A Footy in 6 Inches of Water

Alright, you footy guys had me up all night last night …

Has anyone built a Footy with a less than 6 inch draught. Who? HOW!?

Given that you don’t allow shifting ballast, the weight has to be in the keel. I figure I’ve got about 4 inches of leverage which doesn’t give much of a righting moment …

So … as the clock ticked and ticked my mind churned and churned … scows with double keels, cats (hmmm … I’ll be curious about the outcome of the one in development) and canting rigs all came to mind … I also considered asking Mayor Miller to kindly allocate a line-item for deepening the Rosehill Resevoir ponds … not sure yet which is more likely to happen.

Damn, I wish I’d never stumbled across your class …

Trevor Paetkau

What about a proa with all the ballast in the windward hull?

On the other hand, tacking for water in a boat that bears off, stops and hen starts off going the other way might keep a protest comitte occupied for a very long time.

whoa, angus … !!!

if what i’m thinking is what you’re thinking you may have solved it … !!!

a uni-rig mounted perfect midships … a bow that become a stern and a stern that becomes a bow thus ballast (the proa) shifts from starboard to port and is still fixed in relation to the hull …

if it works, its the solution to a functional assymetric … and the wee thing will fit in the box at an angle allowing for a wider stance …

… gotta go, off to get a sharp pencil and clean sheet of paper … …


Thinking of it, you could cant the rig permanently to windward to get a wider stance. The windward cant acts like a windsurfer rig - what is normaly heel is (vertical) lift, reducing isplacement (as opposed to weight).

Go for it!

the syndicates after the speed record are for the most part using inclined rigs, (schematics show what they’re doing) all of which propose to counter heeling moment with lift … a footy won’t provide quite enough stance to acheve neutrality, but it may have the potential to alleviate enough …

i’m guessing you’ve mulled this over before, angus … where’d the mulling take you? (not the whiskey, i’m sure)

Not really since I thought abouty building a Polynesiian proa when I wax 15 (long time ago that) - but all the bits of the jigsaw already exist.

I’m now the conservative old man. You are (I suspect) the bright young thing. Go make it work!


Another route might be a narrow but not super-narrow unballasted hull with an essentially horizontal rig with ‘masthead’ floats. Many, many years ago, I built a ground effect boat in which stablity was largely provided by essentially horizontal ‘wings’ with a slight diagonal - heel increased the ground effect and kept the thing upright. It did vaguely work and with modern (expensive!) materials, an essentially horizontal rig - the wings provide lift, stability and drive - and development it might have potential.

Please note. I am a member of the technical committee but this is NOT, repeat NOT an official opinion on whether such a brute is a legal Footy.

seems like its got you going too, man … you’ll curse the question at 3am tonight … and then there’s that can of worms you’re tipping over … you wouldn’t happen to enjoy the occasional spirited debate, would you ?

attachments illustrate your horizontal winged flyer … i’ve also included a previous sketch of my own based on a sliding proa rig as opposed to reversing hull …


And before you go off the idea, you could mutiplex radio channels.

After an afternoon spent daydreaming its done … a footy with a 12 1/2 inch beam … a ton of horsepower … 2 channels … light achievable displacement without resorting to exotic build techniques … a three inch draught … one rudder … fixed ballast … totally legal

… first person to buy me a beer gets the scoop … :zbeer:

… seriously, blame Angus …

Trevor Paetkau

ps … no bs … will post pics once I’ve drawn them in a respectable fashion …

here is the platform … it fits in at an approx 80 degree angle and allows for 12 1/2 inch beam side to side (or top to bottom as is the case here) … rig drawings will follow (after chores chores chores) … they will show a swivelling assymetric rig that when at full extension (port or starboard) will project from the top of the box …

obvious questions exist … can this platform work an such a tiny scale … can the boat develop the speed to actuate the righting moments of the piercing foils … and blah blah blah … totally experimental … now who owes me a beer (boy, are you a quiet bunch :slight_smile: )

regards, trevor

OK, Now you have me interested. Question:- how are you thinking of moulding this wonderful piece of naval architecture? It has got to be in carbon, otherwise it just will not be stiff enough or light enough. The outriggers have got to be part of the hull to maintain the structural integrity.

