Actually the thing that anoys me muost about the muscle footies is that they don’t do it properly. I have yet to see the first 480 g. bulb on a 600 g, boat - or even a hint of one.
Actually bulbs that size will be so physcally large, cumbersome and inclined to cause nose-diving that there will be a grea howl for Connectiut or Oshkosh or Okinawa to allow titanium or radium or miraculum bulbs. :devil3::devil3::zbeer:
Ta ever so, Angus. If you fancy a proper thin boat I have a solid balsa toothpick, 26" long and 1" wide. The displacement - lenght ratio is the same as the sail area- displacement ratio at 15.5 (by chance).
It has been sugested that this is too narrow, but I’m not sure.
It could be an interesting freesailing Footy at half the length and twice the beam but a lot less fun.
Given numbers like that, I hink I’ll just stick to Flying Fountain Pens. Anyone from across the pond prepared to take us on with Lumbering Stumpy Screwdrivers?
Come on Barrett, Neil:devil3::devil3:: I’m sure you can finagle the money from somewhere and there must be a nice bus shelter to sleep in somewhere. Ian has gone lighter, McCormack Richardson are going lighter. Let’s see a proper Muscle Footy with loads of ballast, not just an excuse for easy building. Start to do that and you MIGHT start to get results (remember the Ford GT40?).:zbeer::zbeer:
Angus my friend, you have no idea what is going on in the SMM skunkworks as we speak…
(turns and runs toward the shop to make sure his claims are true…)
suffice it to say that i plan on doing more than just “going lighter” as you say… when we are done here, it will be time to end this debate once and for all! :devil3:
you my friend, have yourself a challenge!
(i might also urge you to sometime have a look at my new boat, “Albatross” i think you might be pleasantly surprised at its dementions…
)
Some observations …
There is no clear orthodoxy in footydom re. this discussion and there aren’t race results to prove claims one way or another.
To the best of my knowledge (no offence intendend to anyone) there has been only 1 state of the art Footy built … she is the narrow bodied, Angus/Brett collaboration, Moonshadow … her design brief was well thought through and by all accounts she was equally well executed. I can’t comment on her race results.
Further, to the best of my knowledge, no fully beamed (6inchwide) footy has been built with the same ballast ratio and light displacement.
Some thoughts …
There is enough talent on this board to collaboratively write a design brief, draw a boat, build her, and race her.
Two “campaigns” with opposite design briefs (beamy vs narrow bodied) have already sorta defined themselves.
I’d think, a head to head “Designers Cup” sometime down the road could be a diversion worthy of a winter.
To that end, I’m curious if there is an appetite for a collaborative project that would result in a competitive state of the art wide-bodied-footy that could be put up against a Moonshadow style boat.
If so, starting with design thoughts would be a good first step. First thoughts out of my head are … "What does the design need to accomplish to be a success? Point well? Be a downwind flyer? Carry big horsepower?
Trevor
I’ve always been partial to downwind flyers. However, the emphasis is dependent on the type of race course used as a venue. The triangle/windward/leeward course (Gold Course or former Olympic course) is the standard in M Class racing and windward performance is the premium consideration here. A plain triangle de-emphasizes windward work to some degree. A slalom course from windsurfer competition makes a boat that reaches well the designated favorite.
As to boat types, ballast to overall displacement is more important a goal than to make a lightweight or heavy boat. I feel that many of the boats that are pushing the envelope toward lightness are doing so by sacrificing this ratio, reducing ballast and thereby reducing the ability to carry sail.
The general experience in serious model yacht racing (I am referring to IOM and M Class) is to carry the A rig (top suit) as long as the boat remains in control. Suiting down comes with it a drop in area and hence power. Since, as it stands, the Footy second suit is restricted to 12 inches tall boats that don’t have to suit down early in comparison to the fleet will be more competitive as the wind freshens.
Using light weight building techniques to construct an average weight footy increases the ballast ratio, improves tacking inertia over the light weight boats, and increases the amount of wind the boat can handle with its top suit, without adding to wetted area/surface drag associated with displacements over 600 grams.
That is the thrust of my “Brujo” design which will hit the water in the spring.
BlueSky certainly did this … she displaces 333 grams but ballast is only 125 … she works well in fluky summer winds but otherwise she’s just not stiff enough … current builds will be more careful but still only carry 175 in the bulb.
Are you suggesting that you can build up to 600 grams without adverse affects on surface drag … ? If not, where would you peg ideal discplacement? Or ballast ratio for that matter … 450 with a 2/3rds ratio? 600 with a 3/4 ratio?
the Moonshadow teams current design under development has displacment at 220g and a 50% ballast ratio.
I understand there is a possibility that proponents of lighter batteries may get there way…If this comes true then ballast ratio will increase dramatically.
Shall we attempt to draft “rules” for this challenge? or just go about every man designing speedsters to the best of his ability?
Welllll, given that an “Internet Course” already exists … they’d be easy rules to adopt; they suit a match race … and, given their headstart (220 grams Brett, my god!) maybe the MoonShadow “syndicate” would deign to act as “defender” … 
Barrett, I’m guessing I can guess, but where do you start on the discplacement, ballast ratio continuum … ?
we could certainly use the windward-leeward “sausage” from the internet course… that would certainly be easier, but, would it be a better test of the boats to sail a triangle course?
either way, i should go spend some time with freeship!
