Thinking outside the Box No.1

You all know me for having some zaney ideas, so I thought it was high time I brought you another!

We all thought that the two rig rule was crazy ~ however if you think laterally…

Rig no1. an Una rig storm sail with a s/s wishbone

Rig no2. a Sprit rig with a s/s wishbone to hold up the top corner

Rig no1 + 2. A Sprit/Una topsail!

I took this to the Nationals so Roger Stollery could see it and he has hapilly given his sanction as Technical Footy Guru for its use!!!

His comments were ~ “nothing wrong with that”

So things are not as bad as you may have first thought!
Some carefull planning can give you a wide variation of sail size to cope with various wind conditions.

You sail box may have 4 or 5 sails but it gives you lots of choice!

This is just an idea ~ however it is a workable one that will give you a wider variation so as to cope with the two rig rule and a variation in conditions that you may have not previously been able to cope with.

I do hope this helps you

If I follow your line of thought correctly, there is nothing in the “two rig” rule which states that you cannot use both the A and the B rigs at the same time.
I would interpret this to mean that (in an arrangement somewhat different from yours) that one sloop rig could be mounted on top of another with a modified gaff, with the upper rig attached only to the top of the lower rig, so increasing the total sail area for very light winds.

Rod ~ spot on

The lengths that you gents will go to beat the two rig rule just proves that it is a useless limitation in the first place!

If this configuration is “legal” it renders the justification for the original idea a moot point. Having a ridiculously short rig limit the size of the “A” rig because the jump between the two has to cover all the wind strengths between becalmed and a bloody gale was the original concept but here in the US we’ve pretty much chucked it because we don’t get gales. Thus it was never a universally practical rule in the first place.

If you wanted a more conventional approach to rule beating then the original Moonshadow double mast set up would provide you with the same three configurations. A large, tall “main” rig and a 12" storm sail together for light winds. The large, tall rig alone in a different position for moderate conditions. And, the small 12" rig alone for strong winds.

A better idea is just to scrap this rule outright and avoid any grumbling from the more scrupulous among us.

I`m with you Niel. “Scrap the Two Rig Rule”
[SIZE=2][COLOR=Black]All power to Andy for his “off the wall” solution but frankly what a lot of fuss just to have a simple solution to a simple challenge. :scared::devil3:


The wording of the question on the ballot is being worked on (finally) now. I - ever the optimist - expect a ballot within a couple of weeks.

I’m sorry folks it has taken infinitely longer than I would have thought possible: there are some very sincere people in the class organisation. However, I think and hope that we are about to roll.


Andy, just looking again at your first post in this thread, I’m not sure what question you asked Roger, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t hear what you thought you said.

It is my view - and quite certainly Roger’s, since I discussed the matter with him at some length during the last rule change process - that a rig consists of a SET of sails, spars, etc. Add a sail, or spar and you have a different set - as any top grade mathematician or Nigel Molesworth knows.

Therefore this ‘monstrous arrangement’ (sorry, I can’t think of a better word for it :zbeer: ) does not achieve the flexibility you would like. I think A for effort and probably about Z - for actual performance.

But keep thinking.

While I am whittering on, I should remind people that Roger S acting on his own has no particular authority (any more than do I, Bill Hagerup or Mr. Bill’s Dog) to interpret the rule. He is a member of the technical team of the committee and is the committee, not the individuals on it, who make the decisions.

Obviously Roger is tremendously knowledgeable and one of the foremost exponents of the rule. It would be very foolish not to take notice of what he said. But if something really matters, please do take it up formally with the committee - initially through your national registrar.

I do not say this to make the process any more bureaucratic than it needs to be. It’s just that I don’t want someone turning up at an event saying 'Roger Stollerey / Bill Hagerup / Mr. Bill’s Dog said … ’ and having a row with race organisers who may (quite legitimately) disagree.



Sooner we scrap the rule the better
Then I will not have to come up with these silly ideas
(its fun really ~ especially reeling the line in ~ chuckle)

With the greatest respect Andy…Please be careful what you wish for!!

What’s next, Andy? A radio-controlled telescoping mast with self-reefing sail?

:wink: :smiley: :devil3:

Tom - I don’t think that Andy needs any assistance in the over-the-top concept department. He is doing quite well all on his own.


Following-on from your " be careful what you wish for" comment, could you just put us all in the picture as to what you see as the downsides to having no rig size/quantity rule at all ? I accept that whatever rigs used must be able to swing when the hull is in “The Box”



Great question Firstfooty!

Nobody knows how the boats will typeform if all rig restrictions are removed,even those of us who have studied these boats for more than a decade now.

What we do now though is that what we have now seems to have worked resonably well…the class is growing,the boats seem to be of a resonable “type” all seems pretty much what we might have wanted.

