Any coments on the style, layout, etc. of the interpretation would be greatly appreciated.
quote]
First, let me say that I appreciate all the effort the three of you put into this whole thing, I am sure it was tough
I think that the way it is put forth was very easy to understand and was a logical conclusion.
Bob
I would like to make a practical observation here on the way that boats with rudders of this type will need to be mearsured. Its all very simple as I will explain.
The rudder slot on the rear of the mearsurment box should be made deeper than the 200mm when you manufacture the mearsurment box.
A peice of paper or thin plastic etc should be taped in position at 200mm from the box top.
With this method you can easily check the legality of an overhanging rudder without having to deal with the problem of the actual box thickness.You will only have to worry about the tiny thickness of the paper if the rudder is so close to touching.
It is really a great shame that this rather minor matter became so inflamed.There was no intention ever of the request not getting a fair hearing and the result(that basically nothing changes and all existing boats are legal that we know of)was never really in doubt form the beginning of our discussions.
The fact that we manged this request over 3 Continents in such a short space of time is very commendable as Angus rightly pointed out to me.,I can’t think of any world wide class that could have done this so quickly.
Angus and my phone bills may have taken a bit of a hiding though.
Brett posted “It is really a great shame that this rather minor matter became so inflamed.There was no intention ever of the request not getting a fair hearing and the result(that basically nothing changes and all existing boats are legal that we know of)was never really in doubt form the beginning of our discussions.”
I’d like to add, since his credibility was questioned along the way, that this is absolutely true.
There is no cabal trying to manage this class to make our own designs winners over others, or ruin others’ commercial efforts. We are just three regular guys who like Footys and give a lot of our time to something we (usually) think is worthwhile. We don’t always agree. We never conspire against those with different views. We try to address Footy business promptly, within the restrictions of our lives (like real jobs) and we always do it with good intentions.
And yet we sometimes get attacked for our efforts…sigh…and then wonder why we took it on. Ah well, as the old saying goes, nobody ever said it was going to be easy. But if any of you would like to take over the USA responsibilities, please give me a call. That’s a request, not a challenge. I’d like to get back to playing with boats and trains.
One more thing. I saw somewhere that John (waboats) was accusing Brett of banning him from the forum because Brett didn’t share his views. I don’t know if he’s been banned or not, but it seems clear to me, and I hope to others, that any restrictions on John’s forum participation resulted from his own violations of forum etiquette…not because of his opinions.
Bill
p.s. Thanks to all of you who contribute positively to the class.
Just to let people know; Waboats was banned from this forum yesterday by me. As with everyone else that has been banned in recent memory, he was given a warning for something he posted, and then he went of the deep end.
I think you guys are nuts. The Footy class rules state: B.4 The following may project aft of the measurement box: bumpkin,RUDDER. Not rudder attachment thing, not rudder tiller arm and not push rod connected to tiller arm. Only the rudder and bumpkin shall project aft of “box”. And while I’m at it, if you can’t control your boat with a rudder thats bottom is 200mm below the top of the control box it’s time to design another hull.:mad:
jack
watch the language. we all want to have a good exchange of idea here. we dont what to have anything that might be considerd a put down or a slap . just keep it clean and please do post. but just watch how you post it. that goes for everybody including myself and the other people. lets not have the footy section become the fighting section
cougar
Jackwubbe, it’s becoming more clear every day that we are nuts to take this on.
A stern-mounted rudder, with the fittings needed to attach and control it, was intended to be allowed by the original team that drafted the rule. The V cutout at the top of the slot was designed to allow room for linkage.
The drawing is representative of a Footy in the box, but does not represent all possible solutions.
Heh, most forums have them already. There’re just a boring system of warning points though. I vote for chevrons like the AMYA awards? Black for individual attacks, green for attacking a nation’s skippers, and red for attacking the entire class.
