a project like this is legal?
a project like this is legal?
the boat fits…but how are you going to get the rig and sails up? if the mast comes out of the deck amid ships, its only gonna be about 4" tall…not much sail area…
Marc’s point is well made. Remember, the boat needs to fit the box “in racing trim” which means its components like rudder and rigs need to demonstrate the full range of motion used in racing.
As my old Office computer guru used to say :-
" Don’t hesitate to read the user’s guide "
Or in this case - The Rules.
Rules, rules, rules! Are we sick of rules?
MY guru (daughter) says “Dad, if you don’t understand what it does, don’t change it.”
I have disobeyed on numerous occasions–to my great regret.
Nothing in the rules to stop the one in your pic, Rod…but I’m guessing the boat might suffer some balance issues on the pond
Sorry, did I touch a nerve there ?
Like them or not, most classes of boat will have rules defining how they are built - and Footys are no exception.
rex13164 had apparently been paying too much attention to the diagonal hull placement discussions going on at the moment and not enough to the rest of the rules. His project would have very little rudder and sails unnecessarily high off the deck.
The same could be said of your proposal. Whilst it would be perfectly legal, the centre of its sail plan would probably be in excess of 4 inches higher off the deck than a more conventionally place hull. Comparing it to a boat with a sail of similar area yours would need a larger ballast bulb weight to combat the extra heeling moment.
If you just want to play Devil’s Advocate then say so, otherwise people may think you are being serious.
not as long as they are followed…
Slightly devil’s advocate…
But seriously, wind speed close to the water may not be doing you any good, and all of this lower portion of the rig may be just ballast in the wrong place. Which does suggest that the sail area should be concentrated 10 cm. above the water or more. In which case, a rig somewhat similar to my quick illustration may provide adequate driving force with a smaller area. The rig would need balancing, which my picture didn’t attempt.
This could then allow some sort of extreme diagonal box placement. After all, this is a development class, and the rules don’t state that you need a transom.
Just an observation ----- and at no charge !
It seems the word “conventional” needs to be stricken from the vocabulary of everyone who “elects” to play in a class that identifies itself as “developmental”. In fact, it is hard to identify what is still, or was “conventional”. Multihulls are now “conventional”. Wing masts and solid wing sails are now “conventional”. Foils on boats are now “conventional”. Carbon fiber and Kevlar are now “conventional”. Carbon and muti-ply sails and asymmetric spinnakers are now “conventional”. Flat boards with sails upon which the skipper stands are “conventional”.
I understand and agree it is not an open playground - and there are basic rules in any such class, but when one responds and includes the word “conventional” ( or even “conventional wisdom” ) others may wonder if the persons are even aware of what they are suggesting.
Just the Devil’s Advocate, you understand. :devil3:
I totally agree— the “practice” should follow the conventional wisdom, because, after all it is the accumulated experience of many careful practicioners-----but…—the “thinking” should never rely upon ‘conventional’ wisdom, because that way lies stagnation. Each new idea defies conventional wisdom, and it is in the accumulation of experience that a new “practice” becomes the new “conventional”.
So far, only a few boat designers who have looked seriously at the Chinese fully-battened sail. I have been sailing a 1M ‘junk’ model with the rig made as authentically as is possible and still have it radio-controlled. One thing immediately becomes clear—the boat has to be sailed upright, and the angle of attack of the sails greatly reduced in comparison with conventional Western practice. Heeling is deadly.
I wonder if Footys should be treated similarly and sailed upright. My initial observation with my own is that they seem to sail better with the sails let out as far as possible. One is always tempted to believe that the boat is sailing faster when it is heeled further over.
Thanks to all
Rod - interesting that you look at the fully battened sails of a Chinese Junk.
The concept has been around for many years (obviously) and in modern boats in classes that permit them - fully battened sials became the “norm”. Multihulls seemingly being the first to fully embrace them, along with ice boats. Perhaps it was the excessive speed generated that tended to collapse a sail with short battens, but they were used by many. I think I recall seeing more big boats using full battens as it is easier to maintain a definite sail shape regardless of wind conditions.
Unfortunately - look at all of the current accepted classes and note how many, within their class rules still “mandate” 3 or 4 short battens that only support the roach of the sail. Just in my agreement with you, we are able to point to a lack of classes that allow full battens. And for those who may disagree - yes, I completely understand the needed modifications to make full battens easy to tack in light air - but I only point out there is an example from Rod that demonstrates a lack of “openess” and ability to try something new (or different). It often seems (to me) the minds close quickly to protect the viability of the current design thoughts and eliminate the possible ideas others may have.
ADDED THOUGHT: Look at the “Fat/Flat Head” sails and then look at how many classes restrict/eliminate them with a rule regarding the maximum size of the mainsail headboard - usually very small.
I have always fully agreed with the idea of rigid and enforced rules for sailboat racing classes where it is the intention of the class that it is the sailor’s skill which is to be the deciding factor. I sail Soling 1M where the rules are specific about almost everything on the outside of the hull.
