Diagonals and feet

So which foot?

1 Amsterdam foot (voet) = 0.2831 m.
1 Danish foot (after 1835) = 0.31385 m.
1 French foot (pied du roi) = 12 pouces = 0.32484 m.
1 Norwegian foot (after 1824) = 0.31375 m.
1 Portuguese foot = 0.3285 m.
1 Rotterdam foot = 0.296 m.
1 Russian foot (English foot borrowed by Peter Ι) = 12 inches = 1/7 Russian sazhens = 0.3048 m.
1 Spanish foot (till 1752) (Pie (foot) de Ribera/de Rey) = 12 Pulgadas = 0.287342 m.
1 Spanish foot (1752 to 1765) (Pie (foot) de Burgos/Castellano) = 0.278635 m.
1 Spanish foot (after 1765) (Pie (foot) de Rey) = 12 Pulgadas = 0.32483 m.
1 Swedish foot (fot) = 12 inches (tum) = 0.2969 m.
1 Venetian foot = 0.34773 m.

The Footy box is defined as referring to a boat approximatelyy 1 foot long.

Zei goed die mens.

As the slogan says on the back of my car ~ Think “inside the box” sail a Footy

The boat does not have to be a foot long or 6" wide ~ its just got to fit in the box

“The Box rules” OK?

I grow very tired of the diagonal boat moaners,even a casual glance at the class rule before getting involved in this class would show how a diagonal boat is possible,and was always possible!!!Yes the rule makers were very aware that the simple measurement process, ie fit the boat inside a box could lead to boats longer than 1 foot…hence the reference in the rule to the boats being approximately 1 foot long!!

These boats are very simple to measure because of the box rule…if we were to stipulate how the boat must be held in the box to measure then this would open up a whole other Pandora’s box…but of course the" diagonal boat moaners" are to stupid to see this as they missed the whole point of the simple measurement and its implications before they even got started!!

If we where to stipulate that the boats should be 12 inches long then there is only one fair way to measure them and that is in a water tank like IOM…now if thats what you want then start your own class because this class measures boats in a box in a very simple and effective way and a great many people have found it challenging to design and build in this framework.

I don’t intend to argue the point with anyone,if you don’t like how these boats are measured then I respectfully suggest you go find another class of boat to play with The footy class will live and die by this “box” if it is dead to the “diagonal boat moaners” already then good we don’t need your negativity.go now,cos it ain’t changing to suit the moaners in this regard any time soon.

A little study of some basic navel architecture principals will show you that it is all not beer and skittles for the diagonal boats…indeed a great many 12 inch boats have beaten longer ones…in this rule there are trade offs…but off course navel architecture is not well understood by these moaners.These principals are pretty easy to understand,I had a fairly good grasp of them even in High school and I am not that bright I assure you!!

The moaners should get a grip and do a little study,its a development class after all,this class is challenging on all levels of sailing…design,construction,tuning,and sailing ability are all well tested in this framework and you need to get all areas pretty well sorted to have a chance in a decent level race. A well thought out 12 inch boat will beat a poorly executed 13 inch one all day every day…

Well… that`s telling me in no uncertain terms.
Obviously written with some feeling we can tell my friend.

Thank you for that explanation, I shall pass your feelings on to those poor bewildered stupid, souls, who, like me, just wanted to build and sail a simple model yacht with out having any knowledge of “Navel Architecture.”

I am sorry my comments came across as negativity, that was not my intention. I felt I was raising a genuine concern voiced to me, by others.

Never mind it was fun, and I still have my other classes, so I shall just scurry back under my rock and file away my FOOTY`s to be given away later to some bright young child with a bent for navel architecture and physics.

In the meantime all my best wishes to all the FOOTY sailors on this forum, especially Brett, who I admire so much for his continued effort and passion for these tiny craft.


The following message arrived to all moderators. I won’t step in to edit (others might) but will just post this leaving the sender as anonymous…

Re: Diagonals and feet

This is part of this thread:
Diagonals and feet

This is the reason that the user gave:
Abusive language, please remove or edit.

A discussion thread has been created at [i]http://www.rcsailing.net/forum1/showthread.php?t=5380[/i]

This message has been sent to all moderators of this forum, or all administrators if there are no moderators.

Please respond to this post as applicable

Will let you guys police this one on your own for the time being.

