Next thing IOMs will have skirts around them untill they are in the water, cow print on the keel…
The rule has been developed as far as it can go anyway more or less, get over it, its only a bloody model yacht. This kind of bullsh*t will spread and kill the class eventually, even though it is not one I am involved with or even like that much, it would be a shame to see (I wouldent have anything to slag off! (JOKE BTW)).
Luff 'em & leave 'em.
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>Originally posted by FunnyBones
Dick wrote “You don’t see too many specifics until the cars are ready for sale.” Until? And then?
Nick
Nick Lindsley
Australia 0418 727-727
Intl +61+418-727.727
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>Originally posted by FunnyBones
Until? And then?<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>
Nick -
at the point when they are introduced - the car company provides the specifications as part of their advertising. I can’t recount the number of times I have read articles where actual dyno numbers are far off from advertised horsepower after new car introduction, quarter mile times or mileage averages disagree. Again, nothing prevents “someone” from buying a new design and reverse engineering it - I just find that in this small of a “hobby industry”, where no one is getting rich, it sure would be great to reward winning designs by buying their boats. What is the difference (in your minds) between posting a guy’s boat specifications - or creating a mold and building a boat from it for a friend - “just because you can”? Or - making and selling them to others?
When I say specs, I am trying to differentiate between lenght, width beam and keel draft - and the more minute specs of mast location, spreader location, shroud locations, rudder location, etc. that “could” be the design influence that allows it to be fast. The IOM is billed as a one design, so providing box dimensions would be no different than providing a color selection, or material description. I guess it really should be up to designers, as mentioned earlier on what they are willing to provide in terms of information. Why not create a request (or form) and send to a supplier and print only what they want released. Public opinion may temper buying decisions on what is released but at least it is the designer who is deciding what to release - and it gets you out of the middle of any criticism.
Of course, to reverse engineer, and then build similar - after you have paid for one that was built is a bit costly - but at least the original designer has earned something for his efforts and ideas. Heck - sail lofts have been involved in legal issues over the use of tape systems for load distribution. Anyone can build a sail of their own and use the technology, but I am sure if you publish plans on exactly “where” to place the tape, someone might come knocking on your door - especially if the dimensions are based on a prominent manufacturer’s sails.
In closing, “what” is being gained by posting the intellectual property of others - other than to provide a cheap means to build a knock-off without royalties back to the original designer. Letting the designers decide what to provide/publish is just good etiquette in my book. Accept what they provide and be acceptable of what they don’t. Just my few cents worth. End of soap box.
Just out of interest, I thought I’d see what the “Big Boys” do. I checked out the websites of, amongst others, Reichel Pugh, Farr International, Bakewell-White and so on. With regard to their more recent racing designs, they pretty much always publish just the following: LoA, LwL, beam max, draft, disp, ballast, sail area. With the exception of beam max, the other items are non-variable in an IOM.
But, in some cases, there were drawings showing side (from which of course the rocker shape could be seen) and deck views, and if a drawing was carefully measured - other information may be gleaned. Some of the drawings (Farr International) clearly stated that they were not to scale. In many cases there are photographs from all angles of the boats sailing.
Clearly these designers feel this is enough information to allow potential purchasers to obtain a feel for the boat, without giving away all of their design secrets.
I think this tends to be in line with Dick’s comments above (with which I agree).
So IF I ever design a boat that has any merit, I’ll be pleased to post lots of photos, and basic information. But I may, just may, keep the finer details to myself for a while - in case I actually win a race. I can dream can’t I?
In the meantime, I’m thinking of making up a set of skirts to put around the cradle while setting the boat up at the lake - just to enjoy the look on the other owners faces! [:D]
Muzza
Dick (I hope) wrote: “Of course, to reverse engineer, and then build similar - after you have paid for one that was built is a bit costly - but at least the original designer has earned something for his efforts and ideas.”
Hmmm, ok. And because it is far far easier to clone(!) an online image, the original photographer not only gets nothing, but not even the sort of respectful note you would expect designers to receive. Where do I get these recurring feeling of double standards from?
