rotational axis), if you add your system, will the rudders still be
> reliable ?

For the sake of argument, I am just assuming your system won't work.
As an alternative one could attempt some other mitigation other than
leaning the whole rig. I agree the boards are too complicated,
actualy currently Rob has a winning design but "nobody" has seen it.
Anyway the externaly mounted rudder vs one in a slot has some
potential for triping, while in a slot I think the loads would be too
great to simply overcom. Not convinced either idea is all that
worthwhile.

On the mousetrap thing, it a funny image, but I'm not entirely
joking. How violently does the mast reset, and how often? There
used to be an idea called a fuseable cleat, and also earlier blast
from the 60s systems with pendula and sear, that would trip the
sheets above certain loads. i think there are two potential lessons
there. First, while these various systems were seriously proposed,
nobody added the additional complication or having systems that
releases under wind load, but hauled in again. Kinda what you are
proposing in another form. It's not so difficult to release, but
grabing back is a big deal.

To some extent nobody bothers with these things any more either.
Basicaly the cries of horror went away with added beam, and probably
also higher average skipper skills/familiarity.

On capsize, it really isn't an issue in multihull design. It is a
topic, which comes up because there is no way to kill it off
completely, for some reason we keep draging it forward by
generation. It's like worrying about the wings falling off an
airplane. It still happens from time to time. It's something that
is imaginable in the context of the craft. But the key factor is
that it can be pretty completely designed around. At some point in
early aviation, there must have been a period when they didn't know
what the safety factors were, 6Gs, 2Gs? And also didn't know how to
construct good details. Same with Multis. There was a time when we
didn't know how to sail them, or design them, but we do now. You can
have as much stability, and resistance to capsize as you want. It
will compromise other factors, but basicaly cats are designed within
similar safety parameters as other cruising boats. What is truly
perverse is that capsize remains something that seems almost more
feared than sinking monos, or serail capsize in monos. There is zero
logic there. So if the probability is no greater with a multi, and
the outcome often more benign, what are we talking about?