Japanese Footy "ShaQ" on FOOTY website "Photos"

OK - let me quickly be the first to invite any FOOTY’s of a multihull variety to be welcomed into the F-48 Multihull Class Owners Association.

You will find, that our class rules are by far, the least limiting when “playing” within the “so called” development classes. Unless one has a desire for a “kite” (flying) powered FOOTY multihull, I believe your creative juices can be “tested” within this multihull class. Just note it requires more than one hull!

For those questioning the “kite rule” - we would be happy to remove that restriction, once ISAF can determine how sailing rules can apply to a hull with their sails several hundred feet (yards, meters) ahead or to the side of the boat’s hull - given the conventional rules we all seem bound to follow.

Come on - feel free to play! Will answer any questions, as I think most have already been asked. Your current FOOTY in multihull configuration will fit.

:rolleyes: :cool: :wink: :smiley:

Your stifling development Dick!!
One hull has less drag than 3…I want my F48 to have only one hull.
Development class be blowed…you have outlawed the lowering of drag in my sailboat!! what a crock!!

Yup - Brett, you rascal you :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

but I defy you to find ANY r/c “DEVELOPMENT” class (self-described or other) rules more open and accomodating than ours for true, honest and unlimited (to a degree) development. I suppose one could argue why the box limit for length and beam and why the size limit for sail area? But in order to “comply” with the so-called European (French) “development” rules to “allow” boats built in Europe to compete, we had to make those concessions.

Now, given your argument … a “true” F-48, with an “A” rig and with the right wind conditions and a good, experienced skipper sailing the boat with windward float AND the main hull out of the water as is common even in today’s ORMA boats, would still have more weight/waterline than yours, so yes, I concede, based on that argument you would win… but sorry, we have to respect ISAF philosophy and make at least one rule so you “can’t play with us” !

On second thought - take your FOOTY monohull, tape two drinking straws to the main hull extending over the starboard side, then bend each down and attach a third straw parallel to water at the waterline. Now you have a PROA, which meets class rules, and by sailing only on starboard tack, the float will be out of the water, you will beat other F-48’s based on your convictions and theory and will be class legal to boot!

See how accomodating we are? :smiley: Bring it on …

Oh yeah, we were also accomodating to Sir Bantock when he proposed bringing out a Marblehead to race with our class. It was suggested that he trim off two inches in length and add cross beams and floats and come out. He hasn’t been seen yet, although I have photos of Aussie boats that have done it to some degree of success. Beside, our class usually doesn’t poison the water with … uggh … lead ! It’s bad for the environment and for boat speed. [BIG WINK]

Your anology of how I get get my Footy to mearsure into the F48 class could be applied to a 12 inch yacht with 2 rudders…simply disconnect the 2nd rudder linkage and fix it to the centre line and you are Footy class legal.
Of course I am tounge in cheek just as you were.

The point is all classes have limits…yes even yours Dick( a foiler mono is conceptually faster than any multi,whats a hull anyway???)

So if people are not happy with the limits set they can get a movement going to change the rules or go find another class…It really is that simple.

The reason there is so much interest in our rules is that the Footy is very fast growing…The fact they we lose a few people along the way means very little in the overall picture.This class isn’t for everyone just as other classes are not.

If your technical committee members are so sure, that there are proven facts, and that there is no particular performance advantage to be gained by allowing the multiple rudders and the multiple keels…, then why prohibit them?
Is it there, just to protect the “Intentions” of so-called the original rule-makers, or their boats?
Has any prior votes been taken to make this “clarifications and interpretations” documents to go legit?

I have realized how narrow minded some people can be by reading some of the postings, but aren’t we all sometimes?

I feel there are always multiple appeal aspects in the matters of this world.

People often changes their mind, when circumstances changes.
Don’t you at all? :confused:
(unless you are close minded, stubborn, or your strong pride gets in a way to alter any prior decisions, you’ve personally made?)

There are two sides of the class rule that were appealing to me in the original Footy class rule.

  1. Developmental Aspect:
    I think this is why you see some Footy owners enjoy making their own cute boats. They are satisfied with their own creative projects. Sometimes, they do not care about competing, but enjoys just having fun at test sailing their boats. It is a recreational sailing.