If the rules are changed…what will happen,what “type” of boat will we end up with?? the answer is we don’t know,and those that say they do in all reality do not.Rules have a habit of throwing up unexpected solutions as the sailors find ways to extract the most from the rules.
hence…“be careful what you wish for”…you might just get it and won’t like it further down the track,spelling the death of the class.I don’t belive the rule to be ideal as it is now, but I belive we should tread very carefully in the direction of less restriction.

Up to now in his thread I’ve been trying to explain the rationale behind the 2-rig rule - or more specifically the 305 mm 2-rig rule. My personal views are rather different.

I think we must change. The fundamental reason is not whether Footys in general are undercanvassed or overcanvassed in NYC, NW2 or 45 S. As Neil rightly says, all IOMs are equally underpowered. The real problem is that a lot of highly experienced and intelligent people of the calibre of Richard Alford and Bill Hagerup have problems with the risk of travelling a long way to a meeting and then blowing a whole day (or weekend or week) of racing by a single ill-considered choice of sail in the first race. Bill grinds his teeth, Richard dores not travel far.

Please note here: Roger Stollery puts a moralistic slant on it by saying that the peson who goes for an excessively large rig in the hope that it will never be overpowered is ‘greedy’. Maybe. The reverse is also true. An event may start in a lot of wind, which moderates quickly and more than expected. We may make an excessively conservative choice and get burnt that way.

First Footy’s point about not being prepared to learn about meterology struck me initially as odd: First Footy is a methodical and studious man. It then dawned on me that model yacht races are of such duration that no macro-meteorological change that is not predictable by with the naked eye by an umbrella-carrying commuter on the 5:15 to Esher is of the slightest relevance within them. Hmmm!

So at the end of the day, the choice is social, not technical. It is up to the technicians/engineers/rule makers to give the paying public what they want. And what they seem to want is a greater assurance that one wrong decision will not put them right down the pan for the whole regatta.

I think that we should go with the general philosophy of the class that it is an open, development class - and derestrict everything. However, all such highfalutin mission statements have to be taken with at least one grain of salt - so we should be prepared to cap or control developments that go i a direction that we do not like.

Here note very carefully the word ‘like’. Let me set out the history of three rules, one very unsuccessful, two very successful indeed.

The unsuccessful one was the International Offshore Rule (IOR). It was introduced in 1970 to produce a world rule for offshore racing boats. It was a reasonably happy merger between the Royal Ocean Racing Club (RORC) rule for hulls and the Cruising Club of America (CCA) rule on rigs and structural weight/stability. It was actually quite a good rule and would have been with us yet had it been better managed. As it was, it’s central drive became ‘maintaining the value of the existing fleet’. The result was that repeated detailed ‘tweaks’ expanded the rule to something like 60 printed pages of mathematics (including the appe3ndics measurer’s instruction’s etc) with I guess 250-300 mathematical variables. It also ended up producing boats that were expensive, ugly, dangerous, not very fast for their size, not very nice to sail and with a huge rate of fashionable, if not real, obsolescence.
Score: Rule Architects : 7.5 / 10
Ruke Managers : 0.5 /10

The International 12 m rule formulated in 1910 (I think) was unashamedly a type producing rule based on a mathematical formula. The high poi8nt of he 12m was the America’s Cup in Fremantle in 1987 when Denis Connor’s Stars & Stipes narrowly beat the Kiwi Plastic Fantastics. Over the intervening 80-odd years relatively few changes were made to the rule. Those that were were almost all directed - vigorously and appropriately - at preserving the type. The result is that the 12 metres of 1987 bore a quite evident resemblance to the first boats before the First World War and were perfectly healthy examles of their kind, if you accepted Amnerica’s Cup budgets, which were hardly the rule makers’ fault.

Score Rule Arthitects 9.0 / 10
Rule Managers 8.5 / 10

The third rule was the Swedish 30 sq. metre This started life in about 1910 as well as a rather bumbliong little ‘poor man’s cruiser racer’, The major restriction was on sail area (hence 30 sq. m) and the intended result was a moderate boat with a waterline lengty of around 24 feet and an overall length of around 28. They were frankly worthy but boring and would be a footnote to a footnote - except that …

Sometime after WW 1 some bright spark realised that, because length was not controlled at all (so far asx I can remember) and there was not a lot of controil on displacement if you built the thing properly you could have a light weather flyer (short waterline length, low wetted surface) that had quite electric performance if it blew hard (huge overhangs). Over the next 10 years the boats grew longer and lighter - lighter by typically around a ton and longer by as much as 20 feet +/- - all controlled by what you could get out of 30 M sq of sail. In what has to have been one of the most courageous rule management decisions of all time, the rule makes just let it happen. The new boats were not what was intended, but they were the fastest, funnest and most affordable sailing machines on the planet. Pick up the ball and run like buggery. For a fully developed 30 squae, see

Score: Rule architects 3.0 / 10
Rule Manager 11.0/10.0 !

The result is that the IOR is dead, the 12 metre (abandoned by the America’s Cup) is moribund. New 30 sqares are still being built almost a hundreed years after the rule was first formulated.

See what I mean?