No one actually addresses this POV, probably because of “convention”. Respect has nothing what so ever to do with the issue.
Nick
www.oziomz.com
Nick Lindsley
Australia 0418 727-727
Intl +61+418-727.727
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>Originally posted by Muzza
But, in some cases, there were drawings showing side (from which of course the rocker shape could be seen) and deck views, and if a drawing was carefully measured - other information may be gleaned. <hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>
Muzz -
anyone with any junior high school drafting/mechancial drawing class background would know (and should be able to use) side view and top view to create an end view. And if you can create an end view, depending on where along the deck view you plot your points, you can create a cross section template as the end view. Make 10-12 of these plotted (called “projection views” in my day) end views at the same equal distance apart and you have yourself a set of cross section templates. Space a few of them along a building board, add a few very bendy flexible battens and insert the other sections until they touch the battens. Secure in place and replace the battens with balsa strips. Add enough strips to cover the cross section templates and you have a hull. Cover the balsa with light glass/epoxy, remove from building board and remove all templates and you have a custom hull based on the original top and side views. If you have photos - it is simple to scale other dimensions to get you close using a known distance (length or beam for example).
Simple stuff that I learned how to do about 40+ years ago. Nothing to it if you want to make something bad enough. Oh Oh … just gave away information that was supposed to remain super-secret within the drafting fraternity! [:D] Here come those big, black Mercedes again!
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>Originally posted by FunnyBones
Respect has nothing what so ever to do with the issue.
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>
Quite right Nick - if we remove the issue of “feelings” from the discussion all we are left with is “intellectual properties” - and this is already addressed by various courts and laws (your country and mine - as well as many others) relating to copyrights, patents, counterfeiting, knock-offs, splashing, trademarks, and so forth.
Which double-standard was in question again? [:-dunce]
Fortunately, most “toy boat” designers don’t have the monetary means to protect their designs and ideas. The fact they can’t, makes it great for anyone wanting to freely use their ideas without compensation. “Stealing” and “theft” are words not too far removed. Maybe ask yourself - “Did I pay for it?” and if the answer is “No”, rethink the intended use or simply ask permission. That was really all that was suggested. After all is said and done, it is your web site so you really can do what you want.
Just don’t ask us “what the <u>decent</u> thing to do” is and then argue about it when our response doesn’t meet your expectations. You asked - and some of us responded. As I tell my staff at work - “Don’t pick up the rock if you don’t want to see the worms!”
Matt - yes they are toys (“bloody model yachts”) - but trust me when I tell you “copyright infringement” was a topic used by the French when I tried to re-write and clean up the Mini40 Rules. Thus the introduction of the F-48 Class. Been there, done that ! [:-graduate] … and wiser for it. And no monetary issues were involved at the time, either - it was only words - no product.
Hello guys
I hope this stops all the bickering.
We have referred this to car makers. They tell magazine their numbers. Well as a high school mechanic. I know the wheel base for the 308 GTS turbo. I know the height of the car. The width, but can anybody tell me the size of the cylinder? Does it have leaf springs? What is the gear ratio? These numbers mean more than the length. The car mags don?t give out anything but cosmetics. Wow the new bmw can do 0-60 mph in less than 10 sec. But how does it do it?
If you understand what I am saying
The IOM yacht is basic.
Dick wrote: “Just don’t ask us “what the decent thing to do” is and then argue about it when our response doesn’t meet your expectations.”
Fair comment but, in defense, I really didn’t ask the question merely to get an answer that suited me. I was - and am - genuinely curious. I can understand a designers POV re respect as you, Roy, and others have clearly stated their case. I just would love to see an accompanying paragraph clearly explaining why a photographer should NOT expect the same respect, let alone one cent.
Most importantly, everyone have a safe 2005.
