Rig Rules

Footy Class General Discussion (Footy)
61

Bill, I here what you say.

However, I do not think that anyoner (least of all those who ran it) would deny that on rigs the last ballot was a cock-up. Recent developments in UK have meant that the 2-rig rule is barely enforceable. After what happened to Bill H in Orlando, it was hardly going to stay popular in the US.

So if a groundswell of opinion has started to favour a new ballot on this, let’s go with it. Not doing anything is like putting your hand in a blazing fire and leaving it there for two years ‘in the interests of stability’.

However, it’s got to be clean this time. Hence no ‘pistachio and passion fruit’

:graduate::devil3::devil3::zbeer:

62

Bill N. - I don’t see how a development class (as in a class of yachts that is only a few years old and has not yet discovered its archetype and has so few rules to encourage the best performance of these very small boats) can present itself as a “stabile”. If you want stabile then step aside to a one design class.

One other thing, as Bill H. mentioned, this class has more energy and innovation happening than any other class. This vitality stems from the passion of the builders and designers to best interpret a class idea in flux. Certain rules will fall by the wayside as they become untenable to the majority of those involved. That is democracy. Any changes that are proposed, or will be proposed, are not the work of some self-centered wise-ass (as you imply) but are meant to highlight a group or individual’s insight as to what might need fixing in the rules or what might improve the performance or correct some of the glaring shortcomings of the boats we currently sail.

And Kurt, if you think that the Footy measurement rules are daunting look into the IOM class (currently the most popular class in the world). And, if you think that the Footy rules are daunting just wait until you crack open the Racing Rules of Sailing! The only thing daunting about the Footy is starting out with that blank piece of paper (or computer screen) and deciding where to start.

A lot of the other threads on this forum are packed with building tips and advise so if you are interested in tapping into the energy of this class I would start combing through them. You may end up with another impression of footydom.

63

One other thing - Bill Hagerup’s experience is a great illustration of the law of unintended consequences. The storm rig influencing the size of the big rig is a simple and impractical concept that hadn’t been tried out in any other class and therefore had no track record of how it worked in real conditions. Theoretically it sounds like a fine idea. But the frustration that Bill expressed at having the right sized rig at hand but unavailable to him is not an isolated incident, it is a byproduct of an untested concept.

A great way to turn off participation is to frustrate competitors. Especially the ones that have traveled to a race, at considerable expense, with unfamiliar conditions and guess wrong for the event’s conditions. Thats the best way to discourage out-of-town skippers to attend your event. The cross pollination of ideas in this class depends on communication and encouraging the “fun” in a common venture. The big rig/storm rig rule runs counter to the health of the Footy. Lets change it yesterday!

64

Bill N

I would like to second what Angus has just said, but add that we DO all build & sail our boats in compliance with the current rule, it’s just that the majority are not happy with it. I think it is important for ALL to note that although there have been recent changes due to the ballot, there has been NO CHANGE to the rig rule as a result. This is the reason for the unrest. IMO the rig rule was the only rule that needed to change.

Secondly, it is NOT easy to change the rules. You make it sound like the rule is constantly altering when in fact the recent ballot was a whole year in the making &, apart from the use of mini servos, is the only change that I know of in the two plus years that I have been involved, & probably since the inception of the box rule. Correct me if you need to.

Angus’ quote, “in the interest of stability”. It is precisely because the situation is not stable that there is the “groundswell” that we see. It needs rectification to create the stability which will in turn will maintain & generate the all important POPULARITY.

65

I now have supporting requests from Richard Alford (UK) and Paul Taylor (USA).

Nobody has suggested that any alternative change is preferable, which is a great relief.

My personal view is that the restrictions should go - but I am trying to handle this from the widest possible perspective. I have had misgivings expressed privately that we must not promote instability and bend to every puff of the wind. I agree, but I think the more appropriate metaphor is that in the last ballot the anemometer jammed and gave wrong readings of the wind. We should fix it quickly and then settle down.

