As promised … keep in mind it’s a proto … as is, it’s engineered to be plug and play; each part can be replaced as required making testing dead easy …
Constituent Parts
Fabricated from brass tube, aluminum tube, carbon tube, carbon rod …
solder on brass, 5 minute epoxy over 2oz clothe on everything else
22 grams
Mast head not shown … it is free swivelling and allows for sail twist … not yet tested in real world conditions, however it does induce a very nice LOOKING shape.
Boom is fixed. Jig boom is fixed.
Mast is free rotating. Luff pocket is approx an inch wide (camber inducers could be introduced). Refer back to previous post to see it with sails mocked up.
Boom could be made free rotating by simply placing it between two fixed sleeves, mounted on the mast, one above one below.
Ian … hope this provides some help … let me know otherwise, I’d be happy to answer any q’s.
Very nice work. Do you have some weights? I realize that, it being a proto, it is going to be heavier than the final version. Do you have a weight target?
I’m not sure if this is important but hasn’t an Interpretation of the Rule been sought to put this development vein in perspective once and for all.
[ul]
[li]Was an official Interpretation Sought?
[/li][li]Has it been Published?
[/li][li]What are the Pros?
[/li][li]What are the cons?
[/li][li]Has a paper been published to seek members views and inputs?
[/li][li]What are the outcomes of an Interpretation Request?
[/li][li]Has it been bogged down in Judicial Process?
[/li][li]Has it received a fair hearing?
[/li][/ul]
[ul]
It’s radical but well within the concept of the Box Rule.
Pity it’ll blast away all current Mono’s…
A good or Bad Thing?
Racing is Racing first cross the line is the winner.
Never a loser. Learn’t something… Needs a faster boat…
Maybe a Multi copied from the fast boat.
Hmmmm development progression…
[/ul]
Did that with Ferry’s from two to three hulls…
This concept is Ambitious and Worthy of some Official Interpretation Feedback and Judcial Propriety…
Not stonewalled and had the MIRROR TRICK applied…
Look Into It… Nothing ever changes and all you see is the reflection. :rolleyes:
Hmmm ???
If an Interpretation hasn’t been sought, I’m happy to sift through the Rules as they stand to formulate what would be the Pitfalls in the design applied against the rules and help with any “legal submission” to the Technical Committee
My Big Boat experience and marketing would be quite useful as would my expericnce in the jury rooms, albeit gentlemen should behave themselves and abide by their drafted rules, especially when they published them. :graduate:
It’s how any Submission is written which ensures the Powers That Be cannot bog it down any avoid due process, without fear of further Dilemas…
Never open a Can of Worms… Do that and they tend to wriggle…
Always keep the lid firmly shut. Mouth is good that way too.
Pity the Footy Box has so many openings… Not just the slots…
No reason Blue Sky needs to get in the middle of a squabble …
Just to clarify … I never did ask for a formal ruling re the concept. Rightly or wrongly I interpreted the communciations I had with the technical commitee as a sign that a request prior to having something to put in the box would be considered premature … and I haven’t heard anything since to the contrary …
I’d still love to build her; as a concept she is engaging and full of challenge. To that end, anyone who wants to come on board and be a part of it, jump in, I’d love the help. Anyone want to develop a rig?
That said, I’m not of the mind to get involved in the internicine wars going on around here … if the commitee wants to encourage Blue Sky (and I do believe they’re curious at the very least), I WOULD like to hear some feedback. Otherwise, I’ll wait it out and see what happens when the diagonal rules come in from Texas and the Blue Sky Skiff
Yes, I’m curious - of course I am. I’m slighly afraidf of the implications for the class if it does work, but if it’s legal and works that is something we have to face.
To be fair, I don’t think it’s the Tech Committee’s job to encourage, or discourage. Just to be fair.
Incidentally, I hope the Blue Sky skiff is going to Buffalo on 22 April. For everyone’s sake it needs trying out against the widest possible competition. Obviously this is only so it can be banned if it works. [THAT WAS A JOKE, RIGHT?]