Nick
Nick Lindsley
Australia 0418 727-727
Intl +61+418-727.727
Nick…make a Poll [;)]
-Wis
_/ if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it! _
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>
anyone with any junior high school drafting/mechancial drawing class background would know (and should be able to use) side view and top view to create an end view. And if you can create an end view, depending on where along the deck view you plot your points, you can create a cross section template as the end view.
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>
Dick
Are you saying that with photographs of the deck and side of a hull you can reproduce the hull shape? I don’t see how you could get the shape of the sides of the boat. One could have convex sides and one could have concave sides, or anywhere in between and it wouldn’t show on the photo. Am I missing something?
Don
Don Case
Vancouver IslandDon - give me a day or two as I will have to draw a sketch and scan it.
Look at the photo of the C&C 41 that I had posted trying to find it a home. It was built using a deck plan and a side view line drawing the C&C published back in late 80’s/early 90’s in a Sailing World magazine.
In detail I agree you might not see the “exact” bumps or hollows, but you sure can get close. A visual at the local pond would also indicate any minor details like that - but for general purposes, building a boat using off-set dimensions won’t really show that either - until you start building.
Starting with side and top views - and using the 45 degree angle to change line extensions from horizontal to vertical will give you the general (cross section) shape. After all, you are dealing in only two dimensions - and are generating the 3rd. dimension from the other two.
From the top view, you can determine beam anywhere along the fore/aft keel line. From the side view, you can determine height of freeboard, waterline and keel depth. So if I now have height of hull sides up from waterline, and I have width of cross section aat that same point, I can “generate” the end view of that particular cross section of the hull. Make enough of these and join them in a fair curve and you will soon generate your hull. Of cousre, I will concede that there are assumptions that the hull is fair from one station to the next along the entire hull length, and yes, bumps or hollows will not be able to be projected unless you know where they lie, how deep they are, how long, etc. Still, a side photo shows rocker location - both depth and maximum point. Place a photo of top view above it at same scale and you have the width at various points along the fore/aft keel line. From those two you can generate an end view. Will try to do a simple sketch to better explain the process - but remember that when using CAD programs, all you are doing is establishing points on the “X”, the “Y” and the “Z” axis, and then are connecting with lines (wires) which then are filled with color as a solid surface. You are using the waterline (usually) as your datum line from which all cross sections are located.
Not sure if this reply helps or further muddies the question. Hopefully the sketch comparrison will help.
I’ll have to wait for the sketch. As near as I can see If you only have a deck plan and a side elevation you have no idea what the hull looks like between the shear and the keel. It could be a curve, it could be a straight line. This could drastically change the prismatic co-whatever thingy. I wait patiently.
Thanks
Don
Don Case
Vancouver IslandSomeone said “Still, a side photo shows rocker location - both depth and maximum point.”
Now, Roy, who is one to ring? The designer (lol) or the photographer (triple lol)?
Nick
I am thinking about getting out my ruler!
Nick Lindsley
Australia 0418 727-727
Intl +61+418-727.727
Don -
I see what you are asking - and “in general” you are correct. But also, “in general” most hulls that are straight sided or curved will have that take place above the water line and will try to minimize surface area under water. In the case of an IOM as an example, from a general photo of the boat, one can tell if there is any bow flair, and if of a “skiff” type of hull, we know that most underwater cross section profiles will/are a smooth curve.
Are there nuances? Of course, and therein lies the small and seemingly insignificant speed differences for which we pay the designer his royalties. Using my proposed method, you can get close, but I didn’t mean to imply (sorry if came across that way) you can create a “clone” on first try. Say you have a cross section view every 2 inches. You can get pretty close by plotting the known points at station number 3 (6 inches from bow) but sooner or later the “real boat” will probably throw a curve and it will be your ideas and thoughts that will need to translate the little things. Keep in mind that if one were to plot station #3 and try to place it anywhere other than it’s intended location, there are parts of the template that simply won’t fit anywhere else with the batten placed on station #2 and station #4 - any station larger or of different shape would cause the batten to bulge out or be sucked in creating a hollow. If the station #3 has only the beam at the deck, any beam wider (perhaps) at water line, and from the side view you have the height, I think it would be difficult to confuse station #3 with station #4 simply because you are building a boat that you already know how it “should” look. Yes it could be mistakenly placed, but certainly you wouldn’t try to place #3 at #6 and then expect a fair batten line from #5 to #7 and still have #6 touch the batten.
