Japanese Footy "ShaQ" on FOOTY website "Photos"

Hello to all Footy enthusiasts,

My Japanese Footy “ShaQ” is on the PHOTOS section of the Footy website.

The name implies the Japanese length unit called “Shaku” which is very close to a “Foot.” (not exactly the same length.)
It also means that it is small in size, but is as dynamic in image as the NBA superstar S. O’neal.

In SI unit, the “Shaku” is 0.30303m, whereas the “Foot” is 0.3048 m

My boat is currently illegal under the class rule’s “clarifications and interpretations,” and therefore it is not a true IFCA FOOTY.
The naming is hence very appropriate, I think.:stuck_out_tongue:

I hope one of these days, there will be a ballot decision that may over rule the current “clarifications and interpretations,” on the twin rudders.

In order to do so, we must create the NFCA in Japan, and then on to obtain the majority votes.
I will look into the JMYS to see what is happening over here on Footy.
Will report back to you all, when I find out more. :slight_smile:


ShaQ looks to be a very interesting boat. Best of luck with her!
I agree that the current “clarifications and interpretations” should be put to a vote. I can see no reason why multiple keels and rudders shouldn’t be allowed as long as they fit in the box.

That’s a nice looking boat. Did you seal the foam at all? Any sailing experience in the 8-15mph wind range? I’m wondering about nosediving and the twin rudder control under strong downwind conditions.

There’s another Footy maker in Japan active on the RCGroups.com forum. I’m not sure how close you may be but he closer than any others. :stuck_out_tongue:

Hello ScottS,

Thank you so much for your generous support on my twin ruddered ShaQ.
I know another US sailor believing the twin rudders should be legal, as long as they fit within the box.
So there are now three people (including myself) who supports this idea.
It is just the beginning of a small movement.
Hope I could gain more support from more sailors in the near future.

Meanwhile, those who compete must abide by the class rule.
BTW, I wonder when is the next opportunity for the ballot?
Anyone knows?
Thank you.


Hello tallastro,

  1. The hull and the deck is lobust inexpensive foam curved, then fiberglass tape reinforced where structurally necessary, and then fully epoxy coated. Not yet painted. It is only the proto-type.

2)The first test sail was in those condition you’ve mentioned. Another photo titled number 1, that I’ve sent to Charles has the proof of my boat sailing in those wind condition. You may be able to see it, if Charles can place more photos. Please be patient.

3)Nose diving is inevitable, if the inappropriate tall rig is chosen for the over powered high wind strength condition. Smaller rig should be chosen for the high wind range.
This is because the moment to push the boat forwad, on high aspect rig (with vertically high location of Center of Effort) is so much stronger in proportion, than the opposing resistant’s reserved buoyancy acquired by the short length/bow volume of the boat itself.

  1. Regarding the twin rudders in nose dive situation. It will not make any difference, if the londitudinal location is the same on the single rudder in those overpowered condition.
    If the aft hung single rudder is chosen, the longitudinal location is even further aft, so it may be worse. Unless, the very deep single rudder is chosen.
    Once again, a properly sized rig should be chosen for the given wind range. This is probably one of the reason why you see so many racing big boats these days, with the single rudder located way forward, than it used to be in the 80’s. ACC boats are the good examples.

  2. I will look into the other Japanese Footy sailor’s posting later on.
    Found one post in May 21, 2007 by Sail4Food. My Footy was built before that.
    Found chilisoling50, May 14, 2007 registered, but without any post.
    Wismerhell from other category of forum used to live in Japan, but he lives in Europe now.
    Will look for more.


Thanks for the quick reply. I’ll ask Charles about that other photo, we sail together.

You’ve described the nosediving perfectly. Getting the rig matched to the conditions is right. The problem I face is variable conditions changing rapidly. The unarig (McRig) is the best solution I’ve seen so far.

Some boats react better than others when nosediving does happen. The rudder preventing it isn’t what I meant, sorry. I was more curious about regaining control after the bow pops back up, usually broaching to some degree or heeling greatly. The twin rudders may give you a better chance in that situation. Some hulls also seem to stall completely when the bow submerges while others plow forward only losing some of their speed.

In response to your ballot question, I’m not aware of any upcoming ballots. The main reason is that we have no proposals.

Happy sailing

Tallastro notified me about your footy. I have the honor of being the designer and owner of the first footy here in Japan, I am afraid;) :stuck_out_tongue: . I am not very active in this forum, but in the RC-groups sailboat forum. You can find my thread at http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681887. My footy is the one shown right next to yours in the Footy forum page. So, my footy, complying with the current footy rules, should be JPN-001.
Where do you sail? I live in Tokyo.

