If the goal was changed to 'measuring the performance of various types of junk rigs' it would allow the use of tunnel testing, and it suddenly becomes very cheap, very easy, and very accurate.

I'm reluctant to weigh in here, because I'm quite new to the group, and while I'm aware of currents just under the surface, I don't understand them or their history.  But perhaps my newbie perspective is helpful in the discussion, or perhaps I'll be a teenager sticking my nose into the grownup's conversation.  I don't want to teach my grandmother to suck eggs.

In one of my previous professional lives, I was a forest ecologist, and in another, a social scientist.  In both the professions we relied heavily on data that could not be collected from well controlled, lab-like experiments.  One was due to cost, the other due to ethics.  We instead gathered data on whatever presented itself in the world, and subsequently identified correlations within and between various sub-populations.  I spent several years just walking through the woods, collecting every bit of data I could, without even knowing what it would be used for.  Eventually, someone else added it to something similar a grad student had done a decade before, and five years later, analysis of the two data sets led to significant and beneficial policy changes in my State.  It ain't pretty science to look at, but it is relatively effective compared to anecdotal evidence, and it does help inform new decisions.

A common hull with various rigs is more like a lab experiment.  A difficult lab, with lots of noise and tough to control, to be sure - but that's the experimental design challenge, and may provide useful data if conducted by skilled researchers, which we've surely got here in the JRA.  It's a tight, understandable challenge, and it's where most of the engineers in the world are comfortable.

Alan is proposing something else, I believe.  Gather data.  As much as possible, using a well defined set of protocols so that biases are consistent if not removable. It will contain errors, weirdness, skews and biases inevitably, but make an effort to minimize (or at least record) their existence.  Build a dataset that over time contains a wide variety of rich bits and pieces. Ten years down the road, we could have a significant chunk of data from which we can begin to make smart inferences.  Who doesn't wish we had a few dozen polar diagrams of 15th through 19th century junks in China along with descriptions of the rigs and hull shapes? Or even sketchy measurement data on the general performance of every junk rig built in the last 20 years?  It would be a messy dataset, but not useless by any means.  I've been stunned at what newer data mining algorithms can do, even with sloppy data sets, if they are big enough.

That said, I see the real challenge in Alan's method (assuming I've described it correctly) is sustaining the interest of just gathering data for the sake of gathering data. These data sets do have to be big.  I left that forestry job because the grants dried up - not enough instantaneous payback.

Anyway, I'm in favor of both approaches.  For those who like to tinker and experiment, by all means, make some cool direct comparisons.  And also, why not just gather data on what's out there already?   Financially, the equipment is cheap, and protocol training could be straightforward.  Expenses for the actual data gathering would be born by the individuals - we are a volunteer organization. 

I don't really want to get involved in this debate - I have too many other irons in the fire at the moment.  However, perhaps I should clarify that the idea of using a dinghy for a test bed came about for a few reasons

1. it would be relatively cheap to build and therefore, while the JRA might pay for the materials for one or two, we could hope members would be encouraged to build their own

2. it would double up as a tender

3. people would not need extra space to store it - not everyone lives on a large block of land with sheds and storage space

4. it would be fun, particularly at junkets.

A 16ft boat, while probably providing a better test bed, would be more expensive, take longer to build, have no secondary use, would require storage space and, generally speaking, is hardly likely to be towed by a mother ship to a junket, so therefore would have to come by road, requiring the additional expense of a trailer (and car with towing bar). This argument also works against the boat that you suggest, Arne.

Arne and Slieve.  It would be great to have a fleet of Folkboats.  It would be great if the ‘new’ Jester had been used as a test bed, as the original proposal suggested she would be.  I said at the time it wouldn't happen and, sadly, was proved correct. However, if we have doubts over providing a set of instruments, I can’t see us blithely giving some keen members a Folkboat on which to try out their rigs!

The title of this thread is "Measuring junk sa(i)ling performance", not "Making comparisons between junk-rigged boats".  To me, there is a difference here.

Alan is actually suggesting an entirely different and 'hard facts' approach.  I can see its merits in supplying information for the technically minded.  If Alan were to use the information thus gained when designing rigs for customers, the main beneficiary would be said customer.  I agree that many of the advances made in junk rig have been done by amateurs and that we are all very grateful that they have so generously shared their information with us.  However, founder members of the JRA include Robin and Alan and the commercial and the amateur have always worked side by side, in the interests of promoting and perfecting junk rigs for the benefit of all junk sailors.

The major drawback is the usual one: organising junkies makes herding cats look like a stroll in the park.

The question your committee has to decide is whether we should make funds available to do this.  None of us wants to waste money; none of us wants it to be used improperly, but I do think that some of it should be used. The major issue that I, as Chair, see is that of covering expenses.  I am perfectly happy to see funds being used to buy the necessary apparatus; I am perfectly happy to see funds being used to send the apparatus around to be used on various boats.  However, I am not at all happy at the idea of paying personal expenses to the person operating the apparatus.  As I mentioned earlier, we have made the majority of our improvements to junk rig, as unpaid amateurs.  Moreover, expenses simply gobble up available funds, and that's before we start haggling over whether the person with the equipment should be sleeping in a  car or staying in an hotel.  There is enormous scope for argument and bad feeling here, and for myself, I don't want to go there.  If Alan, or anyone else, wants to do this, then in my opinion - and this is just my opinion - they have to do it at their own cost as has been the norm up to now.  This may be neither reasonable nor fair, but I think this is the only way we can do it without causing bad feeling.

Your Committee is still considering Alan’s proposal and we will put it on forum shortly, with a link from this thread. All comments are appreciated in helping us come to some conclusion.

Annie

I think it is best to leave it to the group of junkies who goes for the project, to elect boat type.

Of course you're right, Arne, but it's nice to dream. Blondie Hasler knew a good boat, and so do you. I've always wanted to pinch Jester and put a rig on it to try and scare the pointy heads. Think of the positive publicity. Somehow we have to lose the poor performance label.

Cheers, Slieve.

David, Slieve and Chris.

I think it is best to leave it to the group of junkies who goes for the project, to elect boat type, either to be built or by using secondhand boats which are available in their area. Demands for seaworthiness will depend on their chosen "race track".

Arne