Roy and Greg,
I will be the first to admit that I have cabin fever! Without a doubt. I have a couple snowboarding trips comming up and just got the ice rink shoveled off the other day, so it should clear up some of the cabin fever symptoms!
First of all, As I stated in my first post in the thread, I am currently NOT planning on builing anyting like this. I just find the whole moveable ballast concept in these rules interesting as without a specific reference as stationary, even a lead belly has moveable ballast. . .
One thing I find interesting about a small loophole I did find, is that without a doubt, next year, it will be sewn up. Its a developmental class, yet as soon as you find a hole, it will be taken away. I truly understand it is whats best for the class, but its kind of disheartening. “Go ahead and experiment . . . but if you start winning, were going to vote it out of existance to keep the class alive.”
Now I agree that the one hole I did find (hasnt been mentioned here)opens the door for WAY too much liberty that I wouldnt even want to deal with. . . I have been told by Jim that it is indeed a hole, and go ahead and use it for the season if I wish, but next year it will be illegal. . . so, why will I waste my time and effort with my idea to only be able to use it for one season?!?! Similarily, Canting Mast Twin Foil. . . if and when Hal and Will get their boats working . . it probably will be voted illegal by the class membership. But, I have pointed out to hal that there MAY be a way to add another foil and really make his boat move! (or the thing could end up being a DOG! who knows!)
In all reality Greg and Roy, I am a Keep it Simple Stupid kind of guy. Greg, you have seen my boat. No Bells, no Whistles, no extra parts, no nothing, and trust me . . if I ever get it built, my new boat will be just about as simple.
As I have already been told by jim that this loophole will be sewn up, I can share the following with you:
www.ourwalden.net/rcsailing/techcomm.pdf
it looks blank, but the first page is a cover sheet, scroll down. Basically, it says that there is a way in the rule that would allow a someone to put a stern mounted overhanging rudder on a boat that is already 39.375" long and have it be class legal currently. Sure, I know there are downsides, but I have found some theoretical gains in what it would allow for. The problem, if it is indeed true thatI could put a rudder off the back end of my boat, then one could actually put a Hula type appendage mounted off the back of the boat that was as long as they wanted. You could make a US one meter that was actually longer than a marblehead! The conclusion was that part of the Tech Committee thinks its a valid loophole. The other part thinks it goes against the spirit of the rule, all parties involved think its a hole that should be closed.
Going snowboarding tonight . . .cabin feaver should deminish!
~tb