Barrett - the point is not that they were Yankees or anything else -merely that they promised never to reveal who drew the lines of Ranger - before she was built. Of course one might say that Olin later proved himself to be a Yankee by welching on the deal!! :devil3:
Angus, your suggestion of a competition between light and heavy Footy’s sounds interesting, though using the Liverpool regatta as the venue could be a little bit loaded, a bit like the US setup of the early America’s Cup defences. Multiple defenders against a lone challenger, though at least the boat doesn’t heve to sail across ‘on it’s own bottom’. Of course as the initial defender of the ‘Designers Cup’ you have the right to set conditions, but wouldn’t match racing be a better format, spread over a number of days to ensure that wind conditions don’t favour one boat. We have several US Footy events planned before then, so it wouldn’t be hard to set up a ‘challenger elimination series’ over here. I would be interested in getting involved in the process though doubt that I have the skills to produce a worthy challenger, If I did it would mean shipping a boat over to the UK to be sailed by a surrogate, who would, without a doubt, be much more competent than I am. Sadly, despite your comments, flights to the UK are not cheap when you are on the wrong side of the currency exchange rates.
For the record, Stephens and Burgess each drew up three sets of lines for the 1937 Defender that eventually became Ranger. These carried internal shop numbers 77-A through 77-F. Of these, 77-C was clearly superior in tank testing and was chosen. The collaboration between Burgess and Stephens was so close that at the time the men agreed that they would not say who designed 77-C. 55 years after Burgess’ death, Stephens stated in print for the first time that 77-C was designed by Burgess. This statement is backed up by the nomenclature, 77-A to C Burgess, 77-D to F Stephens.
Cheers,
Earl
Muddauber - I wasn’t thinking of a single US challenger, the more the merrier. And by all means send a boat and find a UK ‘hired gun’. Since part of the point is the design symposium, you ought to come as well yourself.
On overall costs, I’m awfully sorry that GW has spent the last 8 years giving away about 25% of the net worth of the USA but there’s nothing I can doabout that. However, I can promise that once you have got off the aeroplane, you will not have much occasion to put your hand in your pocket.
When I started reading your e-mail, I thought you were going to say that, like the NYC we were familiar with our local ‘Long Island Sound’ or ‘Newport’. For a variety of reasons, the proposed venue is not currently used for medel yachting at all. I as the only remotely local Footy designer have no intention of designing a boat specifically for it. The lake is fairly well sheltered and in a slight hollow, so it probably represents a reasonable compromise between typical UK and typical USA conditions (insofar as either exists). http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=53.371245,-2.935753&spn=0.130276,0.240326&t=h&z=12&om=1&msid=113677077282091778067.000441c2f4d3b7ce2d4c8
Let’s be having you.
OK, I’m intrigued…or maybe it was the “Double Dog Dare Ya” that Angus threw our way.
So I’ll design a muscle Footy for your comp, Angus, and make every effort to get to Liverpool.
It’s not that I’m a proponent of wide or skinny…you may recall my first two boats were designed to test the differences in the two concepts. My latest boat has moderate beam. But my original MiniMe has proven itself in guise of the very similar American Footy, and I’ve learned a bit since then…so this should be fun.
What do you guys think would qualify as a “muscle Footy” displacement? I had in mind something like 550 grams, but I’ll defer to other reasonable ideas, depending on what you think would “prove” the difference.
Scott Spacie, want to collaborate on this? My hull, your rigs could be a good team.
Bill H
ok, time to drop a bomb. this is just too peaceful! :devil:
you brought this to mind bill when you mentioned “minime”… now, this has been suggested multiple times by people we don’t respect on this forum, and once or twice by people we do… (have i given enough clues yet? are you all on the edge of your seats!??)
i’d like to propose allowing multiple rudders. if for nothing else, for this challenge. it has been said previously that on a boat this size, multiple rudders would just be added drag… perhaps that is true… so why not allow them? if we are having a “wide vs. narrow” debate it seems a logical time to bring this up…
alright, go to gents!
Barrett, I don’t believe you did that! I fear this thread will now go off somewhere into outer space.
My preference is to work within the Footy rules. If we allow one variance, it opens the proverbial Pandora’s box.
Displacement??
Bill H
Bill, My current effort, “Brujo”, is targeting 500 grams overall. There are still some parts yet to be worked out so I can’t peg the exact ballast ratio yet. She does have a keel trunk though and part of the experiment is to test different keel fin areas, bulb shapes and ballast weights. So, she might sail best at 450 grams or 550, or somewhere in between.