Dick Lemke - one of a couple moderators

Anonymous? Have you clicked the link of the discussion thread that was created? http://www.rcsailing.net/forum1/showthread.php?t=5380 Good one Dick. :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, my report was just to control the use of ad hominem. Calling forum members stupid is not proper behavior for this forum. I am not commenting of the merits of either side of the original discussion.

As one of “the diagonal boat moaners are too stupid…” referred to in the letter in question, I will say that I do NOT feel the response to request the messages removal was warranted, though it might be considered by some to be slightly abusive. I certainly hope IHB was not not offended, and I think his comment that it served to show Brett’s passion is correct. I agree with Ian’s desire for a simple 12" boat, and feel that a diagonally placed boat, even if it was considered carefully by those that wrote the original rules, is neither an intuitive & logical, OR a simpler use of the measurement box.


Geeze guys -

I get “blitzed” when I do moderate, and then when I don’t (sort of :stuck_out_tongue: )

While a bit strong, I’ve seen (and been at the receiving end) of much worse. I suspect that this thread and comments would/will/has generated some strong feelings, and I made my post before coming here, simply based on an email to moderators. No, I guess I didn’t read the post, and only “suggested” it and other responses be tempered a bit.

my opinion:
Discussion HAS to take place for any organization to grow and continue to improve. I have my personal feelings toward this issue and about the AMYA exec committee and a certain (ahem) web administrator who cut off ALL dissent (basically banned anyone with negative comments or opinions). I don’t want to be a part of any organization that is made up of members who cannot or refuse to communicate. Thus (speaking for myself) I will allow strong positions as long as they are directed in a general direction. Other moderators may not feel this way, and they have as much latitude in leaving - or killing - a post as do I.

There will be issues, and there will be very strong “opinions” - and as long as Brett’s post was made in a generality and not directed to one specific person, I felt it best to keep my hands/fingers off.

If you guys can’t post your opinions without fear of being deleted ( or banned ) I want to assure you that as long as it is (more-or-less) impersonal - you “need” discussion and opinions. As the FOOTY Class has matured, if members want change, there is a way to do it. It isn’t a personally owned class, and the suggestion to consider leaving can work in both directions.

my suggestion:
Follow your constitution and bylaws for rules change, and stay away from direct personal attacks in the forum.

Feel free to disagree - you can reach me by email or by PM to discuss further.

Regards, and good luck with your efforts to improve the class - whichever way the members want to go.


It seems there is an insidious, subversive movement afoot to remove the ‘development’ characteristic from the Footy Class. I have popped popcorn and a cold beer, and will sit and watched the shitfight progress.
I only want to step in to say that the existing class should remain development oriented and if people want restrictions they should form a seperate FootyOne-Design class.

… we’re not really serious about this diagonal nonsense … are we? … is this cheating the rule as well … ? … how many grandfathered boats might you imagine there’d be?


Hi TMark,

Quite serious, it would seem. Currently, there are no Grandfathered boats because under the present rule, boats placed diagonally in the measurement box (at least in the 6"x12" plane) are considered legal. Boats attempting to fit diagonally in the box using both the 6"x12" and 12"x12" plane are met with some restriction due to application of the “in racing trim” rule which in all cases requires full movement of the rig, and only in certain cases full movement of the rudder, for boats while they are in the measurement box. And the proponents of diagonally placed boats claim they make the rule simpler!


The BOX rule is simpler, it requires a BOX to measure the boat , how simple do you want the rule.
Get rid of the box rule and introduce a length restriction rule and see how complicated it gets.
Any volunteers to turn up lakeside with a measuring tank full of water please step forward now.
Roger knew what he was doing when he invented the box rule for the Footy, simple and keeping ones imagination running riot on how to fit ones Footy in the BOX.
This is the man who invented the SWING rig and many other developments in model yachts. He has forgotten more than most people know about model yachts.
Keep it a development , interesting class, please.

Well said Graham

Anybody remember the furor this caused way back when … :slight_smile: … I can’t believe you’re travelling the same road again … it was resolved years ago … and by those who actually wrote the bloody rules … T


From a total newbie who hasn’t even built his boat yet (still waiting on plans for the Brando :wink: )…

It has always seemed reasonably simple to me… the box lets you have either :

a) a 12" boat with an overhanging rudder, bumpkin, and bowsprit


b) a 13"ish boat without overhanging rudder, bumpkin, or bowsprit

Pick your poison, build your boat, and sail happy.

