Agreed, Brett, that 300 grams will be fast in light air, and I know you’ve demonstrated that. But as shown by many forum posts, the typical builder struggles to make a Footy under 450 grams. If 450 grams is the practical limit for most builders, then the answers become less obvious.
Bill
Gentlemen - I must second Bill here. Footies are great for introducing new people to boat building from scratch and plans. They are so easy to build. They just aren’t easy to build well.
If I had known several years ago that Footies would become so popular I would have invested in O’Hous scales. To build an effective Footy you need to know the weight of everything that goes into it, measuring cumulative weight totals as you go along. The issue here relates not just to making the displacement weight but achieving the best ballast to all-up weight ratio. For most of the builders reading this thread 300 grams probably is pretty close to the weight of the complete hull with sails and radio but without the bulb. Then, if the boat is to be 450 grams that makes the ballast 33% of the all up weight, with 66% representing everything else. Ideally the opposite ratio is more desirable. So how does one achieve righting moment (the ability to resist the heeling force of the wind in the sails) with a lousy ballast ratio? Increase the fulcrum by building a beamy boat.
Now it would be great if weight were of no concern at all. Personally I think that ballast ratio improvements would benefit the class as a whole more than any other alteration to the rule which is why I advocate for lifting the AA battery rule restriction. If the average guy didn’t have to accommodate 50 or so grams of extra battery weight then it would make the fleet as a whole much more sea-kindly and perform better in rough water and perhaps not nose dive as much.
Now I know that Brett and other master builders say that they could build even lighter boats using Lithium patches and the like to power their boats. But Brett is already tooling around with a 300 gram boat. My concern is with making everyone else’s boats more competitive.
Yes this can be seen as being about hull design but my view is very practical. How could the 13 boat regatta we just ran have been made even more fun. Answer, in the quiet spell after lunch allow the rigs to be changed ‘up’ and maybe the next few races would have fallen into someone elses hands who then had the right rig.
The more I race and the more different events I attend the more I believe that races are won with the right rig, not the right hull. This might not be terribly theoretical but I think that those of us lucky enough to now be in the thick of Footy fleet racing might well draw a different but also valid opinion to those not so lucky.
Pete - it’s a mylar film that has threads (scrim) embedded in it for strength and to resist any stretch. You probably could compare in very general terms/description to rip-stop nylon, except it is clear and transparent (or maybe a bit opaque).
I found a source (with limited supply at the moment) of Orcon scrim based very thin and light film. It was used as aerospace/aircraft lining on walls and overheads. The particular product I found has been discontinued by FAA, so it has been discounted - and discontinued. I would buy a roll and resell, but not sure of a market and too lazy to do market research, so only bought a few yards to try. Came in silver/gray or amber/gold color. I’m using for my RG-65 for light air and would guess it would be OK for anything that needs lightweight product. My RG isn’t on the water yet, but when I get it out, and try it - I’ll report back.
Here’s a good photo of a McRig with a TriSpi sail from the Footy home page: http://footy.rcsailing.net/viewpic.php?image=Photos/071117a.jpg&index=gallery.php&sflag=DESC
This thread has become disjointed for me because I cannot find Brett’s comments on the rig rule. Were they posted on a different thread ? We have been discussing a vote on changes to rig and battery rules for more than a year, so far no resolution. I would think that it would be healthy for the class members to be encouraged to discuss, and if appropriate, vote on what they believe is best for the development of the class. At present I get the impression that some of the the framers of the Footy rules are resisting change trying perhaps to guide the class in the direction THEY want it to go.
Here goes again. My modem dropped out and lost my perfectly worded reply.
I will begin by saying that my first boat is not yet in the water, but my opinions are based on what I like about footys.
I like the idea of the rig rules as they are. I like the idea of being able to do anything I like with two very different rigs. You make what you think will work, choose the sails you expect to be right for a given regatta and take your chances. This is a DEVELOPMENT CLASS and the rig choices, as is, are one of the things that forces development. I am all for leaving them alone and seeing what happens. Every rule limits development in some way. The fewer rules the better.
As an example of limitation imposed by rule there is the AA battery rule. No choice here and no chance of development. I am very much in favor of doing away with that rule and leaving battery choice open to the skipper, for the same reason that I would like the rig rules left as is.
The rig rules provide a hurdle to be overcome, the battery rule blocks all choice even though battery technology is currently (pardon the pun) moving forward rapidly
I hope I managed to cover what I did in my lost post, but this is as close as I am likely to get.
Pete
They were here Paul… oh the joy of delete buttuns.
Yes I removed my posts on the subject,It has become obvious to me that that they are not wanted or needed.
carry on Gents.
I think all opinions are valuable, but yours more than most. I wish you would put them back, or at least chime in with a fresh batch of ideas on the subjects under discussion.
Pete
Long time no post for me here, been reading the debates.
As far as the rig goes I’ve sailed an “A” rig in every thing up to 30 Kts gusts. which to me almost makes the B rig obsolete BUT I should have made one to sail in those conditions. Leave that rule in place.
There are multiple people bitching about the battery rule as well, for crying out loud what’s wrong with it. A 4 pack of Lithium AAs can be had for $11.95 au at Jaycar, as someone else has said, less than the price of lunch.
Every class has limitations that need to be worked around.
The rules as they are have created a worldwide phenomenon and have inspired more people than any other class to get out there and sail as far as I can see.
We now have a couple of other people showing up with footy’s at my club, about 50:50 home built to kit boats. Hence my renewed interest .
Regards
Nick
Lithium AAs cost $17 to $22 US here in NYC. This difference in cost for batteries reenforce my statement about different country’s standards.