  2. Competition Aspect:
    I think this is why you see some Footy owners looking for performance, but nothing but the performance. Or to prove the performance of their creativity by competing with the others.
    But some are only interested in competing in equal terms, and they do not care less about building or designing their own boats. Such sailors are One Design Class sailors.

Above two appeals of RC sailboats are different aspects, but it has similarities, depending on where your taste or desire stands.

So…, If you want to know where my opinion comes from, and why my opinion changes differently, depending on the subjects…, then here they are…

My desire for more relaxed Open Class Rule comes from 1) Developmental Aspect, which is building the proto type of boats.
Not to compete my own creation with the others, but just to amuse myself by creating one.
I’ve lost interest on this aspect, because of the current clarifications and interpretation documents, gone public by the current Footy community.
But I am free to create my boat as I wish. It is NOT a Footy, as most of you have repeatedly pointed out. I know that, and that is fine with me.
I am not saying that my boat should be legal, but merely stating that I do not like the clarifications and interpretations documents.
I am not forcing anyone, or officially proposing to change the rule.
I know I am not a registered member, and I am not submitting the proposal to the Footy Class Association.
Off course, my interest may re-appear if new class is formed or current rule will be changed.

My desire for the One Design Class comes from 2) Comeptition Aspect, which is competing in the equal type of sailboats to challenge my tuning ability and the sailing skills. I do not personally believe in the fair competition of different designs, even they are typeforming restrictive developmental class rule. But that is just my personal opinion, and I am not imposing others to believe in such idea. Again, and again, I am simply stating my own opinion. I am providing my personal opinion that One Design Footy type sailboats can be attractive, if it is developed right. I am not imposing anyone to accept the One Design Class of Footy.

If you think I am looking for the so-called “power,” you are gravely mistaken.:mad:
What kind of “power” lies in your group that is appealing to me?
I can not think of any yet, nor thought of any…
It seems like too much assumption is speculating in someone’s mind.

The only reason why I’ve asked for the registrar in Japan, is because there isn’t any as of today. And there is no means to register my boat, even if it is legal here. The same problem lies in those countries without any registrar of their own.

Rights to speak my opinion in this form is not limited or controlled yet, I suppose. Or am I wrong?
Your forum allows public postings of opinions related to the Footy class, not only by the registered owners, but by anyone interested in the class.
Am I wrong?:confused:

Rights to propose and to vote, in the class is the privilege only granted to the registered members. Off course, I know that!:smiley:
I am not officially placing the proposal to the Footy class, by expressing my opinion in the forum. (or am I???) If it is so, then I would apologize.

I do not consider this forum to be a place for your class’s official proposal submission, unless you consider it to be so.

For the above reason, your personal provocative statements regarding my forum input, and its opinion, seems quite irrelevant, and perhaps inappropriate from a man of your position as the effective secretary of the executive - “the class committee” (as you boldly state,) in the respectable organization???

I felt your postings and your personal e-mail message to me, to be an emotional response from a man under psychological distress.
For the above reason, I shall apologize for any uncomfortable feelings that you may have felt inside, within you. I am sure that it is due to your misunderstanding of the matter.

Hello Dick Lemke,

Perhaps you and I can talk in the same tone of voice, in the calm manner.
(without expressing emotions too much…:stuck_out_tongue: )

I’ve checked the Formula 48 website.
Wonderful boats they are!
I’ve seen some of the linked website before, but the Formula 48 is quite attractive to open minded sailors, perhaps.

I am sure that the hybrid of those two class rules can generate interesting box rule class of its own.

I will keep my eyes on the further prosperous developments of your Formula 48 class.:slight_smile: Good Luck to you all!



IMHO, You are very correct!
This class is not for everyone.
Those who wishes to join, can join. Very simple, indeed.


Perhaps my “passion” is mistaken?

