Nigel venting is good for the soul. I hope no one thinks im putting down the High tech experts that was not my intent.
I was reading about the m class in this last issue on page 17 about the 3,000 dollar cost to be competitive. I would really hate to see a similar fate for the footy. I think it will eventually be decided by the minuim weight to tack. So maybe we should wait on drastic decisions to see what plays out.
Maybe someday if I keep mucking about I’ll finally built a goodone too.
Oh I forgot to say Im glad the M class has surived and Ill keep reading to see how they did it. I know every little about the M.
Just barely. For all the discussion, they couldn’t hold a Nationals last year for lack of interest.
Nigel, my comments on ‘High Tech’ are not a knock at guys like you or Brett or Andrew,who have gone to a lot of trouble to develop the skills to build high quality boats for the rest of us. Unfortunately lightweight, beautifully built hulls are just the beginning. If we go for lightweight batteries, it follows that we’ll need lightweight 2.4Ghz receivers and 2.4Ghz radios, about a $250.00 min investment. A long way from the $40.00 cost of the AM receivers and radios many of us use. I am not alone in using lighthtweight servos, carbon spars and mylar sails, some boats are sporting carbon fins and rudders. I hope that this will not end up as the way we HAVE to go to stay competitive. I build my boats that way because as a novice I need any edge I can get, but it would be pleasant to think that the offerings like ‘Ant’ and ‘Harpy’ and Bill’s balsa chine hulls will continue to prove that simple boats can to win races if sailed well.
Just to all who think I was directing words at them, I was not.
I know that your’all words were not directly aimed at certain individuals either.
Just trying to help keep this open class thing rolling, to encourage creativity among those who are all, continuing to improve their craft (pun intended)
As for batteries; from all the builders, at all levels that I’ve seen on these boards, I really don’t think what the batteries weigh, is a hinderance to any one’s builds.
The newer type batteries would be cool for racing though…
MORE BALLAST BABY! :devil3:
I just had a “horrible” thought!!
The “UNLIMITED CLASS”!!!
The only class rule is that there shall be no human or other sentient being aboard.
No need for radios, with the new 1000 channel controllers using the Graviton band, and batteries are totally unnescessary with the new Matter-Antimatter Fueled Power-Generating Microreactors.
Only 50 years development lead time and absolutely unlimited money needed!
A modest proposal— to quote somebody I don’t even remember.
Rod
Paul - I agree with ALMOST everything you have to say BUT.
I am using a 7 g 40 MHz receiver in Moonshadow. Can’t remember the cost but it was totally pain free, say $20 US. The transmitter is fairly exotic with synthesised frequencies, but hat is purely a function of running an MYC and wanting to give maximum flexibility for guests. Carbon (if useful) is expensive at, say, $60 /sq. m - but that does buy you an awful lot of fins (perhaps not a lifetime supply, but getting on that way).
Everyone has different views of life: last year when I was thinking of going going to Sheboygan, Apex, Daytona or all six, you very kindly gave me advice on car hire . On investigation, the vehicle proved to be hugely upmarket on anythng I would ever contemplated hiring at home.
As I see the average enthusiastic UK Footy owner, he is 40+ with teenage kids, but the boat is mainly his hobby. He has some sort of middle-ranking technical job and can steal some facilities from work. He is not rich, but any Footy yet known (where did the rumour of the $2000 Footy come from) is cheaper by far than going to the pub. He enjoys ‘high-tech whittling’.
I also suspect that Graham is right - that because of the general characteristics of Footys, the boat (apart from its sails) is much less important to whether you win than how you set it up and how you sail it.
Here are a couple of things that occurred to me.
One is that at any given race you can run a class for “unlimited” footys, with whatever batteries you like.
I am willing to bet that most of the time the guys who place well in the unlimited class will also do well in the four AA cell class.
Second, you could run claiming races, where anyone can claim any entrant for the announced price. That should keep everything on an even keel (so to speak) as far as investment of either cash or superlative craftsmanship. Nobody ain’t gonna run no $2000 footy in no $200 claiming race nohow.
The weird part would be running different classes and claiming amounts when only five people show up to race!
For myself, I love sailing and fooling around with ideas, but serious competition leaves me cold. Or at best maybe luke warm.