$7.95 is considerably more justifiable price-wise but you are still tossing them out when they are done. It is far more economical, at least in the US, to use rechargeable which will last several seasons rather than several heats. The penalty is the heavier weight of rechargeable AAs, and their lower voltage output. As I’ve said before, there are a lot of batteries out there and competition among cell phones, blackberries, laptops, and such are driving rapid development which makes new cells available and pushes prices down. If Footies are to improve their performance jettisoning the extra deadweight that the AA rule imposes is the place to start.
This class should not be discouraging environmental conscientiousness by initiating, and encouraging universally, the adoption of throw away batteries, be they light weight or not. Making Lithium AA batteries the de-facto choice is also internationally unfair, for what are affordable battery types in some countries that are downright expensive in other places.
The batteries arn’t the energiser ones(mine are eclipse brand) however a quick check saw prices of $9.49 on Amazon for energizer 4 pack.
How long would a 2900 mah set of batteries last in a footy running a std servo and a micro servo, mine have lasted several months and still going strong.
The environmental point is moot when you think about all the other exotic toxic materials that will go into a super duper footy.
Regards
Nick
I just want to add a bit on the rules.
Been running the Energizer lithiums since 04/17/08, and there still going strong. My week point was the stock battery in the DX6. That got a big external li-po. 
I think both the battery rule and rig rule are fine. If they change; we’ll, I’ll just change with them. 
I am not sure who this is aimed at as only 3 of us framed the rules. I may be off base with what I write below so I apologise if it is Roger or Bill you are taking a stab at.
Yes I helped frame the rules.
I have NO say in where they go from here, or any process to that end whatsoever.
Please qualify your THEY??
It only leaves Bill and Roger as original “framers”.
Or is it from my comments on this forum that your perceive me to be “resisting change” and “guiding” the class??
Roger never posts to this forum and is the “main” author of this rule…yet I never see his name mentioned when the rule is called into question,hence there must be a link between forum participation and forum users contempt for the rule writers.
I will never put my self in the same catagory as Roger Stollery or Graham Bantock and guys like them…but it is quite obvious why they don’t join up to forums such as this,lambs to the slaughter.
I really should Know better than to participate in any discussion on the class rule,I am truly sorry that the passion I have for these small yachts has lead me to help build a class,write rule etc. No one ever said it would be easy and indeed it has not been,but I am enormously proud of what has been achieved.I like to think I helped a bit,but lately it seems I only destroy.
As said before I have no control of this class whatsoever,I have only ever stated my opinions from time to time.Truly I have no agenda…just don’t want to see the class fail.
Respectfully
Brett
Brett, thanks for your comment, I realise you are out of the loop when it comes to rule decisions, but whether you like it or not a lot of people sit up and listen when you post. As I see it, you are a leader in developing the Footy and a lot of us are very interested to see if the direction you are going in will revolutionise the class. Let’s get as much open discussion out there as we can, that way we’ll all learn a lot and Footy’s will develop. As for rule decisions, there’s such a fog over what if anything has been proposed or discussed that while rumours abound none of us have any idea where the issue of requests for rule changes stands. That is perhaps because the class has developed so fast while no effective means of communications has been set up. I am not knocking the Class site, I believe that Charles does an excellent job by promptly publishing everything that is sent to him. Angus’s newsletters were great, but not available to us in the US. Bill’s AMYA quarterly column only reaches a few in the US. We chatter and sometimes whine on the boards, and learn a lot. Let’s keep it all coming, all debate is useful, but it might be good to have a semi regular news sheet to try to keep eveyone in the loop Paul
Hi Paul,
Originally Posted by muddauber22000
“At present I get the impression that some of the the framers of the Footy rules are resisting change trying perhaps to guide the class in the direction THEY want it to go.”
I am still none the wiser who you mean by this…Roger, Bill or myself? or is it all of us?
I have never built or sailed a Footy Class boat, so I must base my opinion upon 40+ years of sailing real full sized boats and my vintage R/C Star 45.
I’ve been sitting here pondering the reason/intent/usage of Footy Class Rule C.3 © {The “B” rig height limit}. Like Dick Lemke, I just don’t get this rule. Steve offered the only reasonable explanation for it. I personally feel it is a pointless rule & incredibly easy to side step. I see absolutely nothing in the rules that would prohibit reefable sails. You could therefore use a “tall/big rig” and by reefing the sails vary their size to accommodate the current wind & sea conditions. Rule C.3 (b) States: “no more than 2 sets of rig and sail(s) shall be used”. You would in reality only be using one physical set of rig & sails. The rules don’t say diddly squat about “reefing” & the first sentence of the rules say: “These are open class rules in which anything not specifically restricted or prohibited is permitted”. What say Ye to that ???
Brett, I don’t think you are resistant to change. You appear to be in favour of allowing a relaxation of the AA battery rule (a rule which incidentally I support), I have no idea where you stand on the rig rule (I arrived to late on this thread to see your posts which is how this conversation started !) and I consider your designing and building of diagonal Footy’s is progressive, not regressive, as are your rig designs. Bill Hagerup and I have had several converstions over the last year, when we met at regattas, about the rig rule. I got the impression that he would not discourage a rule change in that area, though he wasn’t wearing his ‘tech committee hat’ at the time. And I’m not saying any of this just because I’d like to get some BobAbout 2 drawings from you, so I can try one out myself. 
Incidentally the plug for my 13" long Footy is faired and ready, wax is ordered so I can build a mould, no pictures till I know if it sails. Paul
I would be in favor of the storm rig limit being set by the country the contest is hosted in. Those wishing to compete in different countries could make storm rigs appropriate for each they wish to compete in. Like it has been said, a McRig can cost as little as $10.