Seems like the only way is to seek a ruling is to do just that. There is no need to Physically Build the Boat providing your design paramaters and concepts are clearly stated.
The Technical Committee are obligated to interpret the design in order to provide for a Ruling on its’ suitability to the Class.
I say seek a Formal Interpretation and we will all see then whether it will float or not.
To be sure where I stand. The project needs some degree of certainty so I’m formulating a Legal Submission on a Rule Interpreattion. Along teh lines of using the Area of the Open Box…
Which will be lodged in the coming days.
It will deal with teh use of the Axes contained within the surface area of the box. Diagonals are Legal.
Blue Sky Skiff, as designed is a BUST … @!#$@# … !
Alright, that’s a little overdramatic. Hydro testing shows her transom becomes immersed at somewhere between 15 and 20 degrees heel, which in turn lets water into the cockpit. I missed it on the computer models because … because … because … I don’t know why I missed it.
Anyway … her sexy transom will need redesigned and the pit will have to be shallower. I addition I’m thinking she should have more freeboard. Sounds like an entirely new hull, doesn’t it?
i hate it when that happens! i was just just recently starting work ona new plug, and had it all shaped, and was getting ready to fair, when, on a whim i plopped it in the test tank…:rolleyes: sigh, it was supposed to displace at least 17 oz. i think i might have done 8. oh well, back to the drawing board! [lucky me, i had another design in the wings!]
sorry tmark, didn’t mean to steal your thread, just to commiserate with you!
that’s what i think this, and other hoobies are all about…problem solving, and amature engineering. i don’t know about the rest of ya’ll, but it’s what gives me purpose.
New plug is pretty much faired … The Blue Sky Skiff now has a fatter belly and steeper transom … she’s still built for a displacement of 400 grams and I’m really hoping the balance will work out such that I can keep her transom out of the water … pics will / may / could follow this weekend … she’s now no longer a skiff but a sportsboat …
In the meantime, here are some questions … perhaps it deserves its own thread, perhaps not.
Given the internet course postings
a/ is there an emerging orthodoxy on keel shape, chord, etc
b/ likewise re: rudders
c/ likewise re: rigs
What to date has worked?
What to date has only sort of worked?
What do we know that doesn’t work at all?
trevor, you are asking for the keys to the secret kingdom of the footy…
i don’t think any of that exists yet… the class has yet to form a type of boat/rig/appendages that are “successful” mostly because there has not been a chance to pit boat against boat, design against design, and for the most part, i think the designs that are trying to really push the envelope, have either not really had a chance to go head to head against another boat, or, like a couple of my boats, are still coming, [its not helped by the fact that all the water is hard…"
Ahh 420 … we must all have opinions … there are surely those who have built two boats or raced one faster against another … ?
What has worked … ? What hasn’t? Perhaps we can start building a more structured knowledge base …
I for one will have either 2 or 4 Blue Sky hulls built with the express purpose of testing rig against rig and appendage against appendage. Surely someone has also done so …
We also have the internet course postings to look at … I know different conditions will dictate different results but there is something instructive about it, I’d venture
I think there are a small number of people who are beginning to understand these small models.The design of these little boats is very demanding as nothing from bigger boats seems to apply in the same way.
More will be known after the upcoming Internet race and after the reggattas planned for this season.
Those who think they know something are being cautious and playing cards close to the chest I think…mainly to avoid embarassing failures!!
tmark, we all may have our opinions, but as brett said, they may be total flops… however, so far i have learned;
more keel chord than “looks good” is nessicary. the boats do not go fast enough to make use of a keel that looks proportional. actually that is te story on the entire boat. the rig it seems to me must actually be too small to be fully proportional, maybe 140% of the length for a light disp. boat. [although i also have a footy whose rig stands almost 200% of the length…] the rudder would like to be big, and able to turn the boat with minimal niput at slow speeds. etc. etc. my design mode right now is efficiency. so, there ar my opinions, i would be loath to see you take them as if base on any foundation of merit yet, beacause i have not had time to test them out…:rolleyes:
