You say I seem to have problems with lack of directions, but it seems to me that you seem to have a problem staying within the rules.
I AM adamantly opposed to changing the rules (or their interpretation) to cater to few individuals who cannot seem to build a better boat without trying to skirt the intention of the rules. These few must instead continually seek out (or try to create) loopholes to better suit their own purposes in trying to gain advantage over the next guy. The rules have already been distorted (and not for the better) by allowing diagonal hull placement inside the box, and removing the restrictions on standard sized radio equipment (allowing micro sized receivers and servos), in an effort to placate those individuals who claim that without these changes, the class simply cannot be competitive. Now, these same individuals want to eliminate any restrictions on batteries, rigs, and ballast materials (but not for environmental reasons). Are there ANY rules or restrictions that they can design their boats to comply with and still remain competitive? Apparently not…
I introduced the swing rig to the 36/600 Class, which was perfectly legal under the rules. The reaction I got was not accolades for modernizing the class but the same vehement opposition to change that Bill has voiced. The fiercest anti-swing rig cabal went to the extent of forming a splinter class. I won two National 36/600 titles and my hulls with swing rigs were three of the top six in 2001. Even with these results the swing rig didn’t really catch on in the 36/600 class.
There is a great deal of intransigence in model yachting, but what surprises me is the intransigent guys that are attracted to design classes like the 36/600 and the Footy. While logic would lead them to the one-design arena, where things are stable and don’t change, they seem to be attracted to the design classes, perhaps to get a leg up in the racing, improving the boat rather than the sailing skills. Of course, time marches on and the ability to keep up becomes more difficult and more expensive. So in seeking the advantage of sailing a more competitive hull they become intransigent facing further advances in the technology of a vibrant design class that will force them to adapt or leave them behind.
I have long been an advocate for improving r/c yacht’s performance. I don’t think that the original “intention” of requiring the Footy class to use AA batteries makes a whole lot of sense. The defense of this rule above seems just to be that this is the rule. Bill does not seem to care a wit for, or have much concern for advancing the performance of the class. Diagonally placed boats, micro servos and lightweight receivers all seem to raise his and other’s hackles about the fairness of it all. Well, there is no rule against these developments wether Bill likes it or not. But, there is also no rule that requires him to place his boat diagonally or use micro servos. He is free to choose which gear to use. I, and others, want the same to hold true for our batteries. If enough of you reading this post vote for the change to C.2 then the Footy class can be flexible and respond to advances in technology, much like using micro servos instead of “standard” size servos, or small lightweight receivers rather that the old full size ones that have been sitting around for 15 years in the tool box.
There is a big difference between coming up with a new concept that is not covered by the rules (such as a swing rig), and re-writing existing rules to better suit your purpose, and the latter is exactly what has been happening in the Footy class. The rules officially called out for standard sized radio gear, and that was changed. The rules called for the boat to fit in the measurement box (which provided a slot for bowsprits & bumpkins, indicating that the boat’s center should be placed on that line), and it was “decreed” that diagonal placement was within the rule. Presently, the rules specifically state the battery size, and you want to change that restriction. Same thing for the ballast material and the number and size of the sail rigs. I am simply posing the question, which of the Footy’s rules (if any) do you NOT wish to change?
The Footy started out as a great class for someone wanting to build his own small & inexpensive boat and have fun sailing it, and enjoy racing with other builders of a like mind. The concept must have gotten something right, since the class has enjoyed tremendous growth in just a few short years. It has also rekindled the interest of many old-timers who had grown tired of some of the other classes, for whatever reason. If the Footy’s present class rules are so unacceptable to you, and the class is so hampered in performance by those rules as you say, then why are you wasting your time (and ours) trying to change everything the Footy class already is, instead of developing your own class of new, super performance boat?
Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL USA
AMYA 0835
Footy 835
Hello Brett,
I would like to find an accurate history of the Footy class, if you can provide a pointer or link to that info, I would appreciate it. So far, I have read all that I could find about the class on the FootyUSA Yahoo group (over 3000 posts), this forum, the Footy UK website, and the AMYA Model Yachting Quarterly. If, as you say, I am wrong on all counts here, I apologize, but anything I have stated to date regarding the Footy class has been taken from the above mentioned information.
I was attracted to the Footy class because it appeared that it was a small, affordable, boat that was more a reflection of the builder’s creativity than the size of his wallet. I suppose if I was “wrong on all counts”, I must have been wrong on that one too. I returned to this hobby after dropping out for over 25 years, as a direct result of discovering the Footy Class. Too bad, I was very enthusiastic about the potential of the class, but I’m now beginning to see it’s really no different than the other classes.
Bill,
I will repeat what I have said on this forum many times before.
The current Footy class rules are the only rules that have ever been sanctioned by any model yachting body ever…period. That is completly true and factual.
The orginal rulemakers where very well aware of the possibility of diagonal boats,some of them more than others I might add.I will not delve into those discussions but it is simply not true to say that we did not regognise the possibilities of the rules we created.
Lastly Bill,I fail to see how allowing diagonal boats has spoiled your creativity and affected the size of your wallet,True though the footy class is not perfect and IMHO it is less so every day,to that end I will soon be proposing an alternative which many may find favour with some of you who like small boats and wish for a different set of rules.I belive I can bring to the table many insights from the current Footy rule and finally deliver a nice small yacht class to the world,watch this space.
Bill-
it’s right about here I would step in and suggest you look at Brett’s “Other” post in which he brought the RG65 class to light.
Slightly twice as large (25 inches/65cm) as a FOOTY and with international rules that have evolved over 30 years, there are fewer rules for “this” developmental class which may provide more to your liking. Unfortunately the word “development” means just that and as more rules are added, the class turns more into a one-design class. As Brett has suggested, since I don’t own a Footy, it is “impolite” to post about their rules, however, I can offer you the alternative you may (or may not) be seeking.
Length over all
Mast height
Sail area
… are the three major rules. Some have found that the weight/cost of carbon doesn’t warrant it over the cost/weight of balsa, so many are still building with balsa, although there are examples of ultra-lightweight boats being built. Development remains a game, where the idea of rectangular dollars equating to linear performance still has it’s examples.
I am (among other things) the UK Footy class secretary. If you could tell me where the Footy UK website is, I would be terribly grateful. It would save me the considerable effort of finding a mug to set one up.
Angus,
As the UK Footy Class secretary, are you able to provide any more information on the existence of an official class history, or merely trying to pick cyber-nits? The site I was referring to (it’s only a web page, really), was the MYA site at
<http://www.mya-uk.org.uk/yachts/footy.html>
and there is no obvious link to any history shown there, other than a link to the R/C Sailing site, which though more complete, shows little in the way of history either. Same for the AMYA site and others that relate to Footy’s. Is it possible that there is no history recorded?
There was no defining rule prior to the current ones. Roger Stollery in the UK developed a boat called “Choppa” as a children’s shop project. Originally conceived as a free sailing boat it was probably the first foot long boat built in any numbers. Brett brought out his BobAbout, an easy to build boat from plans. This boat and the rise of the internet began the popularization of what would become the Footy class. Your impression that at some point there were rules that specified using standard size radio equipment probably comes from the specs for the BobAbout and the suggested rules that Brett recommended on his website prior to the adoption of the rules we have now. I believe that his suggested rules contained the AA battery specification. Before the official rules were adopted I argued against including the AA specification, so I am no new comer to this debate. I thought it was a bad idea then and I think it is a bad idea now.
