I’m trying to think laterally for a new Footy design and yet keep within the spirit of the rules!
I’m wondering if this idea would be seen as legal?
I’m imagining a boat designed on the ‘angled vertically’ concept such as Blue Sky. If such a boat was Yawl rigged (ie with a small mizzen mast placed far aft) the mizzen mast, sail and boom would protrude from the rubdder/bumkin slot. Designed correctly the boom would be free to pivot as the whole lot would be outside the box. I’ve attached a simple picture to illustrate. Obviously a bumpkin would also be neccessary for sheeting.
The reasons for doing this would be to bring the rig CE back and lower the overall aspect of the rig. The cost would be lower efficiency, increased weight and complexity and tuning issues.
I understand that this idea might be controversial… but is there anything that I’ve missed in the rules that would prohibit it? Also is there any reason why a two masted design might be illegal?
As far as I can see the rules governing rigs in this situation seem to be about free movement rather than where the rig is placed.
aside from the legality, the question is, does moving the Center of area of the whole rig aft make sense if you’re going to have to move the center of the keel fin even farther aft? I’ve found in my own experience that balancing the Center of area a bit ahead of the center of the fin (not aft) compensates for the tendency to head into the wind when the boat tips. In other words the whole boat needs to be correctly balanced. would it be harder to steer with the keel aft? I’d say do it anyway and find out.
Yeah, thats a good point. I think you’re right about the overall placement of CE. The reason I was thinking of a mizzen sail was to overcome the rig constraints of the box on an angled boat. One way to get unrestricted movement is to move the main sail way forward - too far forward for normal CE/CLR balance. The mizzen would be a way of bringing the CE aft to it’s proper position but still ahead of the CLR. There might be a slight benefit by reducing the overall aspect ratio of the rig but really it would be about tuning the position of CE.
I was wondering if the idea would be ‘legal’ or a stretch too far. I think the ‘developement’ aspect of this class is great and has really got me thinking laterally. I have no vested interest in the legality of this idea, the success of my design doesn’t depend on it yet, but I’m interested to know what people think. I understand that many don’t really support the idea of unorthodox placement in the box, for me it’s only one aspect of the class. I also have intentions to design a standard placement Footy and even ‘scale’ Footy at some point. I’m new to the class and I think the diversity of approach is something truly valuable and rare. Can you imagine someone designing a ‘scale’ IOM and turning up to race!? I’ve really enjoyed the freshness of the thinking here and it’s been invigorating for me as an interested amateur!
I like your creative thinking, Little Rascal, but I’m afraid I’d call that illegal. B4 specifies that only bumpkin and rudder can go there
B.4 The following may project aft of the measurement box: bumpkin, rudder.
Nothing wrong with two masts, though, as long as they project above the box. Angus did that with his Akela a few years ago, built by Kevin Jackson…If memory serves me right. There’s probably some pics around somewhere.
Keep thinking…you just might come up with something world-beating!
I found some pics of Akela after I posted the thread - it sounds like she wasn’t an unmitigated success though. Why was that? Moonshadow is obviously impressive. Was it the design or the build of the hull or the rig or what?
