If the measurement box were to have two virtual or real lines drawn.
One on the side “say nine inches up from the bottom” to represent the approximate waterline position and the other on the centreline fore & aft, the hull could be orientated using it`s centreline and waterline in the same plane as these check lines.
Fool proof? :graduate:
Ian - Take it from me, the simplicity factor of the box measurement rule is paramount among the powers that be and has probably gained too much momentum in Footydom to burden with additional requirements.
I argued long and hard, and sometimes heatedly, to outlaw diagonal boats and enlarge the box width measurement to include my pre-rule Bantams. At the time diagonal placement was considered by the original rule writers to have too many hydrodynamic disadvantages to be of real concern. It is interesting that one of those rule writers is now an advocate of diagonal placement.
A couple of my arguments are as follows: I suggested we incorporate a centerline on the floor of the box that the keel or bulb should align with and that the boat must be placed in line with the slots in the short sides.
I also suggested an idea to prevent corner to corner placement, I proposed lowering the long side walls of the box halfway to eliminate the upper corners. No corners, no diagonal placement.
I don’t really like the idea of diagonal boats anymore than you do. But since diagonal or any other placement that keeps the hull inside the box limits is currently legal I will try Brujo to see if this type pf design has any merits and is worth pursuing further.
I just want to add, that having these wee boats at a lenth of one foot, matches the name “footy”. Sure they have a lot of quirks, but that’s good.
People (non r/c folk) ask me why they are called footy, when I bring up the r/c sail boat class that I currently muck with, and my response is because they’re a foot long. Nice and simple.
On the other hand, it is an open class, and what aint prohibited, is ok.
Now back to choppin keels, and finishing orders.
:zbeer:
Ian, the problem is easily solved… but the solution bans square boats… If you take the measurement box, and change it from a rectangle to a pentagon, with one end that comes to a very wide point, (slope of .5"/3") so that there is “point” on one end, you maintain the ability to fit a pretty darn blunt shape in there, you don’t loose any other freedoms, but the advantages of building a “sideways” boat are effectively made null and void.
(it should be noted that i do not think that this is necessarily the best thing for the class, it simple seemed a good way to solve the problem presented…)
:graduate:
So how long is a 12metre? much longer than that for sure but it does rate 12metres!!
My footy is a bit longer than a foot…but does rate as a footy! so this is nothing new and has been a feature of rating rules since yacht racing started.
Quite frankly I think these longer boats look nicer and sail better.,many are put of by the dumpy appearance of some earlier designs.If the boats end up looking like there bigger cousins and sail better as a result then what is the harm?? Its all good.
Maybe the longer boats are not fast…and a 12 inch boat is faster? who knows whats the harm ?
Just fit the boat into a box…if it fits its a footy…simple? even my 8 year old has a handle on this.
Wherever rules exist people will push them to all of their limits, and in many cases cause others to say, that is not what was meant by the rule when it was written.
In the USA we have the supreme court (no caps since they are less than supreme these days) who’s job it is to interpret clearly stated laws written two centuries ago. Everyone knew what the founding fathers meant, but that doesn’t mean everyone sees the same thing when they read the law.
This is a development class and that means we should welcome development. I personally have no interest in making a diagonal boat, (yet) but I really think that leaving the door open makes this a more interesting class and I hope it stays that way.
The rules on sail plan are very open too, but with this funny limit that forces some thinking on how to get the most out of a very short rig and not have a huge gap between your light weather rig and the short one. Hmm… maybe we should modify that!
Let’s please leave everything exactly as it is and see where it leads. If you have a serious problem with that maybe you should be sailing in a one design class where all the boats come out of a certified mould. Even in one design classes and handicap classes, full sized and model, people strive to make their boats faster that the other guy’s.
Alec Henshaw, the great British racing and test pilot gave up air racing when he realized it was not about the fastest airplane, but was more about getting a favorable handicap. Let’s not do something similar to ourselves.
Pete
Pete, I think you may be taking offense to something that isn’t worth the effort. To my understanding, Ian raised (and i feel it is a legitimate) question about the spirit of the rules and the measurement box. He was then advised to move his discussion to another thread where those who were interested in it could look at it without disturbing the flow of the thread it was posted in. To a large degree I think, this is a academic discussion. As you spend more and more time here, you will find that this is the timbre of most of the discussions here in footy world – we are all idealistic dreamers. (Save for Brett, his boats are just scary.)
Moreover, before you start shouting “rule-rape” remember that all development rules evolve – all the time. That is the purpose of the rule, to evolve with the issues confronting the class. Sometimes they don’t have to evolve because the issues of the day are really non-issues. But there is no problem in my mind with a long-standing member of the class community raising a questions about intent, and offering possible solutions to his concern. If that is indeed becoming too confining for you, then I fear the only class you will be happy with is some sort of open class… I would head out now, because designing a boat to keep up with that crowd will take some time.
To address what you said Brett; yes a twelve meter is quite a bit longer than 12 meters, but, to rate out, it must lose sail area, draft, and ballast. (or some form of that – its been a while since I studied the 12 meter rule… its a good rule though!) You, of course are in a unique position as you can really speak to the original intent of the rule. I like box rules, and from the beginning I have seen the possibility of building a “sideways” boat, and given the way the rules are currently written, I personally do not see that they violate the spirit of the rules… Granted, the “conservative footyer” in me does roll its eyes a little bit every time it hears about a “sideways” boat, but hey, the entire purpose of footys is the bury that reservation and innovate right?
I have always like the concept of making these boats that are 12" long go as fast as they possibly can… (not to mention i can actually afford to do it:rolleyes:) but I daresay i can see the writing on the wall… perhaps my next design should be a “long” one, then the on-the-water-testing can really begin!
Keep the thinking caps on guys! One of these days, there will be a break-through footy, and then woe betide any USOM that comes its way…
Alright, back to my hole:graduate:
A minor correction - of sorts - apologies to Brett as I “promised” to stay out of the Footy threads. :rolleyes:
The “Open Class” of which you reference (perhaps the AMYA one ???) is a class that “collects” boats that have yet to meet the AMYA required 20 registered owners. It IS NOT a class of boats that allows an “Anything Goes” attitude, as each of the boats in that class today will have to have their own rules tomorow if/when they are recognized as a class.
Thus to make a minor correction - the “Open Class” that exists in AMYA is not made up of any particular size or design of a single boat - but it does include a selection of boats that have received an interest by a small group of owners, but have yet to achieve the recognition number.
With that said, I return you to the discussion - and without any added commentary.