I suppose you could file the photos on http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8801535&postcount=1 (2nd photo) as a horror story about what happens with unrestricted appendages.
However, the class has existed for 30 years without it being a problem. I fear you might be treading on a few toes by advocating a rule change.
Hi Martin
Your frankness appreciated (smile). Some are offended by my breathing air nearby, so nothing new there. It would be a pleasure to read some reasoned discussion about the issue, though, rather than be left with the feeling that it is a topic that should not be open to discussion.
Lester, being a Brit and living in Spain who has almost gone native, I perhaps can see both sides of the argument. For any rule change, two points have to be considered: the purely technical and the political. For once, the English-speaking world is a newcomer to a long established continental class and I’m sure that people like Maximo Lange have a real and justified sense of pride in what has been achieved from very humble beginnings with a simple set of rules.
They are happy welcoming anyone on board but, initially at least, with their accepting the rules as they stand. Keel depth is not an issue at this time, though it may become so in the future. I think that there may be a period of probation needed to demonstrate the commitment of the “Anglos” to the class before rule change proposals from us are likely to be objectively considered and then, only if they really have become a factor in limiting the attraction of the class. Even so, if they do become an issue, I’m sure the Argentinians would prefer to be the ones making the proposal.
If there were an initial world championship, for example, the obvious venue would be at the birth place of the class. In that event, any keel depth of over 35 cm would guarantee a set of “dnf” on an individual’s result sheet;)
Hi Guys
I agree entirely with Martin that any attempts to suggest changes in the rule are best left to the three countries in south america which are currently sailing the class, Argentina, Brazil and Chile.
As it happens the Argentine nationals was held in Colon this year and the Brazilian one in Gaspar, and keel depth is not a problem at either venue.
The latest Brazilian boats are using carbon fins which are stiffer than the commonly used ali plate type and this will undoubtedly lead to longer fins.
The point at which the less competively minded club sailors start to drift away from racing will then stimulate the discussion about keel depth, as has happened with the Marblehead class.
Meanwhile I understand there are going to be two feature articles in the German magazine Schiffsmodell which will give further publicity to the class in Europe.One on the famous Palo de Agua design, a chine timber hull by Fredo Wollmer, nd Argentine now I think resident in Spain, and the second on Laerke, a carbon moulded round bilge boat developed in Germany
Regards
Chris Jackson
If anyone is thinking of cf fins, a suggestion was made once that cf helicoptor rotors http://www.helimax-rc.com/accys/hmxe4270.html are probably worth a try. Those for aerobatics usually have symetrical aerofoils.
Hola Martin:
Espero puedas traducir este post pues mi ingles no es muy bueno.
Quiero aclarar que esta clase RG65 es una clase para desarrollo, al reves de la mayoria, aqui “todo lo que no esta prohibido esta permitido.”. Y esto creo que es el fuerte de la clase.
Sus reglas han sido modificadas solo 3 veces en 30 años y en general fueron modificaciones a su redaccion. Su base de 65cm de eslora, 2250cm2 de vela y su 110 cm. de altura de palo. alcanzan para generar una gran diversidad de diseños de velocidades practicamente iguales. (la gran diferencia esta en el “dedo” , lease timonel)
Con respecto al largo de quilla, en los ultimos 12 años hemos probado todo lo que se puede desde 20cm. hasta 50cm. Si bien el largo de la quilla ayuda a “alivianar” el total del peso del barco,disminuyendo el peso del bulbo, el aumento del “drag” es considerable tomando en cuenta el desplazamiento del barco de± 1kg.
Hemos probado barcos desde 1.2 kg hasta 700 gr.
En esta clase, si bien el peso es relativamente importante, sus margenes para achicarlos son muy pocos. Un casco hecho en balsa es mas liviano que el hecho en carbono. Hoy los barcos son mas livianos que hace unos años, no por los pesos de los materiales de construccion sino por la reduccion en los pesos de los servos y las baterias.
Como aqui no necesitas la resistencia elevada del carbono , no es indispensable.
Yo particularmente prefiero una quilla de duro aluminio de 1.5 mm. a una quilla de carbono de 2.5/3 mm.