In my posts, I have aligned myself with those rules and propositions originally posted - much as you describe. The class was “originally” an “Open and Development Class” with only the "BOX’ to contain a physical size. Where and when the rules brought in restrictive issues is where I started asking questions. If I recall, but may be wrong, one person suggested the AA battery rule to prevent expense of the much smaller/lighter weight alternatives. This in itself sounded wonderful, but what has happened to the cost concerns when ultralight cabon fiber is allowed? Isn’t it the same thing? A few are making progress in the area of hull weight, and when someone starts talking about the weight of “paint” :rolleyes: I must roll my eyes and ask why one cost saving measure is acceptable, but others aren’t? To use the IOM class as an example, carbon hulls were deemed expensive and not legal, yet the cost continues to escalate for this class and one wonders “why”? A Yard of cloth in the neighborhood of $40 (US) is a miniscule part of the overall cost of the boat. So if cost savings is truly desired for the FOOTY, eliminate all stainless hardware, and maybe all brass or aluminum. Eliminate all carbon fiber. Keep physical dimensions to control physical size. Require sails to be rip-stop nylon, masts must be wooden dowels, not carbon tubes or shafts. Hulls must be wood with glass covering optional. Must use polyester resin, not epoxy to control expense. All hardware must be screw-eyes or be able to be purchased at local hardware stores, and of course, the batteries need to be 2 “D” Cells.

There were just too many add-ons that “became” part of the rules that I (personally) feel weren’t originally intended. To that end, is why I have been critical of the direction this is going. Local folks can attest to about 6 different FOOTY designs sitting on a shelf in the garage - including a trimaran (of sorts). Unfortunately, I see the rules as having lost touch with the original idea of development, and instead they have taken on a flavor which is neither fish nor fowl.

It seems (to me) that to end this, and put it in it’s final direction so we can get on or leave, a set of rules and their reasons should be posted and allow discussion to take place. As in the case of the batteries, if it was a cost decision, then by all means limit ALL items of expense. Require a paint job on all boats to even out and remove the weight savings efforts since they can be costly. Can a home built balsa or ply boat be as lightweight as carbon or Kevlar that has been vaccum bagged or or has been built using resin infusion? Does it require a home builder to spend money on ancillary equipment in order to build a lightweight hull only to have efforts impacted by one stupid, lousy, indefensible rule?

Is it a Development class? Is it a One-design class? Seems we have alot of self-proclaimed “experts” all willing to offer personal opinions, yet the class per se, has yet to even provide constitution or by-laws so members know how changes can be made. (if they are there, forgive me as I haven’t yet found them).

All I am asking is for a decision so “I” know what the direction is, and how long it will be before it takes a sudden turn in a new direction? Folks can’t agree with what is there now, and some want to discuss “what if” questions.

Without emotion may I politely suggest:

  1. Rules are there as written
  2. AMYA (at least here in the US) requires a National Championship each year
  3. Hold the championship and let every one attending enter with the boat of their choice. Simply limit to length, beam and draft.
  4. Look at the RESULTS and what transpired.
  5. THEN decide on direction. If there is a break-thru design, consider and identify “why” it is fast - design, weight, multiple rudders or keels, sail area - or gee - maybe a darn good skipper?

Perhaps there is a need to also regulate skipper experience? Don’t laugh, from what discussion and views have been posted, it’s not that far out-of-line. Other classes do it with a Gold and Silver fleet.

OK - so I’ve tried to put forward questions which, if answered would go along way to provide direction. If everyone, whether for or against the rules, would simply write down the rule, and follow it with a list of benefits the rule provides, it might go a long way to resolve this sticky situation. Adding a reason for the rule would also provide education and a view of why it is there in the first place - ifin fact this is to be considered a “development” class. Only a suggestion, but I might even take the time to “guess” at what the intention of the rule really is. :slight_smile:

Dick my dear friend.

The rule as it currently exists IS the original box rule. There has never been any other involving a box.

Any subsequent interpretations have been made by people on the original committee that drew up the rule. They must be presumed to reflect the rulemaker’s intention. They were codified and validated by a working party this year. Every member of the original committee was on the working party and agreed that the intrpretations reflected their original intention. All they do is clarify the wording.

Roger Stollery’s article on ‘Intensions’ was written (after the event) by the Chairman of the committee that wrote the rule to record for posterity (and for the guidance of their successors) what the rule was ORIGINALLY intended to achieve. It is nothing new and does not represent any change in class policy.

The musings that started the companion thread to this (Rudders) were intended to explore how any artificialities and unneccessary restrictions could be opened up if (I repeat if) the rule were ever to be revised. They suggest that it might be possible to simplify measurement while simultandeously allowing twin (or more) transom hung rudders. The remarks of the practically inclined suggest that the proposed solution (measurement of rudder volume) will not work well - and I now think they are right. The whole principle of measurement is that the boat can be offered up to a simple box and measured easily, comprehensibly and without argument in a couple of seconds.

Costs? The cost of a Footy hull is minimal, no matter what it is made from. Assuming that carbon cloth had an effective strength weight ratio (which it doesn’t - you can’t get cloth light enough) the price of the carbon is about $2.40 at your prices. For a little local reinforcement, we are taking about cents. Carbon masts come in at about $5 for two - and so on. Compared with this, electronics are very expensive indeed - I’ve just spent $400 on Tx, Rx and some crystals. And of course, the real expense that makes all the difference is the guy with a sophisticated workshop. I suspect that the rulemakers’ fears of multiple under-hull rudders (arranged as multipl, angleable keels) is the level of manufacturing technology (and hence the investment in tools) required to make these work - not the expense of 6 cm of titanium rod.

Class constitution: try http://footy.rcsailing.net/charter.php It was amended early this year by an international ballot of registered owners.

So let’s just try a few facts?

OK - and thanks.

Now the start -

What determined and why, if this is a development class, is there a limit on the:

1, Number of rudders?
2. Number of appendages?
3. Restriction on type and size AND location of batteries?

Thank you for your technical answers and perhaps the appropriate links to these pre-rule written and discussed topics.


Dunno, dunno and dunno. See Roger S’s article at http://footy.rcsailing.net/mmi-Oct05.php . Bill and Brett probaly have slightly different views.

I speculate a degree of international horse-trading, a mild falure to hink in advance (common to ALL rulemakers), a time-scale imposed by an MYA council meeting, the fact that the MYA was originally backing the Footy as an entry level class for children to build AND DESIGN.

I do not applaud all the details of the rule but they are not particularly restrictive. On the matter of electronics, I take it as a matter of faith that what are now slighly expensive solutions (microservos?) will rapidly fall in price and hat batteries will become lighter. If we legislate to free up elecronics completely, we do start to get significant absolute expense. If we firm up the existing rules (battery chemistry, etc.), we are legislating for tomorrow’s dinosaurs , but if we leave things as they are, time and improved battery engineering will probably solve the problem for us.

This is purely my private opinion.

As Angus says,the current rule in its current form is the ONLY footy class rule ever used by either MYA or AMYA.
There has never been another rule EVER sanctioned by these bodies.

To no one in particular, but perhaps Bill Hagerup will have to provide for US interpretations.

Where can I find a complete and current set of FOOTY rules, and appendicies, please?

[FONT=Verdana]B.T.W. - I did read R. Stollery’s preface article that was referenced, and it appears that UK, NZ and US rules all seem to be slightly different in nature and perspective. [COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]I accept your (Angus’) “dunno, dunno and dunno” - since it is a personal response [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Unfortunately, I find myself still without answer.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]

No Dick. Anyything in Roger’s article about national differences between rules refers to the ‘pre-box age’. There is now one, and only one international (with a small ‘i’!) rule.

A complete set of Footy rules and all interpretations can be found on the official website. Post Jan 2007 formal interpretations appear under the ‘technical’ tab.

Bill Hagerup is the Chairman of the Technical Team (see Class Charter). As such he has ceased to comment publicly on this matter. The correct approach is via the National (as opposed to AMYA) registrar for the USA, John Amoroso (see http://footy.rcsailing.net/register.php ). The rules on requesting rule interpretations are at http://footy.rcsailing.net/technical.php .

No formal rule interpretation is ever made by less than 3 people.

If you need any further information, please ask. There is at least one useful thing coming out of this disussion. The fact that so many intelligent and serious minded people can pontificate for so long in such blazing ignorance of he facts indicates that the navigation of the website needs improving dramatically!
:devil3: :zbeer:

The only location for Official Rules I’ve ever used is http://footy.rcsailing.net/rules.php There is a link to an Italian translation but that is for convenience only, the English version is the official copy.

A link to pre 2007 clarifications is here http://footy.rcsailing.net/clarifications.php

A recent interpretation can be found here (or via the Technical tab of the Footy Website) http://footy.rcsailing.net/Misc/rudder_rules.php

I agree with Angus and Brett that no changes have been made since these rules were published in Sept 2005.

I arrived on the scene in June 2006 so I have no direct experience about the discussions that went into crafting these rules. I have read some old forum posts but I doubt that those give a complete picture during that time. Just look at todays discussions across 2 forums as an example of how fragmented communications can be.

Indulgence please – while in “such blazing ignorance of [COLOR=red]the facts[/COLOR]” I try to determine what is official, current and member approved, what isn’t, what has been officially interpreted and what hasn’t.
[li]From the FOOTY website, the rules posted are dated September 14, 2005[/li][li]Tallastro posts “I agree with Angus and Brett that no changes have been made since these rules were published in Sept 2005”[/li][li]I am able to find (only) one formal interpretation of a class rule question (number 1) dated January 13, 2007 which deals with rudder size and width. Whether or not a “formal” rule interpretation is an automatic rule amendment is questionable.[/li][li]The Footy class Constitution was not adopted until February 24, 2007[/ul]Some references are made to earlier clarifications of the Footy rules, but no official minutes, or formal requests or answers are provided. If they were done under the original MYA rules, they have never been incorporated into the rules, since the MYA references a “summary” rule set dated August 8, 2005.[/li]
A download of AMYA provided rules provides a dated set of rules of September 14, 2005 – and without any additional interpretations or clarifications.

Brett notes: “As Angus says, the current rule in its current form is the ONLY footy class rule ever used by either MYA or AMYA

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][FONT=Verdana]Thus, in my “blazing ignorance of the facts” as you so describe, I find three sets of rule locations with two different dates, an “official” website where rules appear to be circa 2005, only one “official” rule interpretation noted as “Interpretation #1 and a suggested bunch of clarifications (not rule changes) that took place “sometime before 2007” – and (personal opinion) probably came from the “conceptual view of the class" – certainly not from any formal effort to change or amend what rules were in place at the time. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][FONT=Verdana]I sure would appreciate knowing [/FONT]what the facts are before I can “blazing ignore” them. :wink: :rolleyes: [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]By the way, the last web page update was July 1, 2007 so I can only assume what I read under the “rules” tab are the ONLY rules which govern the class. [/FONT]

No, the Footy Class constitution was AMENDED (see previous post) by a ballot in February 2007.

Interpretation NO. 1 is not a rule change. It is an INTERPRETATION of the rule as it stands. Had it been a CHANGE in the rule, it would have done somethng more radical and satisfactory. I know. I acrually drafted the interpretation.

Previous interpretations had been issued informally from time to time on various forums by Bll and Brett in response to ad hoc questions. This position was self-evidently unsatisfactory. Part of the work of the working party esrly this year was to collect and codify them. No interpretation was intended or is understood to be anything but what it says: it is NOT a rule change. As with the decision of a court, it is assumed to have binding effect until either brought into the main body of the rules by a periodic consolidationj operation or over-ridden by a rule CHANGE.

All clarifications, interpretations, etc. are , by defnition, subsequent to 14 September 2005. I am not sure what MYA document is referred to but, since it is before 14 Sept 2005, it is now irrelevant.

What are the ‘original MYA rules’? There has never ben any such thing to my knowledge. The Footy was a new venture for the MYA at the time the box rule was formulated.

Thec problem revolves in your desire to see ‘clarifications’or interpretations’ as changes to the rules. They are not intended to be any such thing and have not (so far as I know) ever been viewed or treated as such except by youself and JPN001. They are honest interpretations of what is there - probably with an eye in some cases to a vision of the class, since everyone is human - no more, no less.

I hope this explains the apparent disparity of dates. Tye original rule of 14 September 2005 stands in its entirety. An initially excessively informal system of interpretation and clarification has been tyightened up and will be the only one used in future.

Since members were balloted in January this year and had every opportunity to ask for any changes they might like to the class Charter, I thnk we may assume that owners of registerd Footys are reasonably happy with it.