Pete
Angus, we are pretty much on the same page, like Graham I suspect that the skilled R/C sailor will do well regardless of boat, unless we see some kind of quantum jump in design technology, maybe Brett’s new designs will change the world. Footy’s seem pretty much self limiting in terms of max speed up and down wind, though the skinny boats should be quicker down. I am too cheap to spend $15 for throwaway lithiums for the gain of 20gms over my NiMh rechargeables, If we were to go for a battery rule change I wouldn’t go off to a far corner of the pond with my AA powered boat and sulk, and I do put carbn reinforcement in my fins to keep them stiff. I would, however, object to a rule change for it’s own sake. Convince me that there’s a significant gain in a rule change, I’ll go for it. I’m much more fired up about relaxing the B rig rule, in favour of a two or three rig selection per regatta. But all in good time. Back to sailmaking, new light air rigs on the cutting table.
This designer agrees entirely Paul. As I see it there are two great challenges in the Footy class, the box and the battery size/weight. I want that challenge. I know first hand that the designer of Moonshadow (Angus) also relished that challenge and I strongly suspect that the builder (Brett) enjoyed it too. If he did not wouldn’t he have been on here saying “it’s too hard, I want to change the battery rule”? I think I can safely say that for the forseeable future the most common, prolific, popular battery package there is, the AA is not going anywhere. When it does we will act like all of the other classes, which may not require it but do rely on it.
Last year was a great one in that we finally saw fleet racing for real. You know what was obvious? The rules work. We saw glass boats, carbon boats, vac-form boats, ply boats, balsa boats all racing together and all with a fighting chance. Tamper with that at your peril!
The Great Egg Race?.. oh yes, so many of us grew up with that and I think what it taught us is very much to the point here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Egg_Race
Graham
I just don’t follow the logic of endorsing a rule that requires carrying extra weight in the hull that would improve righting moment and upwind performance if moved to the bulb, and in the same breath lobby for more sail size choices so that his tender boat can handle different weights of wind.
Ideally I would like to see both of these ideas incorporated in the rule, but I think that there will be more of a performance gain by eliminating the 4 AA battery specification and that should be a priority.
Freezing the Footy class in place with a restriction on power source type (which is unique to this class) ensures that there will be no “quantum jumps in design technology” in the class, as there were in the long lineage of the M Class. That may be fine for those who are stuck in the mud and like to keep things the same for their comfort sake, but that is a sure way to kill the energy of the class. This class is open to development but is at risk for the very same reasons that the 36/600 class has been declining. At a certain point the attraction to the Footy class will decline as the more progressive designers go to the next exciting class to develop their ideas. Not being able to incorporate new power sources into the mix will eventually define the Footy only in its squat, stout profile and limit its appeal and the intellectual input and energy that the class has benefitted from so far.
I find that the concept of the Footy as a beginner boat or a gateway into model yachting is counterproductive to the health of the class. It defines the class as a short term, low-cost stepping stone for the more serious “real” classes. This attitude is not unlike the condescending attitude the sit-on boat sailors generally express toward model sailors.
I have sailed in many other classes, and I see a lot of potential in this one. Unleashing that potential should start with having the power source provide the power and not act as “corrector” weights inside the hull.
I have “googled around” looking for reference to powerboats banning lipos.
I havn’t found any,only new classes developed especially for Li po.
Seems to me there are thousands of model boaters using Li po cells
Personally it doesn’t bother me if we have battery rules or not.I will play regardless.
I also agree with Niel that this class has vast potential.
I also note that removing battery restrictions will help “pro level” builders acheive lighter weights.
I do not know if lighter overall weights are benificial…though I do know that higher ballast ratios are.
I am totally against any minimum weight rule…another mearsurment nessasary and a further enhancment to the “pro level” builder by way of superior ballast ratio.(when we all scramble to build to the minimumm)
All that said…I can see both sides and will continue to play whatever happens.
A few minutes Googling…
This newsletter of a UK club would suggest that there has now been a compromise made.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gRAHC2Moc8UJ:www.bridmodelboats.co.uk/minutes/Oct07.doc+MPBA+Lipoly&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
This is a thread dealing with concerns etc. and mentioning the ‘ban’.
http://www.astecmodels.co.uk/bb3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=311
Note on page 3 the following…
“Today I was in my local model shop talking to the owners son who is one of Englands RC car racing B team. He says the British Model Racing car Association has banned Li- Poly’s and does not see any change of the policy on the horizon.”
AMYA just gives a warning currently…
http://www.modelyacht.org/lithiumbattery.html
I think that even if we could use LiPo’s I would not use them. I prefer to lose races not property and possibly lives.
Of course this is from someone who has never actually won a race YET.
Could we PLEASE have touch of science and with it calm.
There are about a dozen families of Lithium cells, some primary, some secondary (look it up)
Of these: two types have the possibility of thermal runaway - hence damage, fire or possible ignition.