Es casi imposible (en 30 años no ocurrio) que pase lo que paso en los M. ya que los costos para hacer un RG65 son muy bajos y lo puedes hacer en tu casa con elementos sencillos, cosa que es imposible con un M. Yo creo que el problema de los M paso por su alto costo y su dificultad de translado.
un abrazo para todos
Maximo Lange
Hello Martin, I hope you’ll be able to translate this post for me because my English isn’t that good.
I should like to clarify that the RG65 class is a development class and anything that is not expressly prohibited is alowed and I think that this is the strength of the class
Its rules have only been amended three times in its thirty year history and, generally the modifications were only in their wording. Their basis of 65 cm overall length, 2,250 sq cm sail area and 110 cm mast height allows a wide variety of models to be built of practically equal speed (the great diffence is in the sailors’ abilities).
Concerning the keel depth, over the last 12 years we have tried everything from 20 to 50 cm and although the longer keel helps to reduce the total weight of the boat by reducing the bulb weight, the drag increases drastically, bearing in mind that the total weight of the boat is + 1 kg.
We have tried boats from 700 -1,200 g.
Although the weight is fairly important in this class, the possibilities of reducing it are limited. A balsa hull is lighter than a carbon one. Today’s boats are lighter than those of some years ago, not for the building materials, but rather due to the lower weights of servos and batteries.
As the higher strength of carbon is not needed, it is not indispensable.
Personally I prefer a hard aluminium keel of 1.5 mm than a carbon one of 2.5-3 mm.
It’s almost impossible (in 30 years it hasn’t happened) that the same thing happens as it did to the M class, as the cost of making an RG65 is very low and they can be made at home with simple materials; something impossible with an M. I think the problems that arose with the M were the high cost and the difficulty of transport.
Regards to all
Máximo Lange
Encantado en poder ayudarte, Máximo
Hi Yar !
I was suspecting from long It was you … How about the boat you purchased to Hugo ? Thank you very much for the “great group of sailors”. Perhaps can we say to the gents, members of this forum, (you have been an eye witness of it) that RG65 is actually a very competitive class and that we always raced in a very strict respect of Int´l Rules.
Boats can be built balsa, fiberglass or carbon fiber. When you raced with us we were about 15 competitors with almost 7/8 different designs, most of them being in house design. Performances were quite similar. Skillness of the sailors always prevails (winds permitting…).
Kindest regards from “the captain”.
Martin - can you please elaborate a bit on that part of your post?
Are you suggesting that 35cm is the limit for the class in Argentina, … or … it’s the maximum water depth of the particular location/venue … or … ??
I understand the political issues of keel depth/change being discussed, but unlike so many European and South American countries, there are few places built and maintained within the US (and probably Canada) that have a moderate depth, stone walls, walkways around them and are (more or less) dedicated to model sailing/boating.
On the contrary, here in the US, we sail wherever we can, and few locations were devised for model sailing, since local governments seldom have funds or inclination to build a shallow, weed free pond for our model sailing use.
I just see a particular problem where deep keels and shallow keels are built, but if the sailing venue forgets to list maximum water depths, there may be a mass of skippers who show up with deep keels, only to find shallow water and/or weeds.
For Yar, Chris and others who have sailed/competed in this class - how is that issue handled in other countries with a history of these boats? Surely not every pond or pool has a depth to allow unlimited keel depth - thus I see similar issues that confronted many of the Marblehead sailors - the keel is fine for their local sailing location, but can’t be used at another site.
Exactly how is this issue handled - or does one show up with 25 different keel lengths in hand depending on water depth? After all, 13 inches (35 cm) is shorter than our US 1 Meter keels at 14 inches (35.56 cm).
Whama!
Good to hear from you. Sadly, Hugo’s boat still in Palermo Viejo since I never have had time to box and bring to N.A… I’ll be back. As you say, RG65 as good a class as anyone could want. A fond memory for me - seeing the variety and imagination of hulls, rigging, sails that were there. Skill in building second only to ability to read the wind shifts. The yachts move in the absolute slightest puffs - you & yours in the top of fleet.
Healthy New Year to you.
yar
Maximo Lange, que tal?
Dick L, there’s an article on the class’s beginnings and history on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RG65SailboatsUS/files/ with photos of the boating lake where it all started. As you will see, extreme keel depth would be “inconvenient”.
