Here are some photos from my vacation in upstate New York. My friend Herman Estevez traveled up to do some match racing in the rough stuff. With the recent reports of gear failure or inadequate tape mishaps I thought that some proof that short boats can thrive in heavy air and seas was in order.
Actually my interest in foot long boats originated with my desire to sail on the lake by my family’s house in the Adirondack Mountains. The lake is too rough for my M class boats or my 36/600’s, they just get pounded by the short wavelengths the lake throws at them when it blows. The Bantams sail between and over those waves so I have no reservation about mixing it up in the chop. These conditions are also why I chose to incorporate the 7-5/8ths maximum beam for the Bantam. These boats predate the box-rule and are grandfathered, meaning that no one else can make a similar design with extreme beam. I still think that this line of inquiry is worth investigating further and was ruled out before anybody had any real experience with what criteria should define a Footy.
I enjoy sailing them and I think even with their wide bodies they are photogenic.
I have sailed my AFs at Lake Ronkonkoma in conditions I wouldn’t sail my Marblehead and would like to try them out against the Bantams at Eisenhower!
Scott
Although the deck beam is wide, the waterline beam is in line with most of the hard chine Footies out there. Look over this photo and see that #84 is sailing away from us. This stern view of #84 shows that her body shape is made up of arcs, and there is a great deal of overhang in her freeboard. The wide deck beam was to test if form stability could be an influencing factor in making a foot long boat controllable in the strong winds at the lake. I think that these photos illustrate their seaworthiness. Aesthetically I don’t think that the wide deck makes them unattractive.