The only person who can issue a Footy sail number is the Footy class national registrar for the cuntry concerned. The existence of a national registrar also that country a place on the international committee of which I am a member.

At present there is no national registrar for Japan. If either of you would like the position, you are very welcome. We should prefer it if you could obtain the endorsementof the JMYS.

If you are intersted, e-mail me at translate@enterprise.net


Thank you for taking your time once and again regarding Footy registrar in Japan. I personally have no desire what so ever to join JMYS. I have had enough with R/C modelling associations here in my own coutry, based on my past bad experiences in R/C soaring. And that’s the main reason I am not raising my hand at the moment to take up footy registrar of Japan. Also, my knowledge of R/C sailing community in Japan is nil. I do not mind who gets Japan 0001, as long as that footy is in deed a footy, built according to the rules of footy class at the time of registration. Other wise, why bother with classes and sail numbers. Then, its all total chaos!! dont you think so?:graduate:

Hello Sail4Food and Angus,

Yes, I do understand that the sail numbers can only be issued by the national registrar, after a proper boat measurement & inspection. There is none for Japan in the IFCA today.

If you are interested in the true One Design competition of the RC sailboats, I do not believe the current Footy class rule is the right class. In this infant stage of the class, it will generate too much performance differences, within the box rule design. I do not wish to believe the original rule was created that way???
In my view, the Footy seems to be in line with having fun…, to create the unique boats, within a free spirited confined box rule.

For the above reason, I feel the original Footy Class Rule has enough freedom to exploit the various design characteristics. It will allow many kinds of unique monohull boats to emerge, that are often fascinating to watch. If I was an original rule maker…, I would allow a multi-hull, foiler, etc. Have freedom and have more fun, within the length restricted box rule.

For example, my mentor, Mr. Swede Johnson’s wonderful unique FOOTY designs are always fun to watch. I am sure that he is having lots of fun, doing so. I do admire his creative spirit. It was the reason why I’ve decided to pursue my own designs to experiment a various scaled miniature RC models of Open 60, MiniTransat6.5., Volvo Ocean 70, ACC, etc. Therefore, the twin rudders became very natural for my designs.
(Bill Hagerup would comment that the twin rudders are only cosmetic…, but is it really so??? I still like my boats with the twn rudders. I am sure that many French and Down Under sailors, used to seeing these features would agree.)

The recent announcement of the “clarifications and interpretations” as well as the “intentions” documents, (IMHO) seems to contradict the free spirited original FOOTY box rule. I personally do not like the contents of those documents.

Regarding the JMYS issue, I personally do not believe the type of activity associated with the current Footy class, do not go along the line of the competition oriented organization. Sail numbers are issued mainly for the competition purpose. So it is natural to think about the national authority involvement. But I am not sure if the Japanese Footy sailors would be willing to pay the JMYS membership fee, just for the competition purpose…, and also just for the sail numbers. Sail4Food did not think so, and I agree.

I personally do not mind to create the Japan Footy Class Association which is independent from the JMYS. But then, we shall issue our own Japanese class rule to meet the demands of the Japanese sailors/builders. IFCA recognition can not be achieved by then.

Regarding my illegal Footy. It is irrelevant…, but legality put aside…, if you would consider the launch date as a reference to issuing the sail number…, then my Footy was launched before Mr. Sail4Food’s legal Footy’s launch date.
She was launched at the Higashiyamako Fishing Area in Gotenba City, Shizuoka Prefecture, and the property manager can prove the launch date, if necessary.

By the way, retrofitting the single rudder on my ShaQ can be done very easily to make her class legal. But then…, I will loose the original “free spirit” that I’ve acquired at the conception of this boat. I do not wish to compromise just yet. I’ve wanted to show my boat to the current Footy community, to generate more debates on this matter.
I do not mind the wait…, to see more debates taking place in the near future…

I will await to see what the JMYS has to say about the class, and how the current IFCA responds on this matter. I am not in a hurry.


So, what is necessary to become a national registrar of footy class? Obligation, duty, etc.? Although I doubt I will raise my hand just yet, there’s a whole world of difference to know and not to know what lies ahead.

Me wants one of those even if it’s not legal. Def. the coolest looking Footy to date.

i must also agree. something cool about scale looking boats.
mini mini mini mini transat race boat.

wanted to do a scale deck fer the lajabless aswell, but never got around to it.
in time i guess.

very nice JPN-001

nigelpheron & Millrtme,

Thank you so much for your posting. Hope many more attractive boats will follow in this class.