Martin - I understand - but a maybe more specific question - do they post water levels within regatta notices to allow participants to know which keel they need to bring?
I would think if an event is held (at National or International level) some thought must be give for those sailors who will attend who sail in deep water with deep keels. How is this handled - or hasn’t it ever come up as a question? How does one know water/keel depth if attending a regatta at a different site? Does the host club have to provide water depth to allow participation of all depth of keels?
Just one of those pesky detail questions and how the class handles it.
Dick, the answer is …
I ain’t got a clue:D
Maybe one of the Argentine posters could answer. But I’d guess that a description of the water to be used is either on the organising club’s web site or in the regatta information if it’s likely to cause problems.
I think Maximo’s argument was that for a 1 kg boat with a fixed rig height there is a point where the increased drag of additional draft offsets any gains in righting moment. This may very well be true. In the case of the Ms and 750s, the rigs went up as the keel went down.
Cheers,
Earl
Hi Dick,
Aqui en la Argentina, nunca hemos tenido problemas con el calado de los barcos. Donde navegan los IOM, navegan los RG65.
Nunca se han visto quillas mayores a 40cm. Si analizas que un M tiene 1.3 mts de eslora, un calado de ±70 cm. con ± 2.5kg. de bulbo y un peso total de ±4.5kg.
cual seria el limite para un RG65 con 65 cm de eslora, 500/600 gr de bulbo y un peso total ±1kg.? la ecuacion daria ± 35/40 cm.
Aqui debemos tener en cuenta , la escala en que estamos trabajando, la velocidad final, la relacion eslora/altura ola, inercia, “push”, aparejo etc.
Como dice Earl, la superficie velica es limitada y su altura tambien. El “drag” es el punto critico de esta clase.
La quilla larga incrementa el drag.
Tambien es cierto que baja el peso de bulbo y el del barco, pero, hasta donde?
Yo creo, por muchas pruebas hechas, que el limite es ±40cm.
un abrazo
How does one know water/keel depth if attending a regatta at a different site? Does the host club have to provide water depth to allow participation of all depth of keels?
My feeling is the minimal restrictions on the class is one of the best things about it. With the freedom of few construction limits, you may end up with something that is less than ideal for any specific venue or pond.
When I sailed at Parque Norte, I snagged a few buoy lines, got hung up on kelp. Apparently the water level was down from the year before. So a long keel would have worked the previous year, but would have been a liability the season I sailed.
The local sailors had figured out where the moss beds were, knew not to cut too close to a mark. They told me the water was low, I should have processed this information, observed patterns in their sailing, and worked within the constraints. Per the quote: I think mapping out the shallows for a competition would have been difficult.
I think the RG65 lets you design a sailboat to meet the variables as you see them, play with extremes BUT then the terrain either favors your decision or it doesn’t.
yar
Whama y maximo lange, ¿Usted tiene fotos de sus barcos?
Greetings!! Hugo de la Quintana
[quote=maximo_lange;43483]Hi Dick, here in Argentina, we’ve never had pronblems with the boats’ draft. Where IOm sail so do RG65.
Keels have never been seen longer than 40 cm. If you consider an M, it’s 1.3 m long, a draft of +/- 70 cm with a bulb of 2.5kg and a total weight of +/- 4.5 kg.
What would be the limt 50r a 65 cm 500-600 g ballast and a total wight of 1.0 kg? The equation gives 35-40 cm.
We have to bear in mind the scale at which we are working, the final speed, the length wave height ratio, inertia, push, rig etc.
As Earl says, the the sail area is limited and also its height. Drag is the critical factor of this class.A long keel increases drag.
It is also true that it lowers the weight of the bulb and of the boat, but upto where?
From trials carried out, I believe the limit to be +/- 40 cm.
Regards
Perdona la demora Máximo, estaba viendo el Barça, que incluso sin Messi, ganó.:zbeer:
Hi, Bruce
Good to hear from you!!!
here you have some photos of the Argentine Championship.
These are the top five of 32 boats. limit of 2 fleets.
1-43
2-87
3-18
4-7
5-71
Thanks Maximo and Martin
I had never thought to found you “here”.
Again, it is a pleasure, and we´ll be on touch with all the people of this group to exchange ideas about this big-small boat.
My best regards.
Hugo