Rudders

Footy Class General Discussion (Footy)
21

With the caveat on my part that my question was very much of an ‘if or ever’ nature, this is exactly the kind of input I was looking for.

No, there is no urgent need to change the rule. Yes it should remain stable. The question is, if there is a general update (to systematise existing interpreations) what should be done about the rudder rules? They are already subject to two interpretations and will therefore need updating at the next regular modification (say 2 or 3 years time).

Let it be said that I pesonally that find nothing wrong with the restriction except that it is unneccessary so far as conventional aft twin rudders are concerned. In a Footy I consider therse to be as much styling aids as graphics of Chinese dragons along the topsides - a small performance loss for a marketing gain. We don’t restrict the amount of weight we can waste on graphics do we?

22

It is interesting to monitor traffic on this forum.
I came here several times during last few months, and there was one or none new topics with one or none replies, and then suddenly there comes thread about twin rudder and show begins.
I was one of people who was contemplating on idea of twin rudders, and of twin keels. But since then I must agree with people wich are against that.
I didn’t dismiss idea of twin keels. It is now in test phase, but it is a theme for another thread.

Let’s keep it simple. The box rule, and fun provided by footy is what encouraged me to design my first one, and since then there is about ten hulls lying on my shelves and driving my wife insane.
Bret said it well. If you want to compete than build it according to rule.
Nobody is forcing you.

23

Oakey dokey, so the Footy Class is NOT the true Internatinal class, at all.
It is only self-asserted un-official International class, as of today.

If that is the case, the Footy Class shall no longer use the term International Footy Class Association, nor the I.F.C.A. in any of their documents. It is inappropriate to do so, and it can be misleading to those who thought they were belonging to the righteous organization.

The class rule interpretation, on the outside of National Association framework, is simply irrelevant. The class rule can not be applicable to the others outside.

However, if this is a free discussion forum…, any ideas should be discussed as it is necessary by those who likes to submit their opinions, I think.

My good Texan friend, once gave me the statement below, and I agree.

It is the expression of opinions and ideas that provokes thoughts and other views of a subject. It allows individuals to look at problems or philosophies other than their own. This exchange often allows more creative thinking and better solutions for a problem. Positive criticism and opposing views should be seen as constructive and not taken as an offense or embarrassment.

JPN-001

24

No, JPN01, the Footy Class is not an International Class. It is, however, very much an international class, being organised very much on international lines. There is no such thing as the International Footy Class Association, although it is sometimes convenient to refer to the international Class Association, as opposed to its national sub-components. It is also convenient, for example, to issue sail numbers nationally. If any class official has ever referred to the International Footy Class of International Footy Class Associastion in a class document, please let me know and we shall have it corrected at once. For the sins of vothers I cannot answer.

National registrars - and anything else to do with Footys - are the concern only of people who sail Footys in the countries in which they are sailed.

I hope this helps to clarify matters.

25

http://www.modelyacht.org/footy.html
above website indicate the term “International Footy Class Rule”. The use of “International” terminology can be misleading. It shall be amended as the “Footy Class Association Class Rule”???

http://footy.rcsailing.net/technical.php
above website uses the terminology “IFCA” over and over again…, implying the “International Footy Class Association.” This is inappropriate, isn’t it???

26

KISS concept may work for some in particular field, but I do not believe it will work on the developmental class rule of sailboat design such as the Footys.
The different designs are encouraged within its own framework of the Footy class rule.

Developemental box class rule can not be idiot proof in nature. Rather it can be very complicated for the novices. You can see this by looking into the Footy class rule.
The original rule in itself is very simple, and seems to indicate an offering to accept the various design concepts.
However, once you start viewing the clarifications and interpretations documents, you will start to notice confinement. It seems to contradict the original class rule, and it would starts to confine the rule with more restrictions.

So, the terminology “SIMPLE” in the interpretations of class rule can have a dual meaning in completely different sense. Simple to some, may be considered complicated to others, and it can be considered suffocating to some.

None of such rules will satisfy the craving needs of so-called “ALL” people.
It will only be attractive for “SOME” groups of people.

Therefore, what you considers the golden rule of thumb for so-called “ALL” people can not be achieved by such class rule.

Rule are meant to be broken, and the Footy Class Association will too.
Look into the “Charter” document amended by a ballot of registered owners on 24th February 2007. Section 5 indicate the “Rule Changes.”
Imagine, a large number of groups of people with intention to change the current Footy class rule, would enter as the official registered members in the class. They can propose, vote and change the class rules to meet the requirement by the majority votes of the registered members.
In such case, some people will find the playing field unattractive, and will depart for sure. And vice versa. Such organization has the potential to be upturned by the masses. It is vulnerable to attacks by the registered members. No class rule freeze for certain period is indicated in the Footy Class for now.

The BMax 153mm rule can be upturned by the votes of the masses, if proposed. Therefore the debate on Multi-hull becoming less attractive than the Mono-hull is irrelevant, once again.

Finding your class to suit your needs, is probably the utmost importance for some.
Finding the inner peace within you, and enjoy sailing.:slight_smile:

27

This is an AMYA document, not produced by the FCA. We bear no responsibility for it whatsoever.

This is an example of the difficulties between ‘international Class’ and ‘International Class’. I would point out, however, that English does not generally like lower case acronyms and that, although published the document is essentially for internal class use - i.e. registered users. I doubt if the author ever conceived of its being read by someone who was not fully aware that the Footy is not an International Class in the ISAF sense of the word.

28

As noted in a previous post -

I am just surprised by the lack/failure/you call it from ISAF-RSD to catch this. They certainly didn’t waste any time correcting us (F-48) when we tried to convey the class of boats was truly international. (USA, UK, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Italy, France, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan - at the time)

With this boat size located across 12 countries (not eight) the point was made that they “first” had to be recognized by each county’s national authority. So here in the states, it required a minimum of twenty (20) registered members (not boats)! I didn’t spend any time trying to determine membership and class recognition requirements for the other countries on the list.

Personally, I have little concern of what ISAF (and it’s RSD) “wants” to tell us to do, nor do I subscribe to the word “international” being of restricted ownership/use. As I recall, one adventurous owner referred to the class as a “World” class, and even the words “intergalatic” has crept in, although somewhat tongue in cheek, I think. My personal views on this do not sit well with some, so will leave the “rant” for another day.

I just thought it odd, that one type of boat would be singled out while another class has received little attention. It was a personal question since I had undergone the scrutiny less than 7 years ago and thought perhaps someone had some “pull” within ISAF-RSD.

A personal thought: Do you suppose it’s the number of hulls that determined the desired oversight? :rolleyes: Some folks get concerned when a boat has more than 1 hull, you know!

Anyway - it really doesn’t matter, and the name “international” whether spelled with a capital “I” or a small one still identifies the class is by nature, found in more than one or two countries. Perhaps we could agree to simply call it the ICFCA (Inter Continental Footy Class Association.)

:devil3: … or not :wink:

29

One more question.
While reading posts in this thread, one thing became unclear to me.
Does the rule allow stern hunged rudders (not two, just one), or is it permitted only to boats built prior to certain date?

30

No problem. Transom hung rudders ARE allowed - one at a time!

A.

31

What about dual rudder blades mounted to the same steering gear - like biplane wings?

I know they wouldn’t both fit through the rudder slot in the box, but I wonder how the boat would steer with it in on there.

thx