I also resent your insinuation that I have some sort of nefarious agenda. I have made composite hulls for the other classes that I sail in. I’ve used the aramids; Kevlar and Spectra, carbon fiber and I’ve made Balsa core, nomex core, honeycomb core structures. I’ve vacuum bagged with pre-preg and post-cured parts in my epoxy oven. Personally, I can build around any dumb obstruction the rules present. I don’t think the same is true for a lot of your fellow Footy builders. If you were truly interested in maintaining homebuilding as a viable alternative to the professionally built designs that are in this class’s future then you would vote to omit the battery specification from rule C.2. Inexperienced builders should not have to carry extra battery weight in what is probably an overbuilt boat. They are not currently required to carry full size servos, but they might not have to if they weren’t compensating for the extra 40 or 50 grams of battery weight. No other class specifies which type of battery to use, why should we?
I sure hope I don’t have to gear-up with a special charger, LIPO batteries and regulator circuit to remain competitive in Footys. We are trying to increase club membership by introducing a simple to build cheap boat.
I have been lurking here since before the footy class existed. It is interesting to see boats appearing at casual club regattas in a price range from “scraps in the shop” to $500 carbon pro builts. Perhaps a claiming race would be in order. Last place boat at the regatta plus a nominal fee can buy the first place boat less electronics. This is a challenge to all, create a cost effective class with the most severe penalty for spending your way to the top. Clyde
Hi Frank,
Thanks for the link to the Wiki Footy history. Brett told me I needed to check on the class history, because I was wrong on ALL counts, and that’s what I was trying to do, but it seems there’s not really a single source for an accurate & complete history of the Footy. When I first became interested in the Footy back in April 2008, I scoured the web looking for as much information as I could find. During this search, I lost track of exactly where I read certain details that stuck in my mind, such as the one about standard sized radio receivers & servos, which I think I must have gotten from the sentences in Roger Stollery’s 2005 article (shown on the R/C Sailing Footy site) that read: “The idea for a Footy Class was first devised in 2000 by Richard Webb for sailing in small demo pools because a foot long boat is about the smallest boat into which standard radio gear would fit. Richard set some very basic parameters for boats used at the Weymouth Model Festival and from an article in this magazine it spread to other parts of the world.”
I am told that there were no Footy rules before the present set, yet I have also read that the present rules were derived from different rules used in three different countries, in order to have a set of International rules. Trying to pick out an accurate history is both difficult and contradictory, and I really wish someone out there with more knowledge than I would put it all into one document that everyone would agree upon, if that’s even possible.
As for the batteries, I’m not against opening things up enough to allow packs using 4 AA or 5AAA cells, but like you, I don’t relish having to put out more money than I paid for my Footy and radio in the first place, just for new batteries and a specialized electronic charger. I also like the idea that in a pinch, if I suffer battery failure at a regatta away from home, I can substitute batteries from the local drug store and keep running, rather than going home because proper replacements are only available by ordering over the web.
Thanks for your help,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL USA
I do not mean to imply that you have some “nefarious agenda”, and you have made it very clear that you favor eliminating ALL restrictions on the batteries. I happen to disagree with eliminating ALL restrictions on the batteries (though I would be in favor of allowing a 5 AAA cell pack in addition to the 4 AA cells currently called for). You make the argument that “No other class specifies which type of battery to use, why should we?”, and my response to this question is simple, No other class boat is only a foot (approximately) long. In the larger boats, advantages gained from using lighter batteries are less, due to their hulls’ much greater displacement. You also say that you can use hi-tech materials and techniques to “get around” whatever rules there are, and I’m sure this is true, I’ve seen some of your boats in the model press (fine work!). But, do you really think that eliminating any battery restrictions will allow less skilled builders to be more competitive with your boats? Or, wouldn’t it be more likely that any performance gap would simply widen? And, is the point of all this just to see who can “get around” the rules the best?
There are those who wish to eliminate all restrictions on rigs, others who wish to eliminate all restrictions on hull appendages, and some who want to eliminate restrictions on ballast materials. If all of them were to get their way too, would we still have a Footy Class?
Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL USA
AMYA #0835
There are some nice single lipo cells that weight about 5 grams each,they will power a footy for an hour or so.With this tremendous weight advantage I see it highly likely that this is the type of cell you will see in these boats if the battery rule is dispensed with.
Another 40 grams in the bulb won’t go amiss.
I am slightly bemused that no one thought to ask the class to consider AAA size cells.
Seems that it will either be AA or anything goes.
Most Regattas in our area run a minimum of 3-4 hours, frequently longer. While the idea of such a lightweight battery is inviting, the fact that it will only run for an hour means changing it (probably several times) will be required. This means you will need to have with you at the pond, a minimum of at least two battery packs, and a field charger, plus a place to charge them (not the front seat of your car!). All LiPo’s carry the caveat that they should not be left unattended while charging, for safety reasons. This may present a bit of a challenge, how do you sail competitively and pay attention to your battery & charger at the same time? Also, a battery that drops out of charge as quickly as a LiPo does, may surprise you by doing so out in the middle of the race course. One DNF heat during a Regatta could easily offset any advantage gained from having lightweight batteries. Also, changing batteries in a Footy is usually more time consuming, since most Footys use hatches that are sealed with tape as an extra precaution, due to their tendency to submarine. Of course, not everyone’s battery will go down at the same time, and this could delay a heat’s starting time, or cause an individual boat to suffer a late start. Most LiPos are about 3.7 volts per cell, and have a minimum drop-off voltage before the cell is damaged. Wouldn’t the speed & torque of the servos, particularly the sail servo, be adversely affected by the lower voltage (3.7 vs. 4.8 or 6)? Or, if you elect to use two cells, wouldn’t the resulting higher voltage (7.4v) cause a problem, especially for older radios?
Freedom of choice. You don’t want to bother with a LiPo charger and the risk involved with charging? You don’t want to risk a fire on board if the battery gets wet while sailing? You don’t want to reconcile the voltage available from LiPo cells? Then don’t use LiPos, its your choice. No one would be specifying which type of battery to use. But just because you don’t want to use this risky technology doesn’t mean that we should bury our class in retro equipment. There will be newer power plants coming down the road that we should be able to take advantage of. As an example the new Spektrum Dx6i doesn’t use the familiar 9.6v transmitter pack, it uses 4 AA cells (a good use for the old AAs you won’t need anymore if the change to rule C.2 is passed).
So, Bill, you are willing to adding 5AAAs to the requirements. I would support that too, but only as an interim step.
Another approach would be to set a minimum weight for the batteries in their holders. That would require that battery packs or loose batteries in their holders be removable for weighing. This would probably only be required of the top finishers in a regatta. It adds a level of complication that is probably not acceptable, but it is the most fair solution. All battery systems would be legal as long as they met the minimum weight. So Brett’s 5 gram battery would have to piggyback a weight to meet the minimum. You could use your AA cells and not worry about going under the minimum. No more perceived super advantage to skilled builders (makes you and those that agree with you happy) and choice of power source type (makes me and the progressives happy).
A FIRE ONBOARD IF THE BATTERY GETS WET? Geez, I never even THOUGHT about that possiblity! Since one tends to put the battery as low as possible inside the hull (exactly where any water would go, also), this conjures up a picture of a real “Chinese fire drill” during a regatta. Maybe the safest place for the batteries WOULD be in the keel bulb, where such a possibility might have less chance of scuttling the ship! Oooops! there goes another rule!
So, if the choice had been to allow 5 AAA’s in addition to the current 4 AA’s we might have been on the same side of all this discussion - interesting. I guess we’ll have to see how the present ballot goes, then maybe make a formal proposal for next time…
Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL USA
AMYA 0835
Footy 835
polo shirts,lacoste polo shirts,ralph lauren polo shirts,Ralph Lauren hoodies ,wholesale polo shirts,we have best price.Welcome to wholesale polo shirts at http://www.polopolo.co.uk/