I am also working out a swing rig of around 220 square inches. Thats roughly 40 square inches more than Scott Spacie’s McRig but 25 square inches less than Bantam’s top suit.
Does that qualify as muscle?
I would think so, Niel, but since Angus offered the challenge, I’d like to get his OK…what displacement he considers “muscle.”
Bill H
I agree Bill… naughty Barrett!
Thinking of displacement, if ‘John of Raleigh’ (Sherwood reference) has the weigh in results from the regatta handy that would give us a good snapshot of where the American camp currently stands.
As the water has frozen here I have gone into flip-flop mode re. beams and displacements. But happily I can safely stand in either camp due to my confused nationality :rolleyes:.
Graham Mc
Howdy folks,
Being an American, I figured I would offer to help out with the ‘Muscle Footy.’ Currently I have a couple of Footy’s on the drawing board, and I was wondering if there is a general consensus as to what the Muscle Footy is.
Is it wide? Is it heavy? Is it both?
If the point is sail carrying power, why not go with a full underwater volume? Attached is (should be) an idea for a relatively narrow but full hull with a deep knuckle that allows for keeping volume forward.
I’m happy to toss my ideas in but wondering what direction they should be tossed.
Thanks!
Graham
if that is your design, you fall in the “narrow” group… :devil:
the “muscle footy” seems to be, (by current description) wide, lightly built, heavy displacement, high ballast to disp. ration, large sail plan.
as for your design, it looks good… the key is to 1) makes sure it floats with all the required gear
and 2) sails well. (i.e. resists nose diving when running before the wind)
on a different note:
Gentlemen, i apologize… my suggestion would certainly open that blasted box again… i take back my request.:watching2 
i shall attempt to behave myself! 
on still another note: i don’t know that there ought to be any definition of “muscle” it seems sorta self explainatory… the antithesis of boats like moonshadow at least to my (often flawed) understanding… so to me, the “muscle” design brief simply states, “how much sail can you put on a 12” long boat, and still have it sail? i suppose we shall have to wait for the “defender” to weigh in on this one… grins
Ok Friar Pugwash,
I’ll dig up those weight measurements. They’re not terribly accurate though.
One comment about the “muscle Footy”, I don’t think displacement is the key feature. I think of wide hulls designed to maximize righting moment. Heavy displacement could be part of that but not necessarily. Let’s not let Angus tell us what defines the style.
I guess I’ll have to join in the fun and build my next idea. I don’t think I’ll get to Liverpool. If it sails well and someone would like to take it, great.
“Little John”
In footy terms my personal defintion of the 2 “types” is that the muscle type is 12 inches long and broadly fits into the box in the orthadox fashion.
The light displacment type is generally longer than 12 inches and fits inside the box diagonally…though this can still be confused by the fact that a heavy plank on edge type can go into the box diagonally also.
Since the issue is so cloudy and the designers all want to build fast boats defining the types probably won’t work…So lets forget about that and each build the fastest boat we can.
Before designing a boat I’d think most of us would want to consider three things —
a/ that the current rules will not change (for instance the AA battery rule stays in place)
b/ the NOR … what kind of course (2 or 3 bouys), and what venue on what date (weather?)
c/ match or fleet racing
It seems my tongue in cheek nomination of the Moonshadow syndicate as defenders of the Designers Cup has been picked up … soooo … how 'bout it Angus / Brett … do you guys want to write the NOR … ?
(if it were my druthers btw it would be two-can, match race elimination series … as for locale, there is no reason elimination events couldn’t be held wherever the boats are … though I do like the symposium idea)
In any event, the sooner the NOR is posted, the sooner challengers can start sharpening their pencils.
/T
i’m with ya there T.
One question for Bill H. In Raleigh during our night before tippling/nobbling session, there was mention of various items being up for (dare I say it) a rule change vote. In particular if the B rig restriction changed that might open up more possibilities for the heavier muscle Footy’s, Having said that the Colwyn Bay results suggest that a carefully chosen ‘standard’ rig will still work in a breeze on the ‘bigger’ boats.
I think it’s OK to say that the rule change ballot will be distributed soon. There are proposals regarding batteries and rigs. I’m sorry it’s taken so long to get the ballot together, but I had no idea (and I doubt that you guys do, either!) how difficult it would be to get everyone on the same page about how to do it, and then about the wording, etc. We’re really close now, though.
Bill H
Sorry Bill, didn’t mean to put you on the spot. Meanwhile my Mk III ‘muscle footy’ is framed up and about to be planked with foam.
humm, mine is still in the CAD program… maybe over the holiday…