These are the Lithium Polymer (LIPo) - which are in every mobile phone (cellphone to our American brothers) and the Lithium Ion cell (which is in every laptop and most cameras)
Both of these has had thermal problems in these uses - see the recent recall of some hundreds of thousands of laptop computers.
So far as I know no other type of lithium cell is capable of harm. The Saphion cell has been developed specifically to avoid any possible danger from use, abuse, piercing or numpty owners, and is the li-ion cell in the segway scoot and modified Prius’s .
Most specifically and certainly the primary lithium battery (not rechargable) has none of these dangers - READ the DATA SHEETS.
I have used Lipo cells for more than 10 years, and Li-ion since they became common in laptops. I will continue to use them.
I do not expect to use them in public for Footys, and would not recommend them for the type of ownership of the Footy fleet, actual or intended.
If I can help with calm advice, I will.
Andrew Halstead
I will add one point to Andrew’s well thought post
Here I go with logic again - and primarily to try to assure this battery issue doesn’t “leak” over to other classes without battery limitations in the near/distant future.
It has been documented that the MINI Class of Trans-Atlantic boats have used lithium (Ion - I believe) since 2006.
It would seem (here comes my logic) that if one were to treat these batteries on-board, no differently than the r/c radio receivers (epoxy coated, stuck to bottom of deck, inserted into a rubber balloon, etc.) they should be perfectly safe. As far as issues with charging the batteries to explosion status - that seems to be a personal issue - and not a lot different than driving to the regatta site and hitting the proverbial school bus with the car, drinking epoxy thinner (acetone), gluing fingers with CA glue or suffering an epoxy or polyester resin rash. Charging a battery should be done witht he same amount of care as anything else that has potential for health or fire or explosion.
We don’t use nitro fuel to power our boats, nor do they go fast enough to hit a spectator on shore. Also they don’t "fall out of the sky and hit someone. Would seem charging our batteris could be done safely too.
My opinion only.
If the object of this discusson is to protect other classes from Footy heresy on batteries, may I suggest that it is better conducted in fora dedicated to those boats. Why for example not in the Unresricted (Other than In Numbers) Multi-Hull Forum?
Otherwise we shall be playing the same game as usual. I hear the squawking of the first sea lawyer of spring outside my window. Matters will be honed down to the essential matter of the ambiguity of Rule A 12 © .2 if the battery concerned is paid for in a mixture of Polish Zlotys and Martian bburtyzzhdninchoi but the contract for sale was not subject to the tax rules of the Fourth Protocol of the Treaty of Aldebaran.
And then you will hear current and prospective Footy sailors tiptoing sadly away, and away, and away, convinced that Footy people are disputateous rule-obsessed bores. This is a pity realy, because in reality every one I’ve met (apart from Graham, who’s just unspeakably smug 'cos he’s mananged it) is obsessed with how to keep the water out and what time the pub opens.
Wecome back Bob - and please return to the fold, the rest of you who have gone - the hews, the mechdocs, the dougs. It was you who represented the true heart of Footydom.
PS. This is not getting at you in any way Neil. I’m pretty sure that people can tell people with a genuine interest and an active involvement in the class from ones who are ‘just telling us for our own good’!
Angus -
I believe (at risk of accusation of false facts here) but it was within this forum that several National bodies were identified as possibly acting to ban certain batteries. I have no idea whether fact or fiction - perhaps you are in a better position to advise. I only point out that if the Russian and U.K. national authorities are considering this, how long before it migrates to other nations or other classes?
That is the point I was making.
As for having this discussion in the multihull sections, the class itself allows any type of battery and radio gear. I would offer you the opportunity to compare our development rules with any other class identified as developmental, and would pretty much guess the F-48 Class has fewer restrictions than any of them. In fact. that is precisely why the rule writers broke from the existing Mini40 rules. We owners also created an F-48 Class Owners Association (COA), rather than being an AMYA Class.
If you can verify that there is NO ATTEMPT being made by national authorities to ban these batteries, not only myself, but a lot of other class secretaries might welcome the information - and I would be most happy to attribute the reported information to you. And - because I sail boats in other classes, yes, it is important to me on a personal level. Unfortunately it happened this topic was broached in your Footy column, not in our multihull forum. Regardless of where it originated, it is of importance to all r/c sailors if something like this is happening and not being discussed, regardless of the size of boat.
So it is open to you to broach the matter in your multihull column. It might get some readers, if it is so important. ‘Come Tri and See if U Cat Sell Battery Freedom on Your Proa’ [Typo DELIBERATE FOR ONCE].
Exactly Andrew, all along I had assumed that the readers knew the difference between a LiPoly and a primary Lithuim non-rechargeable cell. The references I listed (quite calmly) above all refer to rechargeable LiPoly cells.