Quote: I am seeking whether we are still desiring to avoid the one design creeping into or around our class.
Graham - and others more directly into the class.
Just a comment heard … about a “GHOST FOOTY” - one that may have been registered but will likely never race due to all the early squabling, and seemingly lack of direction. No - not mine but a good friend of mine down the coast a ways from you.
For me from an outsider’s view - and one who had contemplated a boat - it seems as there is difficulty in simply stating your (majority agreed upon) misssion and getting on with the building, racing and promotion.
You have rules,. The class was identified as developmental. Cast the rules in concrete for at least 3 years. Live by 'em even if terrible, but at least those interested will have a feeling of some permanent structure. I admit to not reading every post on every site about the FOOTY, but it seems to me as an observer, that you may be trying to make accomodations for anyone and as a result, indecision is taking hold.
Brett came up with a wonderful idea of a development class boat that was controlled by simple rules, but it has been so henpecked it is literally a shell of it’s original idea. If a boat fits in the box, race it. If it seems not to be legal, file a protest and let the technical committee make their determination. The class is being run by “No One” yet it seems everyone is adding to rules that haven’t even been out there for any length of time to be tested. Not everyone will want to play - so for those who are “running” the show, simply run it and pick up your members where you can, and be cordial about those in disagreement as they leave.
The class was designated “developmental” - so end the on-going rehash of one-design. As a viewer, I want to see race results. On water, boat to boat action. The internet course is unique but takes out any rule tactics that crop up in fleet racing. Which boat is fastest? Which boat is winning it’s share of entered races around the country or the globe? Prove that a well built balsa boat can be competitive with a carbon boat - or that chines are as fast as round-bottomed hulls. If one can build ultra-light, what good was the rule about batteries. If solar-panel sails generate enough power to drive the servos - isn’t that development? Why spec where batteries must be placed? If they become ballast for a lightweight boat - isn’t that development? One rudder, two rudders - why the question. The rules seems pretty clear - there is a (one) rudder slot. If you want 7 rudders - hang them all under the hull - and end modifying the rules to allow multiple transom rudders.
It’s great the class was started on the internet, but this on-going issue of one-design versus developmental seems to be an issue that has already been decided. If builders are concerned about tooling, then they can build what they want and let the market decide. Don’t force a class to become what is wasn’t originally intended.
And please accept my use of the word “you” to be inclusive, not specific. I just hate to see this great development class smother ideas because someone doesn’t want to spend money to develop something new. Please make it and keep it a development class - a place where folks can try out their ideas within a MINIMAL set of rules. Let development happen. If 8 of us locally all build the same boat and agree to sail it one-design… so what? We all know if we show up at any true class regatta, the door was wide open and we had the opportunity, we just elected not to take it.
Sorry for the rant - I return you to your regularly scheduled topic.