More to follow.
You can get close alright with Dicks method.
LCB,pc etc all fall winthin a narrowish range on most hulls.
So with an accurate side view and plan veiw you could get very very close to drawing the hull accuratly.
However knowing all this stuff probably means you already know a fair amount about hull design already.
FYI I have seen hull lines of most of the top IOM designs,reproduced by amatuers from photos and known dimensions,it really isn’t all that hard.
BUT…When you buy a hull from a known designer and builder you are getting the whole package…the hull as the designer intended…constructed as he intended and most likely a lot of specific info to sail that hull and set it up well etc.
You can’t clone all that to easily.
Most likely if you are able to reproduce someone elses work with these methods then you are more than capable of doing all original work yourself…which is obviously a whole lot more satisfying and guilt free!
my 2 cents
Brett
Brett - Thanks for saying what I was trying to!
Don - and others who were trying to figure out what the hell I was talking about ----
here is a sketch that will (hopefully) clarify the method of finding cross sections using specific key points from either top or side views to create your station templates for a build. As noted - more points and stations, more accuracy, and I kept it simple with only 4 stations so it would be less confusing.
Station #1 is a simple straight line (Bow) that is controled by location on centerline, and waterline and height of bow above waterline.
Station #2 is located where shown, and now incorporates points “outward” from centerline in top view.
Station #3 is similar to Number 2 except further toward rear and wider at shearline.
Station #4 is the stern (Transom) and like Number 1 it is governed by height from waterline up, and width from centerline out.
If you space the templates along your building board, your hull “should” resemble the line drawings. Also, from side view you may be able to locate keel, rudder and mat locations - if they are indicated on either top or side view.
Don - a lot of suppositions took place too - underwater sections are semi-circular, sides are vertical, etc. Also, if you look, I messed up a bit bringing top view lines over and down on the right side of the templates. But then it is a sketch, and if done with T-Square and triangle, would be much more accurate. Hope this clarifies --if not, post questions.
Remember - this is just the basics on how you can do it, but pretty much all lines are generated or developed in this way - including hard chine hulls too.
Here is a hard chine hull, and where the designer has provided many points. But it illustrates where the views come from and how they are generated.
copyright: designer noted as it was posted on the web.
dick
great design.( the upper one) i knew what you were talking about. i have been trying to do that with 2 designs. and still cant get enough rough numbers. i would like to do a ts2 and ikon. i think kite is the middle ground. can anybody help me here?
btw love the copyright
cougar
love live the cup and cris dickson
Dick
On your developed sections, look at section 2. You have arrived at a point on the waterline. Other than guessing, I can’t see how you can arrive at a horizontal position for that point(I’m having trouble explaining). If a person didn’t know what a boat looked like the best he could do with a top and side elevation would be rectangular sections. I realize that you know what a boat looks like but it seems to me that you are assuming a lot of the design. I was of the impression that things like fineness of entry and building a litle more or less fullness into the bow or stern sections were what made the difference between a fast and slow boat. Now you seem to be saying that as long as you know where the waterline is(vertically)and how deep and at what position the maximum rocker is, you can reproduce a hull. I’m not trying to be arguementative. I just think I’m on the verge of learning something and that usually makes me kind of intense.I think I will try to make my own sketch or maybe add to yours to try to better illustrate my confusion. Thanks for the time- this is interesting.
Don Case
Vancouver Island
Edit
I’m trying to attach a modified sketch to show what I mean. The thin blue and green lines I’ve added sloppily show a couple of locations where I think the hull could be given only top and side elevations.
Download Attachment: 
18.77?KB