But Footys seem to have been set up from the beginning to foster the ingenuity of design and the skill of building, as well as the subsequent sailing expertise. Roger Stollery’s original intention seems to have been the development of the interest of school children in the ‘manual’ skills as well as an interest in the sailing hobby itself.
I hope that the Footy class will continue to stress design and construction development as it is the only class where this is a realistic possibility for the amateur who has only “hobby” money to spend. The hope of getting serious interest from young people, however, seems a lost cause—there is no vroom-vroom, no high speed shooting, and no ‘screaming in triumph’ that they seem to find so attractive about computer games.
I was interested to see that a number of Polish children participated in some Footy events in England—perhaps there is hope…?
Rod - I must agree
the initial premise was, as you state. Unfortunately, trying to control the class began on day one, and based on old posts, it was evident everyone had their personal reasons for what they suggested. I lost interest when the batteries became a “legislated” issue. After all - it is “development” based.
I have found an alternate, and while not the broad, open no-restrictions class like I had suggested, the RG-65 has a lot of interest going here in the U.S. For a 30 year old limited development class - most of the questions and argument have been long since addressed - so the class is seemingly pretty stable. I was able to build a fleet of 5 boats for family members and we have a blast sailing them in our local competition. Grandson is starting to get “Good” and my cash outlay was less than $125 (US) per boat - even less had the Chinese 2.4 gHz radios been available at the time I bought the bunch. Yes - it does include radio gear, sails as well as balsa hulls - no fabric required !
I have always heard screaming - big boat and small - but not necessarily in triumph !
Dick - the legislation on batteries was to DERESTRICT them, not restrict them. You can have any kind of battery you like. :zbeer::zbeer::devil3::devil3:
It seems that an awful lot of the discussion about rules on the forums is from people who want to restrict things to make racing more “equal.” I think few of those people are real designer/builders.
The good news, though, is that the actual rule changes last year, as Angus pointed out, relaxed some restrictions. The ballot currently being processed could do the same.
RG65s are neat, but there’s still no better bang for your development buck, nor a more interesting design challenge, than a Footy.
I looked through the RG65 web site, specifically for construction methods, and found very little information. Please correct me if I am wrong, but looking at the photos of the hulls, I got the impression that the home-building of such hulls in either wood or fibreglass would be a major project. I have built a wooden planked hull, for an old 36-600 “Gracia” from a kit by Graupner, which contained no pre-cut parts at all, and it was a slow job requiring most of a winter to complete. (In fact, it took nearly 30 years before she actually sailed.) The job was certainly beyond the patience of most young people, and even then was not cheap.
In contrast, Footy hull construction can be completed in a few hours, extended to days only to allow the glue and the paint to dry. Rigs and sails can be completed in an evening.
If any RC sailing class has any hope of developing an interest in the hobby among children and young adults it is the Footy. If younger people cannot be attracted to the hobby it is doomed to be an entertainment for ‘old men’, and will die off when we die off. Certainly, when it comes to those of us who wish to explore the designing and building of sailboats, as a hobby, there really is no alternative.
While I applaud the efforts of some amongst us to develop and sell a factory-completed boat, there is a real danger that the hobby will be demoted to merely ‘playing with toys’.
i don’t believe the footy is a good kids boat…yes good to get hands dirty and building, but nightmarish to sail…and something that would cause a young kid to loose interest in really quick. IE the boat won’t go, wont’ sail well, the kid give up…I’d venture to sail that starting someone out in a boat that will sail with relative ease is the key to getting people hooked…That and not given them sticker shock at the price…
rg65, like the IOM or US1 is a builders boat gotta have some patience and skill.
you are correct (almost).
Within the RG-65 class, one can build in a variety of ways.
Easiest: Go with the Jif65 design and it is simply two bottom hull panels and two side panels, a bow bulkhead, two intermediate bulkheads and a transom. Add in a flat piece of balsa (or ply) for a deck and it is done. In actuality, working on something that is just over 2 feet in length removes the issue of weight, big hands in tiny places, and concerns about placement of components. To me, being able to work on something of a size that is easy to get at is very important.
Want to go a bit harder - and with a rounded bilge? Then any of the designs can be built using foam and bulkehads. Shape, sand, cover in glass and remove foam for radio gear.
more time consuming is to build a strip hull - and either cover in glass for a one-off, or go with the same and use as a plug. Make a mold, and then layup glass only hulls for your close friends.
My personal belief - having built the RG-65, working on a RG Multihull, 36/300 boats, 1 meter boats and my 1.2 meter trimaran ( an obvious variety of sizes) the bigger boats are easier to work on and material costs really aren’t significantly more.
Note that most balsa RG-65 boats are just finished with varnish/dope/or epoxy - no glass, an the balsa boats are competitive with the carbon ones.
I do, like you, lament the fact that home buildings seem to be unique instead of typical. In fact, I’ve often thought classes could give a “special” builders award for a first to finish boat that was home built - kind of a way to encourage home building. Of course, it wouldn’t work in the “plastic” classes.