Just my 2c, which may not even be worth 2c given the source :wink:


Whatever the rule or box, someone has to measure the boat in the box within the rules. If that isn’t being done now, re. overlong rudders on diagonal boats, then why should we expect it to be done with some new box or rule?

As a regatta organiser and measurer I will accept that I have eyeballed the movement range rather than had it proven to me on diagonal boats. I will be happy to improve this performance in future and a suggestion from the footy hirarchy that all measurers do so would not be out of place. This would surely be a simpler solution than tinkering with the box or rules again.

With my other hat on, if any sort of commercial support for Footys is to continue or indeed new support to be tempted in to this class then again we need rule stability. With nine months development into a keenly anticipated new diagonal kit boat I can speak authoritively about how commercial supporters may decide that this class is just not worth the risk.


I really try to avoid getting involved in these “my opinion’s righter than your opinion” discussions, but I can’t resist trying to clarify a point.

It seems to me that the issue of diagonal boats is being mixed up with the issue of rudder motion, but there’s really not a connection.

Any boat that fits fully within the box must have a rudder that moves through the full range of motion used in racing. This is true regardless of any angle of placement within the box. Only a rudder extending through the slot is exempted from this requirement, the reason for which I hope is obvious. Note that a diagonal boat could have a rudder extending through the slot…the rule does not prevent this.

The reason I did not strictly enforce rudder movement for any boat (not just diagonals) at the USA Nationals was because of people’s misunderstandings about the “in racing trim” clause which had not been defined within the rule until the 2009 ballot…not because of anything to do with diagonals. Many people did not understand that racing trim meant full motion of rudders and rigs. Given the 2009 rule modification, I no longer see this as a problem and will encourage enforcing the rule in future major regattas.

Once again I’ll remind everyone that the rule founders thought through the whole diagonal thing very carefully, had a great deal of debate around it, explored other alternatives, and decided to adopt the box concept.

Now that I’ve written the facts, I might as well express my opinion. I’ve yet to see anyone propose an equally simple and effective method of measurement, and I’m personally thankful we haven’t gone the way of 10 Rater certification.

Long live Open classes, and Footys in particular…One Designs are boring!


In practice, the trailing edge of the rudder on Tanto (a diagonal boat) is 5/16ths of an inch (80 mm) forward of the transom. So, full rudder rotation for a diagonal boat is not too much of a design handicap, but it is something to bear in mind during construction.

Also, I don’t see that there is anything arbitrary, or that there is some conceptual conflict with a rudder sticking through a slot included in the box for that express purpose while requiring those who choose not to take advantage of this feature to conform to the “racing trim” requirement, which, in this discussion, concerns rudder rotation.

Since the rudder slot is included in the box design, and only the interior dimensions of the box are specified, the thickness of the box walls, being variable depending on what it is made from, necessitate the exemption from rotation. Again, a very practical solution to provide all of those who’ve built a box to have an accurate measurement device regardless of materials used and their relative thicknesses. As an example, the plexiglass box that I designed was cut for me by associates with a laser. This would cost someone without my access a couple of hundred dollars. A perfectly adequate box can be built from MDF and cut out by hand for under $30. Both boxes measure a Footy according to the rules. But boxes with different wall thicknesses might allow more or less rotation. My box legal Bantam II is a conventionally built boat with its rudder extending through the slot. Her rudder shaft, being outboard, is in line with the slot. So this boat actually can rotate her rudder in the slot, in my box, with its 1/4 inch thick walls. Half inch MDF box walls would probably make this impossible. Everything is relative.

Doesn’t the external rudder width check gauge attached along one side of the slot inhibit the rudder’s rotation in that direction? What thickness of plexiglass did you use to make the box? Also, how did you hold it together? Fast Frank also made a box from plexiglass using 3/8" thick stock, and his is held together using threaded holes and machine screws (quite nice actually) but probably not for the average home builder. I think because it is transparent, plexiglass makes for a far more useful measuring box than MDF. It is much easier to see what’s really going on inside (like whether there is full rudder travel), plus plexi is more dimensionally stable than MDF, especially in the event the MDF were to get wet.