The rig is not a problem it’s either a swing rig or a modified Una rig. Hope you guys are familiar with these. Roger Stollery (MYA Tech Sec has a wonderful arrangement for a swing rig. For the una rig you could use a modified Micky Finn or a downsized Mustang rig as designed by Dave Hollom. If you need further info just shout

On the legality front I view it as OK, it fits in the box and its a monohull so its OK by me.


Right you are, Angus…I think I’ll arrange to be out of town when that protest gets filed!

Trevor, why not build a Footy taking full advantage of beam, but with your shallow keel? That seems to work for the R36 class. The shallow pond at least ensures that the boats will be equal in that venue. If you make the keel removable, which I do on my boats, then you could replace it with a longer one for deeper water, so it could still be competitive in other locations.

And you can’t fool me…you’re glad you found Footys because you love the challenge…just like the rest of us idiots!

Footys Forever :zbeer:

Bill H

ummm … right … welll … hmmm … first thought

outriggers wrapped around a plug … heat moulded 1 or 2mm depron core sandwich between either carbon or a carbon/kevlar web with gorilla glue as opposed to epoxy as the agent (lighter) … hull bagged around a plug? and the two epoxied into place

platform, rig and electronics I fear may need to come in at 100 grams … batteries are worth 40grams of that …
by the way, this is perverse … who made up the bloody rule in the first place

Designed this before finding the footy class … she is sketched on the lines of a 49er and was meant to use a shifting ballast to counter dive and light displacement requirements … the thought was to be entirely stupid and fly a code0, thus trading upwind performance for a big dose of fun … intent was to build a couple and match race them in the aforementioned Rosehill Resevoir Ponds … then along came this 12 x 12 x 6 inch box …

so, taking Bill H’s suggestion, I could widen her a bit and put the ballast in the keel, but the way she’s drawn her displacement is just a touch greater than 100g … I had hull and rig calcs at around 40g (don’t ask … she would have been tender)

As for gust control I would have used a wing-tip rig and then trained the dogs to chase her as she cartwheeled across the park …

… somehow the lines just don’t seem right for a fixed ballast footy … too narrow up front and not enough displacement …

any thoughts ?

regards, Trevor

I’m sure we all have thoughts, Trevor…I’m just glad you didn’t ask for good ones! There’s so much we don’t know yet.

I think I’d be inclined to go for displacement on the heavier side of what people are doing, in an attempt to sort of make up for the short fin. Maybe 600 to 650 grams or so. That seems to be a trend in the R36 class versus the 36/600 class. That means having to increase the rocker on your very nice-looking design, and giving up any (probably futile) hopes you may have had of seeing it plane. Because of the famous Footy nose-down effect, I think you are right to consider more displacement in the bow sections, too. That arrowhead shape looks really neat, but unless it allows the center of effort of the rig to move way back to compensate, I’d be a bit more moderate.

I’m sure there are guys here with much better understanding of yacht design than mine, though, so take it with a grain of salt, and follow your own instincts.

Bill H

I thought this was going to be an “entry” level class designed for the new skipper who couldn’t afford to spend a lot of $$$ on a boat or it’s construction, or for youngsters who were going to try building their first boat?

You guys are only about 27 inches from the US1Meter class the way you are headed, and as noted elsewhere, if you let the designers take over, all controls for cost and complexity (including “carbon” ??) are suddenly out the window.

Just an observation… Might want to run a reality check before you scare away anyone who might even have given this idea a “thought” - and decide what it is you are trying to market? A simple, home built, inexpensive “FOOTY” for fun and ease of construction - or an all-out US1Meter ---- just scaled down a few feet short of a meter in length? :rolleyes:

That, Dick, is the nub of the matter. There is further discussion in the live thread under Rules and Useful Hintss.

I’m not worried yet. The cat sank and I don’t think this wonder will ever get up on its legs. I would not be disappointed at seeing one of these work but I would certainly be surprised. The box rule should keep the hulls firmly in the water.

It’s funny that the exotic designs are showing up before we find out which existing displacement hulls have an advantage.


it is fun to watch though and I might learn something :smiley: