Bruce Lopez posted some pics of a catamaran Footy that showed up at his pond. To see them, check out the FootyUSA site. Here’s a link:
I hope Pete will get Bob to design a Footy, too.
I love these boats and what you all are doing with them…thanks.
Rather than start a new thread I thought I would just hijack this one as it could become the same name for my project. (Yes, another half baked, hair brained, idea.):nuts:
First, I need some input from all those dear contributors out there who like me have some understanding of the FOOTY rule. [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black]:paw:[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
As we are all trying to make the worlds fastest footy, there has to be some pushing of the parametres, as it were.
So, my question is, when does a trim tab become a rudder? [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black]Or does it ever?
My idea is to have a catamaran with one central fin, a small bulb of just sufficient weight to return the craft to upright ( training wheels, according to Dick Lemke ) and with the rear section of the fin being the rudder.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black]
According to the rule (my interpretation) I am allowed to have one movable devise, the rudder, but there is no restriction as to where that rudder can be located.
Does anyone see a problem, rule wise, that is, with my concept of the rudder being attched to the rear of the fin?
The operation and effectivness is another challange that I do not wish to debate on this thread, maybe elsewhere.:trouble:
Interesting, Ian…I look forward to seeing it.
IMHO, what you’ve described conforms to the rules.
In my unofficial opinion that is legal - no probs.
Can’t see without being a “group” member - how about a simple attachment here?
Thanx for the reminder, I will bring my camera to the pond today and hopefully Pete will have it sailing…again. Yup, it was sailing last week and I missed it. Apparently it sailed a bit then was pulled because Pete wasn’t happy with the balance? The pontoons (nomenclature?) are made from surfboard foam core, the fins are formica from an old one meter. I will bring my footy along and if the rain doesn’t keep Pete away, maybe we can see how fast that thing goes. Here are the pix on that forum. edit:sailing a no-go today, it’s raining buckets.
Here is the box.
Here is the cat in the box
The cat and with a swing rig! Pete loves the swing rig. He has this cat made from two marblehead hulls and a swing rig, look cool when up on one er…pontoon?
Pete and Bob conspiring on the footy. I am going to try to convince Bob to build a scow footy. He has a neat US1M scow…
Bruce, sorry mate, my most humble apoligies. :scared:
Hijacking your thread is the worst of forum manners and I did not want to offend anyone on this forum which has now become so well behaved and a nice place to visit.
I thought that as there was no activity on this thread it would be easier than starting another.
If the moderators would like to shift my thread elsewhere then I would be fine with that.
Once again my apoligies.:zbeer:
No worries at all! I think it’s Bill’s thread anyways. Besides, I see these things as conversations and they are bound to wander like the verbal ones tend to do. So hijack away and take us to Cuba… me not being a builder/designer, only the end user/consumer, I am the ultimate beneficiary to alleged “half-baked hair brained ideas”
Thanks, Bruce, for posting the pics and info here…appreciate your taking the trouble.
Ian, as I see it, your post was inspired by the topic and a natural extension of the discussion…no prob as far as I’m concerned. And I’m also pleased that the forum is a nice place to visit. Thanks to all participants.
Pete Jefferson’s Cat Footy is still a work in progress and one thing discovered today is that it needs to carry more sail. In a side by side comparison (too lazy to use the tape) the Cat’s mast was about 4 inches shorter than my mono-hull footy mast. Also the weight of the Cat was almost 2lbs. It was no match up or downwind for my footy. Pete will re-do the mast and put on some bigger sails and we will have a rematch on Wednesday and hopefully I can see that thing on a rail!
Despite that, it was good to see a pair of footies on the pond at the same time. If you look at the picture in one of the previous posts-the one where Pete is holding the cat-footy up close you will see a slight ‘bump’ in the top port side of the hatch cover. That bump is what allows a drum winch room to rotate! He is using a rubberband to tension his sheeting to the drum. He also showed me plans for another footy that was almost like a scow but he used a different name that I can’t recall. No pictures taken today but hopefully some video on wednesday along with some photos. Until then hope everyone has a fun and happpy New Year!
Keep at it. Without trying to be patronising you will learn a tremendous amount (I don’t mean just things that you don’t know - things that nobody knows). This is what Footys should be about.
Happy New Year
I got to the pond today and lo, there it was, the footy catamaran sailing in the pond. I hurried up and got my footy wet, threw my transmitter at a bystander and whipped out the camera. Alas, dead batteries. So you guys will have to endure another batch of photos from a camera phone.
Thanks Bruce, the pics remind me of the ones I used to see in car mags when enterprising photographers got sneaky shots of new car models on the test track
Looks like Pete is getting the balance worked out and proving that a cat is viable. Keep us posted…I’m very interested in the relative performance of the cat vs. mono hulls.
Has anyone successfully built and sailed a Footy cat? I haven’t seen much lately.
I was thinking of my own design, and since it’s good to have a relatively wide beam, it seems that having a 300mm beam, 300mm hull length and 150mm overall height would be better than a 150mm beam, and possibly go without the long keel fins I’ve seen on Footy cats so far
Unless you hava a qyite extraordinary riig, its height has to be inclluded in the 150 mm.
Something will have to give to have a real Footy cat. IMO, a 150mm beam should be considered a monohull, and won’t be worthwhile sailing as a cat.
The way I see things, the rig isn’t really included when measuring on the monohull, so it could be removed for measuring on a cat. Too bad you can’t add another slot on the side for the mast on a cat. I’ll build my idea and see how it goes.
i also have something in the works. not any time soon, but the buttock wood shapes are all cut. beams or a bridge deck decision is next.
Bill / Bruce -
The benefits of a multihull are a wide beam to resist heeling/tipping, and lack of lead to reduce weight allowing instant acceleration.
In my personal opinion, while the cat in “FOOTY” size might be a topic of pondside interest, there remains the fact that the Footy cat shown suffers from a keel with lead attached, and a too narrow of a beam (and too wide of hulls) to effectively allow removal of that lead.
Firstly, the hulls need to be a lot thinner in cross section to provide a fine hull that is easily driven through the water. Once this is accomplished, the beam needs to be widened to allow more stability so the lead can be removed making the boat lighter. With the boat weighing less, the hulls do not need as much displacement. Without a need for large displacement the hulls can be made thinner to reduce drag going through the water. And so forth.
As you can see, a lot of factors tie together to make a multihull the speed performer it really is. When one starts to neglect or ignore the basics of multihull design, a lot of benefits are lost. I started in on a Footy in catamaran configuration and quickly realized that the initial weight of everything (radio, batteries, rig, etc.) quickly outpaced the ability to have true thin, narrow hulls. Also, if you can get thin hulls to supprt the basic weights, a need for a tall or large rig is not necessary as the smaller rig should be able to easily drive a lightweight platform.
Still — it is nice to see the multihull ideas aren’t discarded a some think there is a possibility. Who knows, there may be a breakthrough coming?
Thanks, Bill, I’m glad you see the point I’ve realized with a footy cat:
1- You can either have two hulls placed so close together that they are essentially a monohulll, and would require a keel & ballast ( again in the monohull-style) so how can you really call that a cat?
2- You can use the same measurement box and amend the rule for a cat class so that the allowance will be that only the boat (i.e, hulls & cross-booms) fit into the box, with the rig (and maybe the rudder(s) too) removed.
The latter is the goal I will be attempting, and the strict traditionalists will be up in a furor for what I have in mind, as Angus has already expressed some concern.
On the latter option, the rudder(s) will need to be removed, as they most likely won’t go into the box with the hulls, or is there a way to get the rudder tucked underneath ( and in between?) the hulls for measuring? It may be possible, and I’ll look into it.
Maybe the Open class canons will allow something reasonable and sail-able to be built.
Like the large, dumb fish rising to the bait …
Surely we sail (ordo not sail) Footys because we like (or do not like) boats of a certain type - which is defined by the box rule. If, by clever engineering (not logic chopping over thei nterpretation of a rule that was never intended to run the America’s Cup) we can produce a type of boat that will outrun a ‘conventinal’ Footy within the Footy rule, so be it.
Surely, if you want to have 12" long multihulls (posibly a sensible wish with more liberal rules on electrics), it is better to produce a rule to suit? If 12" is too small, make it 15" or whatever the Magic Number is. Call it a Catspaw!
Over to you gentlemen. Mr Lemke, I would remind you that, last time we had essentially this conversation, the Demon King appeared from the trap, centre-stage, and there was woe upon the land!