+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Minnesota USA
    Posts
    3,809

    Default Re: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

    Only an opinion from a "development class" sailor - both big boats and small.


    The more rules you add, the more clarifications you need, and eventually the less development you have. Might add in that the more rules, the greater the desire to find a "loophole"!

    "Traditionally" (from my experience ) Length overall, mast height (or sail area - not necessarily the same) and number of radio channels allowed (for r/c racing) provides boats that really are open for development. Anyone of these could be picked apart and argued - but you need to keep going back to the basics.....

    1) Length Overall - this has been more than discussed for any handicap event, or development class. I'm sorry, but a 12" FOOTY is still a 12" FOOTY - whether it is in a box, laying on a table top, or floating in a box of water.

    2) Mast height - Not sure of intention of a maximimum "minimum" rig ???
    A boat as a mast height limit - you hang as much material on it in any configuration. If it's too windy, you hang a smaller amount of material. Everyone decides how much material to hang - and they maintain that mast height for entire race series. If you can reef your sail = bonus! (or you sail just like the ODOM Class - one rig, one sail set)

    2a) Sail Area - now you start having to get into (more) complicated measurements. Instead of a ruler to measure mast height, you now need a calculator and knowlege of geometry to figure out how much material is hanging up there in the air. The 2 Meter multihull class specifies a mast height - and they don't care how much sail area you have/use.

    3) Radio channels - self descriptive. Leaves the door open for ideas about mechanical trip wires, cams on one of the two servos, etc.


    As I recall ( and was involved in way back when) the battery rule seems to already have gone by the wayside. "THAT" discussion also generated a lot of heat and bad feelings.

    I'm sure that there will always be a statement .... "But what about ----?" if it's possible and doable, someone will try it. If it works - well, in my view that is "Development". If it doesn't work, someone will surely improve it - or ash-can it. It's kind of a self-policing effort. What works will be used, what doesn't won't and in the meantime, everyone can build to thier own ideas.

    Logically, there might be other specs to be considered - keel depth, weight (minimum or maximum) number of hulls, rotating masts, movable ballast, etc. All these do is remove one more area of development for the builder. If you "WANT" to control everything - then a one-design class like the Laser or ODOM might be a better choice.

    Again - a view from the outside when the class was first introduced as developments.

    Regards, Dick

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colwyn Bay, England
    Posts
    1,608
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

    The radio channels rule is now just waiting for someone to push it over. Hasn't anyone heard of computers. Someone who knows what he's doing ccan have dozens og functions over a single radio channel without any clever kludges.

    A.

    He who dares sometimes wins.
    He who doesn't always looses

    Footys GBR 26 Little Gull
    GBR 28 Dingo
    GBR 61 Merlin
    GBR 71 Akela
    GBR 77 Sun Dog
    GBR 171 Mandeln i gröten

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Minnesota USA
    Posts
    3,809

    Default Re: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

    The RG-65 class has withstood 30 years of home "tinkering" and it's 2 channel rule includes - "one channel to control rudder and one channel to control position of the sails".

    Some have considered mercury switches, mechanical arms off the rudder or sail servo, and even hanging weights to trigger other functions. They are all doable - but add weight and complexity. Therein lies the mission - how to add in a lot of whistles and bells and still be assured on the race course, in the middle of a tacking duel with your closest rival - what do you push/energize/turn-on/adjust/trim/pull/etc. and be assured it works?

    Since you guys are all playing within the FOOTY size boat, will added weight - or size of components really be valuable on the water?
    A rehtorical question.

    Angus, again as an "outsider" - I implore all to stop trying to legislate anything more than what is necessary. You will close one door, and simply open another. I was a national class association secretary from 1983 until 1995 and trust me - the thing I hated worst were letters that started with those words ...: "What about ...?"

    Arrrgh !

    You have a great idea and class and cannot begin to meet all of your members desires - nor can you read minds of ideas yet to be tried (or asked about) - like our F-48 class, let rules set for a minimum of five (5) years so everyone plays by them, and you build up some experience of what makes sense. Only then do you make change. A five year hiatus in rule changes lets the "tinker" type individual actually get his idea on the water to see if it works, and let's other members consider its worth.

    Again - just my view .... all at no charge.

  4. #14

    Default Re: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

    The Vintage Marblehead rules are, I think, about as good as you can get. The only things that can move under radio control are the main sheet, the jib sheet, and the rudder. You can do that with 50 channels if you want, but that's the only servomotion you get.

    Actually, the threat IMHO is not that somebody would add channels, but rather use a PIC to gin up a vane controlled automatic sheeting system such as Francis Reynolds used in the 1950s to win the first US R/C championship. Then all one does is steer. This approach was so successful that many early AMYA class rules specifically required that the sheeting had to be controlled by the skipper. As time passed, people forgot .... If I were of a malicious turn of mind, I'd show up at some IOM race with one, just to listen to the shouting :-)

    Cheers,

    Earl

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Minnesota USA
    Posts
    3,809

    Default Re: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

    Angus -

    just a follow-up ..... couldn't find it earlier today.......... but it brought a few laughs from the F48 COA when I ran it in one of our early 2000 newsletters.

    Enjoy - but seriously .................... !
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	F48LengthToon.jpg‎
Views:	220
Size:	49.0 KB
ID:	3729  

  6. #16

    Default Re: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

    Hello,

    Both Dick and Earl have just made the most sensible suggestions ever made since the "Footy" was invented.
    But, will they be listened to - - I think not !!.

    John.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colwyn Bay, England
    Posts
    1,608
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

    Dick, I agree with you totally. All I said was that the radio channel rule was up fo graps. I didn't say I thought the complexity was worth it. Even less did I say that anyone should try to stop it.

    It always strikes me that one of the saddest of the folies of middle-aged and elderly with no particula knowledge of the subject trying to out-guess or hamstring whizz-kid product designrs and engineers in the electronics industry.
    Last edited by Angus - DECEASED; 08-12-2009 at 03:50 PM.
    A.

    He who dares sometimes wins.
    He who doesn't always looses

    Footys GBR 26 Little Gull
    GBR 28 Dingo
    GBR 61 Merlin
    GBR 71 Akela
    GBR 77 Sun Dog
    GBR 171 Mandeln i gröten

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    297

    Default Re: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

    I always felt some amusement at the foibles of our age when I read about all the quarrels and arguments associated with the rules for the America's Cup, but now I am beginning to understand where it all came from. Please let us not do it all over again with the Footy class.
    As was pointed out in an earlier post, the "laws" of physics are the ultimate restriction upon the extremes, and the whole idea of the class is to promote ingenuity. The "box rule" may well be all that is needed for the class.
    If I get a chance to vote, I will be in favour of no rig restrictions.
    Incidentally, has anyone found Bill Shorney? Canada NEEDS him!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Whitby, Ontario, Canada (for now)
    Posts
    582

    Default Re: Ballot comment: Proposal 3b

    I just talked to Bill.

    He's OK. Sharks havn't got'em or anything.

    Word from him is, he's extreamly busy (as are all of us I'm sure). Job(s), regattas, builds, etc.


+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Ballot Comments
    By Niel in forum Ballot Comments
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 10:28 PM
  2. Rule Change Ballot
    By Angus - DECEASED in forum Ballot Comments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-11-2008, 07:20 PM
  3. no comment
    By wismerhell in forum The Local Pub
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-04-2005, 01:38 AM
  4. Another Modest Proposal--Pay Per Post
    By Roy Langbord in forum The Local Pub
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-22-2004, 01:49 PM
  5. Numerical Postings---Another Modest Proposal
    By Roy Langbord in forum The Local Pub
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-19-2004, 01:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts