I’m not sure what’s all that interesting about the dates. Nobody claimed that Roger’s article was written before the rules. Roger was simply attempting to write down a bit of history before it completely escaped his memory. It followed the publication of the class’ first formal interpretation of its rules and we thought some background would help folks understand some of the ‘why’. That is also when the earlier clarifications were listed. Again, not changes of the rules, just judgements of what the current rules state. If someone requested a new ruling on those subjects, I expect the same result.
FWIW, the F-48 sounds interesting. Perhaps you could bring one to a Footy regatta. If you cut it into 8 parts, you’d have an entire fleet of Footys.
Hmm, Footys and F-48s… similar, but hardly interchangable.
To be skightly more accurate, John, the article was written shortly (the following month) after promulgation of the unified box rule for publication in a magazine. This is evident from its mildly promotional nature.
In the event it was refused for publication by the magazine’s editor. It was kept on file and dusted off early this year as John suggests.
Incidentally, which particular body do you think who is trying to bury where?
I will continue to write this, since this is an open forum, not restricted for the registered members only, but it is open to the public.
Seems like some constructive postings with previous facts are starting to emerge. That is very nice.:zbeer:
From the outsider’s personal point of view, it seems like the Footy class rule was written before any “Constitutions” nor “By-laws” were established to operate the appropriate organization of so-called the Footy Class Association. I suppose the “Charter” is the closest thing to the “Constitution” or the “By-laws.”
From what I understand.
Original Class rule was approved by the FCA committee. 2005/09/15
2005 Intentions (history of the class / direction of the rule) was approved. 2007/02/13
Charters (administrative document) was approved. 2007/02/24
Could not find when the first initial documents were published in those documents.
Official documents without any dates of revision, would equal to, no evidence of actions taken place in the past.
But no one is to be blamed. I am not attempting to point the fingers at any particular individuals.
Hope more true facts will appear clearly, and that the Footy organizatin will find its way forward with proper organizational administrative rule.
I am sure that the current registered owners are aware, and read the minutes, but the outsiders will not be able to read them.
BTW, after seeing one particular unbalanced, so-called LEGAL Footy photos, I just realized that, all it takes to make my ShaQ Footy a “Class legal” is to take one of the twin rudders out from the shaft tube!
That would only takes me few seconds to do so.
It may not perform as most would expect, but she WILL definitely sail, atleast on most points of sail, and be class legal nevertheless! (the national register, would need to register though…)
Correction - I would have a fleet of 1 foot long “somethings” - certainly not a “FOOTY” by recent definitional discussions here. Now, suppose you hooked two “legal FOOTYs” together - side by side - they would now become eligible to be registered as an F-48 !
In closing on the Footy rules, I would add that about 10 minutes on the computer would have allowed “ALL” of those clarifications and intentions to be included in the rules so when one goes to the Footy site, they are visible as a rule set and are all in one-document - no need to bounch around and follow links to find out what the current rules really are.
Would make it nice and easy to find, read and hopefully understand. That is usually the purpose of an appendix. Definition: The additional or supplementary material sometimes found at the end of a book.
The Footy Class Association was formed at the same time as the box rule was published. Before that there was no such thing in any country. Anyone who has joined by registering a Footy has done so in full knowledge of the box rule. The Charter/Constitution was published at the same time as the constitutional basis for the class association.
Over the next fifteen months, the then technical team issued various interpretations/clarifications (not, repeat NOT rule changes) – mainly in this forum – in response to ad hoc questions from users of the forum (not necessarily registered owners). At the time there were about 20 registered boats and everything was done very informally.
In January 2007 a number of things happened.
The existing interpretations/clarifications were collected and codified. In some cases the wording was probably tidied up and the spelling mistakes removed, but no substantive change was made. The result is at http://footy.rcsailing.net/clarifications.php
The constitution was amended by ballot (result announced February 2007)
The two documents by Roger Stollery were published ‘for information’. One was written freshly for the purpose but based on an old MYA position paper (which probably explains some very odd references to the MYA). The other was written shortly after the promulgation of the box rule for publication in a British magazine. It was never published by the magazine but was resurrected as a historical document. Neither of these two documents form part of the rule or its formal interpretation. They serve merely to record what the original rulemakers had in mind.
Dick - I quite agree. The last piece of radical improvement was spurred on by an outsider making himself objectionable. I had not realised how much the content of he website had out grown its structure.
What I am hearing are the “real RULES” are dated 9/14/2005 - and all else (clarifications, interpretations, and intentions) are not part of the rules, they didn’t modify or append the rules and the rules are really left open pending a formal protest to “test” their legality - since it appears clarifications and interpretations don’t seem to modify anything - and carry only the weight of the three folks who made the ruling.
If the “clarifications” really do modify the rules, I would suggest the rules be modified and proposed to the class to vote on them - and then update them with the date of change - much like is done with changes that are done in the ODOM Class. At least readers would be aware of “when” the rules changed. Then - what to do with boats built prior to those dates - another can of worms to be opened and inspected.
Cheers - you guys have a bit of work ahead of you. :zbeer:
That is precisely what is supposed to happen - except that the ‘clarifications’ are supposed to be authoritative and binding. It is also expected that they will periodically be directly incorporated in the ‘Rule proper’ at he time of periodic consolidations which would require a ballot (i.e. even if there is no substantive change) since it is a change in the text of the rule. However, we do not want to be balloting the members every time anyone asks a daft question.
We are also beginning to get the problem of ‘clarifications of clarifications’. In so far as we can these are kept as informal as possible. In one case (height of B rig) the matter has come up often enough that we have published correspondence between Roger Stollery and a friend of his of 20 years standing. It probaly should not have happened but it did and it is a useful informal explanation. Unfortunately the webmaster managed to branch it off the middle of the preamble to the rule (the most important single section) sometime late last night. This is being changed ASAP!
So far as I have any weight in the matter, we try to achieve a very high degree of transparency and member control. I agree that there are lessons to be learned and there are only so many hours in the day. We are certainly not in the business of shrinking the options on an idealised hyper-simple box rule. In so far as I am entitled to speak for the class managers as a whole, attitudes range between the conservatives (It ain’t broke, don’t fix it) and the radicals (‘This is an artificial constraint. Can we free it up?’).
So do not think too ill of us. I think we are attempting to do many thiongs of which you basically approve. Semantics apart, we are trying to give opportunity to a wide range of design ideas in a low price format. This includes a place for ‘character’ boats, ‘caricatures’ and all sorts of things that are not tooth and claw racing machines. Whether we will succeed is an entirely different matter. Time will tell.
Niel,
you built a boat to a proposed rule published on some guys(me,meaning a complete nobody!) website at the bottom of the earth!!,the rule had no official backing at all and you knew it!! As I recall it didn’t mearsure under that rule either…sail servo??
When the MYA contacted me,(because I had made myself avalible by trying to promote these craft on the internet,thus I was easily “Found”,which you didn’t do )
Now after the fact you expect that you should have been consulted on the forming of the FIRST and ONLY rule ever adopted by the official powers of radio yachting.
the facts are…nobody cared enoughbefore the rules came in to do anything,you included…now you all want to play in this exiting fast growing class. So you have to work within the framework made by those who DID care enough to DO SOMETHING.This is what happens when you do NOTHING(except build a boat)
Now you paint the original rulemakers in a bad light because they did SOMETHING whilst you did NOTHING!!
What have you done about the rules since published? COMPLAIN?
I havn’t seen or heard of any proposal from you to change anything,we are now half way through 2007,the rule is nearly 2 years old that you disapprove of so much and you still have done NOTHING.
Same two options apply as always…work through the proper channels to alter the rule or leave the class and don’t play.
Either option is fine with me,the pathway for changing the rules is there for those who want to do SOMETHING!!
Okay, I repeat, when do the Footy rank and file get to propose changes to the rules to be put up for a vote by the members? Perhaps I should try to rally the AMYA folks to make changes to the AMYA class rule first because there is already a familiar procedure in place for doing so. That might move the US away from the international (with a small i) group but might also bring some progressive pressure to bear.
For example, here are a couple of ideas that the ORs didn’t really think through. The AA battery rule: This rule was supposed to be the great equalizer, everyone has to carry these heavy batteries on board, without regard to building skills. But, composite boatbuilders like Nigel and Brett can trim grams from every part that makes up a Footy. This has been a truth that long preceded the formation of any Footy guidelines. Check Nigel’s website for a list of component weights if you don’t believe me. Lugging about 100+ grams of battery weight and still achieving a 450 gram all up weight is impressive! Can everyone else do that? Unlikely, but everyone else has to ship that same internal load regardless of their building skills. It only serves to give composite builders a greater advantage. The 6 volt AAA NiMh batteries that I use in my 36/600 weigh 1/3 of the 4.8 volt AA pack and last for three hours of sailing. If the AA rule were changed to a 4.8 rule, measuring voltage without specifying type of cell (solar cells included) that would level the playing field more equitably, the original justification for the AA rule in the first place. I mean the composite builders will build light boats regardless, but everyone else won’t be penalized with this weight in their boats and as a result would be able to build boats that approach the competitive weights. Also, wouldn’t it be better to carry the weight in the lead at the end of the keel if the builder opts for a heavier displacement? Make these tender craft stand up to some wind without resorting to a spring-loaded rig.
Which brings me to the storm rig idea. The original purpose of this rule was to avoid the quiver of sails that are the norm for serious competitors in many of the other classes. I can attest to having a lot of rigs for the two other classes I have competed in, and it has been expensive. However, this rule does not really rein this penchant for competitive edge. I rarely switched sails during a regatta, even though I had lots of options. On the “equilibrium rig from down under” thread I recall someone mentioning having contemplated numerous rigs with different gauges of metal rod to provide variety in spring flexibility for different conditions. This thinking, even with the “pick one and stay with it throughout the day” aspect of the rule still gives an advantage to the fellow with more options over the guy who takes the rule literally. The three sail solution which Brett had coupled on his website of yore with the publication of the plans for “BobAbout” is a better idea. Not mandating a 12 inch high storm rig but limiting the allowed count to two rigs would still be an improvement. The argument that will undoubtedly come after I post this is the old one that the 12 inch high storm rig keeps the other unmeasured rig in check because too great a disparity in sail area will cause a big performance drop from top rig to the storm rig. Well, the narrow beam limit imposed by the box guarantees that these boats be tender, and being 12 inches long will also tend to nose dive, so they have this natural limit imposed by other parts of the rule that will act to curb overzealous packing on of sail. Three rigs would allow the sailors who want to race their boats to have a reasonable step down progression in sail area to keep their boats in control in varying conditions, which is a priority in fleet racing. This change wouldn’t effect the the majority of the Footy brethren because those fellows who don’t want to race their boats probably won’t make the 12 inch storm rig anyway.
I have been accused of just complaining and not doing anything. Provide the format for doing something then. Don’t freeze the rules for three years or however long. Those of us who want to enact sensible changes to address current situations want to do so now, before there is so much momentum for the status quo that it will be a futile effort.
Ladies! Ladies!! LADIES!!!
I propose a new class, the “Inchy”, which will have a storm rig on a one inch mast, that we can all sail in this ‘stormy teacup’. It will have triple rudders and a set of “RULES”, signed, (or at least initialed) by Noah.