Well, this AMYA member designed a Footy to the rules as published on Brett’s website before there was any broadcast intention by the triumvirate of “ORs” (original rulemakers) to change-over to a box rule. As far as I can tell, the US representative did not contact US model yacht designers for their input into revising the rules. Certainly I was not contacted, I noticed the change listed on the internet and e-mailed Brett (and discovered the existence of Bill). I subsequently found out that my efforts had been made illegal by the change-over. After a lot of complaining my design was grandfathered, but the direction I was pursuing is now off limits. I was told that my wide design would not be competitive with the boats that fit in the box. How can this statement be verified until there is organized racing? It can’t. But it does reflect the prejudice of the the “ORs” in deciding how the Footy should look. The same type of statement has loomed up from Angus a few times in reference to the set up of twin rudders as not providing a performance gain or being too difficult to construct and make work. But how do you know these things? Because there are too many examples from Cowes or Fastnet?

There is only one other Box rule in all of model yachting, the 36R (36 restricted class). Not a development class but a restricted class. It is a British class, and the dimensions of the box gives the the boats a look that is 30 years out of date. The box rule for Footies was adopted almost verbatim from a position paper written by Roger Stollery for the MYA. His concept of the Footy was spawned from his foot long design “Choppa” that was developed as a project for children’s shop classes. I found this to be quite insulting actually.

Therefore, in my opinion (supported by the paper trail) the switch-over to the box rule was by decree from the British MYA. You would think they still had an empire or something.

Personally I had never heard Bill Hagerup’s name prior to the change-over. I have been sailing model yachts since the vane era. I grew up in the AMYA, which didn’t even exist when I started model sailing. My AMYA number is 1055. I am 48 years old. My competitive and designing experience has been in Marbleheads (now M Class) and 36/600s, both designer’s classes.

The US involvement in the rule writing seems to me to be of the rubber stamp variety. Not all that different from the treaty writing with Native Americans in our nation’s past. Find someone to sign on the dotted line. Now to be fair, Bill is a nice guy who is passionate about these boats and has built a passle of them. But, if there was a search for other designers and builders in the US it wasn’t broadcast very well. The officials of my two clubs have been aware of my boats, but were not contacted for comment. The Region 2 Director is a friend and knows to contact me on matters concerning design but he was not contacted.

So to me, the dismissive statement “what the rulemakers intended” rings hollow. Of the three of them, one’s intentions were to supply British schoolboys with an outlet for learning manual skills. After numerous e-mails back and forth (some quite heated) with the other two I can’t decern their contributions to the rule. Like many other people involved with these boats I would like to know when we (who must abide by the box rule from on high) will have a chance to democratically influence the rules to improve these boats. By the way, my Bantam carries close to 300 square inches of sail in 8 mph winds and doesn’t require a rig that spills gusts. It is also 7-5/8ths inches wide at the deck.

I know nothing of the history of the Footy in the USA. You say that you were aware of Bill Hagerup. He was presumably also unaware of you - or at any rate of your interest on Footys. Sinc the Footy was not an AMYA class, how does the AMYA get involved? I don’t know and, as you pointed out somewhere else in this discussion, what is done is done. Now let us make it work.

If you want a change to the rule, write a proposal and send it to John Amoroso. The Tech Team will consider it and comment on it. The Committee will then put the matter to a ballot of the members.

My personal view is that until we have got into such radical habits of (say) deciding on the displacement BEFORE we build the boat, the number of rudders is pretty far down the list of priorities for most Footy designers (or shold be!:slight_smile: ). In my personal view we want, as I think you said before, a period of rule stability to see how the original intentions (so far as they can be divined) work.

Obviously everyone has their own vision of what a Footy should be like. You can see pictures of mine (for what it is worth) in the Akela thread in RCGroups. Yors is quite different. Nobody interpreting this or any other rule can do it without to some extent harking back to what they think is ‘proper’.

Interesting to note that the FOOTY Class rules (MYA version) which had been copyrighted and dated September 14, 2005 (the one everyone seems to point to) had their “supposed” intentions not dated until February 13, 2007 one day short of 17 months, and seemingly “after” the class vote to amend them.

R. Stollery 2007-02-13: Before there can be words written down to form a rule there must be an idea of what was intended. Later, when the rule is discussed critically these thoughts about the design of the rule are often not available.
How can rules be written in 2005 but the intentions of these rules are not dated until 2007 - the word “BEFORE” in the above quotation somehow jumps out and it appears that when “critical discussion” tried to take place the intentions were only then posted.