I’ve read so many interesting postings by Footy enthusiasts, while I was away for the weekend. Some postings may have been bit obscured by the subject, but still interesting to know how people think in their mind.:zbeer:

I’ve seen the production boat built by the Victor boats.
Personally, I am not attracted to the V-12 for my One Design competition craving. :stuck_out_tongue:
It may satisfy the needs of those who wishes to build and sail that type of recreational boat on the weekend. That is fine, for those who wishes to.

I’ve noticed that the One Design Class concept does not seem to be understood by some people.
One Design class often utilizes the same hull design, same appendages, the same rigs. They CAN BE developed for any rules including the Footy.
Some of the self-asserted so called One Design classes may not be the true One Design class, as soon as they deviate to allow modifications which generate the performance differences. But some of them are close enough to provide the fair and close competitions, among them.

If the One Design Production class in the Footy class is developed and organized…, then those who built to the Footy class rule may not be eligible to compete in the One Design Class regatta!
Those with different hull design, outside of One Design class will be considered illegal in One Design class.

On the other hand, if the One Design Production class is designed according to the framework of the Footy class rule…, then it can be competed in the Footy regatta, but NOT vice versa.
This is a because the One Design class rule will exists on its own. And it will be placing their foot in the Footy boxrule class, but NOT vice versa.

One Design Production class can be used as the dual purpose sailboat. But it may not be competitive in the Footy class boxrule. Development class will always find the way to improve the performance of its design, within its framework. One Design class will freeze the design.

Good example on this matter is the International Moth Class in the dinghy world. The “Europe” class exits, but the design were frozen to promote fair competition within their group.
Current developement of Moth class has generated the foilers. They are very fast attractive boats. In order to freeze the developemet for fair competition, (once again for their own group,) the Production One Design Moth, “Bladerider” was developed.
The “Europe” class and the “Bladerider” are both International Moth classes, but they are One Designs from different decades. There are tremendious performance differences among the two, and it does not seem appropriate to provide the same competitive field, but it can be competed against each others in the International Moth class rule. Developmental class will allow different designs within the same framework of class rule. Some may NOT agree that such class will generate competitions of fair sailing skills, but those who participate abide by the class rule, and seem to believe it is so.
(Personally, I would not compete in the Europe against the Bladerunner, for sure. It is plainly speaking silly to do that!!! That is like competing your self made kit car with VW bug engine, against the race proven Ferraris.
But then… having to sail and to compete the self made slow Footy boat against the High performance modern Footy is also very silly indeed.)
Development class is mainly for builders to test their own designs, I think.

We shall not forget that the whole purpose of the One Design class is to provide the controlled competiton field to test the tuning and the sailing skills of the sailors, and NOT the design development skills.

If enough competitors believe the V-12 serves the purpose for their One Design competition…, so be it. Why not? No one in the Footy boxrule can put a stop to such movement, as long as they are legal in the Footy boxtule.

Those who are not attracted in the Footy boxrule will depart naturally, and those who wishes to play in the same field will enter.:rolleyes:

Personally, I am no longer attracted to the current clarification and the interpretation of the Footy class rule. It does not satisfy my creative spirit. Nor does it seems to satisfy the close competition among the different designs yet.:slight_smile:


I will add this.
When was the last time a Europe dinghy competed at any resonably high level in the Moth class??
Answer…about 1965.

Any one design class that happens to also fit the Footy rule would soon find that the same thing happens to them as the Europe dinghy with regard to the Moth class.


You are correct on those facts.:smiley:
The Europe dinghy is no longer competitive in the development class.

It also means…, the current Footy class rule is generating the type forming monohull sailboats with single appendages.
A very conservative people may like such features, but I also believe there are people who likes to experiment in wider restrictin than that…:stuck_out_tongue:
I do not believe the current Footy class can be called a development class, no more.

It is also an indication that current Footy style of boats, had been sailing for many many decades. Way back then… when some of our old salts were quite active sailing their slower boats. It certainly does not seem to fit the term “modern” monohull sailboat, no more.
The Footy box rule’s design parameters seems to fit in the 1970’s type of monuhull sailboats, don’t you think?

Mind the language…, I know many old salt sailors who are very innovative in their design thinking, so I shouldn’t express any age factor but…, I do not think the youngsters would find such type forming configuration so attractive, now a days…
It may only be appealing to those who feels nostalgia of the glorious(?) monohull design trend of many many decades ago.

BTW, I do not believe my ShaQ is on the current design trend at all. I think it is fairly conservative looking boat, from today’s standard. That type of boat has been sailing in France from the late 80’s aren’t they???

I’d like to find out, if there are developmental 12 inches class of RC sailboats with less type forming restriction than the Footys.
Why not the multi-hulls, why not the wings on appendages, why not the tandem keels…
May be it is about a time that some of us should get together to form a new class.:zbeer:

Oh, I also agree, and sympathize to those who oppose the 4 cells AA batteries rule on the Footy class rule.
In Japan, it is so much easier to purchase the AAA alkaline batteries, than the AA NiMH batteries or the AA NiCd batteries. AAA batteries are widely available in most developed countries, I believe. (unless you are living in the very very remote area of the world. But then, it should also be difficult to obtain the Tx or the Rx in such remote places. So, the reasoning behind the AA batteries rule does not make any sense to me. Unless there is another good reason for it.)
If you would choose the non-BEC type of receivers, the 5 cells configuration of AAA or AA rechargeable NiMH batteries would also work very well for this type of small boats.
Many RC sailboat enthusiasts know these facts. Some may feel the 4 cells AA batteries rule would make the class rule challenging to work with, but to what extent??? I would question them.

once apon a time, there was talk of a split. maybe a “one design” catagory, and an “open” catagory. one would suit the people who want to test their sailing ability, the other to test their design/build ability.

i’m for only one class/catagory, where all boats can muck-about together.

maybe now that the more and more people are joining this class, the rules should be looked at to fit all.
like it was said before, register yer boat (me included), and all the members have a discussion/vote on the class.

personally, i like the idea of a plain box, with only one rule…if it fits. it’s good to go.

whatever the future of this class is, i will definately muck about with it.


Your idea to accept wider population of sailors into the so-called the “Footy class” seems like a very good, and very attractive idea to me.:smiley:

Plain box rule, which allows anything goes within a box…, sounds like a true free spirited Open type BOX RULE. (Multi-hulls, tandem keels, and foilers included, off course.)
Unlike that of silly monohull typeforming restricted developmental class rule.

Should I join your organization first, and then to propose the rule change?
Or shall we start a new class?
Either is fine with me.:slight_smile:


Nigel. I agree. However, I do not think that the number of rudders is a major issue. The only possible area where one would represent a significant advantage is in a cat. Cats have been tried and have not proven successful - and probably not because of their rudders. Hence lack of multiple rudders is unlikely to be holding this line of development back.

A rule without slots would be nice, but as the earlier and generally more sensible replies to this thread have pointed out, there are considerable practival difficulties. Having put the idea up as an Aunt Sally, I would no longer support it in any form yet devised.

Keeping rudders within the box is simply silly. A 36R type inboard mounted rudder has harder to build and harder to measure. The boat has to be dismantled for the purpose. Making rudders totally underslung is pure lunacy: one of the reasons why Footys are no longer being perceived as handling as badly as was once the case is that rudders are moving aft, giving them a longer lever arm.

JPNJ001 - what a load of tosh. Let’s list a few pieces of it.

  1. Tandem keels are legal. Make one if you wish. The ame applies to winged appendages.
  2. Foilers are not illegal per se. One very competent designer has attempted to design one and given up because he considered the idea impractical. The reasons are onjly marginally associated with gthe details of the rule.
    3)Trimarans are permitted. he dimensions of the box mean hat hey are unlikely to work well, but it is the box - which you espouse - hat is the problem
  3. Much the same applies to cats.

I find whete you are coming from distressingly evident. With one breath you want a one design. With the next you want a more open rule. In the mean time you keep telling us, both publicly and privately, that you have lost all interest in Footys unless we immediately to various things that you, not our members, want. In your public and private correspondence correspondence there usually lurks the Kawanazita Corporation, waiting to flood the world with things that call themselves Footys but are not (a sure-fire basis for litigation). You are looking for one thing, and one thing only - power. On re-reading this, I may be being over simplistic. The Kawanazita’s Corporation’s money might make a welcome consolatio.

If you wish to join the club, do so - according to the rules. If the JMYS decides to adopt the Footy class, and to appint you as registrar, we will obviously recognise that appointment. Otherwise it will be necessary to find a registrar. Next build a Footy - not something that you would like a Footy to be, but a Footy. Register it. You then have exactcly the same rights as everyone else.