:graduate::zbeer::zbeer::zbeer:

66

It does sound like a significant group of skippers want to change. For personal reasons, I want to delay any action for a few weeks at least. Like Bill, I had my own troubles with an unsailable boat due to rig restrictions. (There was much cursing. Apologies to anyone within earshot at Orlando.) I need to be making rational and deliberate actions rather than reacting to my own emotions.

Please contact your national registrar with a quick statement of your opinion regarding rig rules. We don’t need to know why, just what you may prefer. The simplest thing would be to pick a proposal from the last ballot since the language is already worked out. I think the major contenders are “No restrictions” and “2 rigs any size”. The 3 rig idea didn’t seem to get much support. Please correct me if you feel otherwise, wanting “No change” is ok too. We will do our best to get a deciding ballot next time round.

Keep building and sailing folks, this is a fun class. (Even coming in 11th was fun.)

John

67

2 rigs any size… sounds good. You can build the rigs that you think you might need to cover different wind conditions, but just pick two for regattas to keep your baggage count small.

no problem mon. :cool:

68

2 rigs any size… sounds do-able. You can build the rigs that you think you might need to cover different wind conditions, but just pick two for regattas to keep your baggage count small.

no problem mon. :cool:

69

No, no, no and no!!

  1. There is a bandwagon rolling. It is in favour of no restriction. If people divert into pistachio-and-passion-fruit, there will be a great deal of passion and no fruit - the chances of one option achieving over 50% of the votes are massively reduced.

Meaningful support for multiple propositions is of course possible. We can change the class charter to use, say, a single transferrable vote system, but that will take time and requires a lot of thought and consultation. Since such systems are virtually unknown in North America - so far as I am aware (apart from the generalised transfers of votes from the dead to the living :D:devil3: ) - it will also need a massive exercise in education.

So if you want to go sailing with a more sensible rule this summer, tag along with the existing bandwagon. If the ballot that is now inevitable is another damp squib, I think it is at least possible that the class will fall apart.

  1. No Tomo. Limiting the number of rigs has NO, repeat NO effect on the number of rigs you need to be competitive. If anything it increases it. You still need to have rigs that will cover all conditions of the regatta. With total freedom, you probab;y can get by with a total stock of 3 or 4 - at the very highest level of competition.

Restrict the number of rigs you can carry during an event and you end up selecting one or two (whatever is allowed) from a wide range that you bring in your bag. Given the need to cover holes over a wide range of windspeeds. ‘the’ 305 mm rig or its equivalent because a number of different rigs in the bag with a constant height but different areas and aspect ratios.

And as to this being an entry-level class, the selection of the right rig becomes a matter of the highest skill plus an element of luck - as Bill Hagerup anf John Amoroso (who are far from entry level sailors) found out to their cost in Florida.

Retrictions on rigs do not actually serve their intended purpose. It does not matter whether you hink the class should ‘return to its roots’ or not, the esxiting rule (or any other restricted version of it) merely serves the interests of expense and complication and gives a huge advatage to the very skilled.

:graduate::graduate::zbeer::zbeer::zbeer:

70

It’s OK with me, I just use the one rig for everything and haven’t lost a heat yet. All 2 of them.

71

:zbeer::zbeer::zbeer::):):smiley:

72

Blah blah blah… the class will fail if we don’t do something immediately. Do you have any idea how many times you’ve said that?

I don’t like bandwagons. I get off. Now a challenge, that I like. You’re making this a challenge.

The class can take care of itself while we get it right. They’re big boys. As a matter of fact, I’ve never met such a talented group of independent thinkers that somehow manage to get along while sailing only vaguely similar yachts. Any regatta can alter the rig requirements as desired. I’d like to take the time to find out what the class wants and go with the best answer, not just the first answer. We’re not in a hurry, not this time.

I’ll see ya in a couple weeks, I have a boat to build.

73

Neil,
“Self-centered wise-ass” are your words not mine. I never implied such, but merely said that many of those who want to change rules, appear to wish to do so because they believe (perhaps mistakenly) such changes will allow them a better competitive edge.