If we mean this, let’s get real. We have a number of potentialy quite talented design teams in here. The UK branch of the Footy Class Association is holding a ‘Euro Grand Prix’ (aka European Championship) in Liverpool in early July next year. The very cheap flights from NYC and Toronto to Liverpool John Lennon Airport have been temporarily discontinued but should be back soon. Fares across the Atlantic can be cheaper than those within North America.
I am pretty much committed to sending Moonshadow and a ‘hired gun’ to Sheboygan next May. We have other committed followers of the lightweight cause here. Why do you not all (Trevor, Neil, Barrett) all get yourselves on the Great Silver Bird and come to Liverpool. The Euro event is on a Saturday afternoon and Sunday (very cheap European internal airfares make this sensibe), but there is no reason why we cannot extend it for as long as we like. We could also swap between venues with different probable wind/wave patterns from day to day.
I am totally certain that we can accommodate a reasonable number of Canadian and American visitors in members’ homes, provide transport, etc. In the evenings we could run seminars, forums, collquia, symposia and any other posh classical word you want. The expense to you between leaving JFK/Toronto and getting off the plane again on your return should be pretty minimal.
This is a very serious proposal. As Neil correctly suggests, we do not really know how well Moonshadow sails. I am a lousy driver. In other hands she appears to be very fast indeed - but we don’t really know yet. Bringing together all the most ‘advanced’ ideas would have untold benefit in deciding where to go next and in making the Footy a truly world class.
Incidentally, before Barrett’s automatic reaction that his parents will never let him, the Euro Grand Prix is being run under the burgee of the (full size) Royal Dee Yacht Club. I am sure that we can find a ‘minder’ whose credentials all satisfy his people that he is in safe hands (I hardly think this is practically necessary, but parents are parents and do worry!).
that sounds a tempting challenge. however, any event during june, july, and early august are out for me. i am committed to camp counseling, and thus would have a hard time escaping half-way across the world… 
however, i shall do my darnedest to find a way to finally get an SMM boat into the public eye, and, at least, would love to send one of my boats across the pond with anyone who maybe headed that way come “inspection”…
Barrett! Yout committment to camp counseling (whatever that is) does you credit. However if you realy want to be a yacht designer, not a boat bum or even less some boring miniplultor of $$$ in NYC, you need to start getting a reputation now. If this thing happens, we will make sure it gets max publicity we can arrange i full-size and model press.
Hey! I want to be a boring manipulator of $$$'s in NYC!!!
Alright then Angus … Moonshadow “defends” the Designers’ Cup next June … who’s going to start the thread that determines the rules …
I agree with you Angus, but i have pretty much given my word in this case… sigh. next time. perhaps o can participate from afar… who knows, perhaps I will have to hold a regatta in the fall… (evil grin) regardless of my ability to be onsite during this round of fun and games, i am going to be as in the thick of it as i can… the wheels are turning, and design concepts are being kicked around… it may not have its designer to represent it, but there will be a Sparkman boat on the prowl come spring!
now, lets get some “guidelines” down for this challenge, so we don’t end up like old larry and ernesto!
oh, by the way, i have no plans to end up handling $$$ in NCY… i think perhaps i’ll end up in the middle of the southern ocean on a vendee boat…
We should use the Footy class rules…whatever they may be at the time of the event.
For the racing I assume there will be a competent RO in attendance already.
A simple NOR can be drafted …Sailing Instructions to follow.
Interestingly…Moonshadow has the highest ballast ratio yet documented for a Footy…its exceeds that Of an IOM and approaches the M class.I have refined the construction yet further since the build and can likely get close to 75% ratio.
No doubt this figure can be beaten by a “Muscle type” I have thought about it myself…but such a large hunk of lead that far down in the water whilst doing wonders for upwind ability really is detrimental to handling downwind.
The biggest weakness I see in most designs is downwind handling…crack that nut and you are onto a winner.I am trying to crack it with weight reduction whilst not compromising windward ability.I have built and sailed many footys over the past 10 years…all roads point to lighter displacment and the added benifit of a longer boat that comes with light displacment( I won’t explain that!! should be obvious to serious designers though).
If the rules stay pretty much as they are then this is the path I am taking…A shift in the rules no matter how slight it may seem can change all this in an instant however.
There are though some other promising design paths that need further investigation…I don’t have the time to develop all the promising ideas so have taken the ones which I feel have the biggest chance of success.
Thank you, Starling, There are some other considerations.
First, I have not attempted to do the esum, but I suspect that the hobbyhorsing behaviour of a real murcle Footy may be evil.
Second, the very high prismatic coefficient which gives Moonshadow good balance, pitch damping, wave penetration, etc. is very difficult to achieve in a super-heavy Footy that is vaguely boat shape.
p.p. Olin
starling and olin eh? you fellows make me smile! (the best part is that they were both yankees… where is your patriotism angus?)