Gary Boyd,
You are correct, we all sail boats that do comply to the current (or previous) rules. In fact, while there was one IFC entry in the recent joint IFC/AMYA Footy NCR, my understanding was that it was built to comply with the original rule, and in this case, also complied with the recent rules changes, since those changes removed restrictions rather than tightening them. I certainly didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

Everyone,
Assuming that the sail restrictions are removed, as appears likely from reading this thread, will removal of the restrictions on movable keels (ala Balmain Bug) or keel depth be far behind? All of the cataloged reasons (simplification of the rules, it’s a development class, etc.) for making other recent changes would seem to also fit changing the rule on keels, especially if larger rigs might be a likely outcome of unlimited sail rigs. Of course, it would require removing the bottom of the box, which could affect a diagonally measured boat…

Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park (Ft. Lauderdale), FL USA
AMYA #0835

74

Bill N.

I am possibly being more partisan than I should, but it strikes me first that there is a distinct difference between the rig restrictions and those on moveable ballast, etc. and second that you share a very common misunderstanding of how the democracy of the Footy class works.

First the difference between rigs and say moveable keels. The intent of the rule was to keep the boats cheap, simple and easily acccessible to newcomers. In the view of many, it does the exact opposite. It does not control the number of rigs you may own or bring to a regatta - it controls the number of rigs you may set during the regatta. You will still make and bring at least as many as if there were no controls (or very possibly more - I have yet to see a boat with multilple storm rigs, each matched to a specific top rig, but it is a logical step). You just cannot set them. The selection of the right rig calls for tremendous skill and judgement and tends to push beginners even further down the fleet than they might otherwise deserve.

That is I think why people want to change the rig rule. It does not do what it was intended to do. There is then the purely procedural matter that the ballot last November must be regarded as having failed. In a very real sense it did not express the general will of members of the class. If we take this to be the case, we should do something about it sooner rather than later.

This leads us on to the second point. You speak as if the rule were changed by some abstract ‘they’. Nothing could be further from the truth. Virtually every proposal on the ballot last year was the result of a request by a member - either in the form of a request for a rule interpretration the result of which had found general acceptance, or else a direct request from one or members for a rule change. To the best of my recollection, the only items generated by the techical team or indeed the committee were the inclusion of mast-head wind indicators as part of the rig (so that they can protrude above the box), the correction of the density of lead and allowing composite ballast containing elements denser than lead so long as the overall density is no higher than that of lead. These are essentially tidying-up operations.

So the only answer to when we will allow moving ballast, choirs of angels, jet propulsion or whatever is ‘When a majority of the members see fit.’ Please do not take this is a cop out. I have been a very active member of the international committee for the last three years. It has been quite central to all our thinking that the decision-making process should be democratic and transparent.

If this is not evident, it may be that we have not sold it very well, but it remains a fact.

My very good friend Russell Potts, who is undoubtedly the leading authority on the history of model yachts, reckons that the Footy class contains a higher concentration of clever engineers than any other class - ever. Accordingly you are given a power to influence the future of the class that goes beyond that practically granted [sic] to owners in most classes. Use that power.

But with power goes duty - the duty to exercise the power wisely and in good faith for the long-term good of the class.

Now back to something more cheerful.

:graduate::zbeer::zbeer::zbeer:

75

Gentlemen, once again some continue to over analyse the consequences of past and possible future rule changes — Angus has it right. The rules will only change if the members of the Footy class wish it. There is no Evil Empire working towards Footy class domination!
Most agree that the class managers made their best efforts on the last ballot but in hindsight it might have been done better.
I’ve been an advocate of rig de-restriction for most of the brief time I’ve been building and sailing my Footy’s. I can’t believe it’s less than 3 years. In that time, sailing mostly in Florida, I have never had occasion to use a B rig, nor have we ever cancelled a race. I have rarely competed against boats using B rigs and those that did were not competitive. Many of our Florida regattas have been run on a local race instruction ‘no rig restriction’ basis. Why? because those sailing wanted it.
So to you nay-sayers, please don’t get pompous and pretend to be defending the future of the class when in fact you are just indulging in debate for it’s own sake. Perchance you take the role of Devil’s Advocate too far.
Lets take our time, continue the discussion at pond level , then if the ground swell continues, put rig de-restriction to a simple, unambiguous, class vote.