New low-cost "hardware store" racing class; input on proposed rules

added to the rules; "each race must end with the same crew it starts with, and the same rigging, equipment and ballast; i.e. no ditching crew or equipment during a race". Seems obvious but I guess we have to anticipate everything someone might attempt.

As far as size rule, I want to have a simple box rule to keep all the entrants manageable, but the cost may be the only limit we need, except perhaps that it has to be roadable on a trailer.

 

------------------------
I think that requirement is already in the Racing Rules of Sailing-no point in duplicating?

 

You would have to disqualify water ballast or require it to be specially dyed to avoid dumping and reloading at end.

 

===================
I don't know ,Hoyt. Maybe somebody would deserve credit if they can make water ballast work at this size and cost range?

 

Good point. I'm just saying.

 

Actually I kind of like the idea. take on water ballast, or dump it, as conditions change. Interesting idea, I see no reason not to allow that. You are not taking on anything, or dumping anything, that did not come from the water, it was not from the land anyway.

 

==================
We hope.........sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

It would be easy enough with a bunged bait well and a bilge pump.

 

Use a portable tank. Once filled, the race comittee puts a cheap plastic zip-tie seal on the tank cap. No sneaky dumping and refilling.

 

I noodled some of the numbers, based on this proposed rule and came up with the following:

Hardware Store Racer

Min D/L=1.15
Min. Hf= 0.317
Max. likely SA= 168 sf S/D of 33.8
Min. likely SA= 84 sf S/D of 16.9
Most likely SA= 112 sf S/D of 22.5

I take it boomkins and bowsprits are out of the question, if they extend past the 14 ft Length limit.

These numbers are based on a total displacement of 700 lbs, 200 for the boat and 500 for the 'cargo' and crew.

To get the higher SA's, some kind of rectangular sail is going to have to be used. Maybe a Gaff and jib, a sprit sail and jib, or a single lug sail of some kind.

By not allowing a spinnaker of any kind and not allowing spars to extend past the 14 ft Length, presents the designers with some interesting conundrums. The race is now to come up with a good down wind rig, as well as a good upwind one. Spinnakers were a great dodge around this problem, another good reason for banning them.

The biggest problem would be to keep the boat from stuffing its bow on a high speed downwind run.

I can foresee a 4 ft wide mono with 18 inch hiking benches, or a catamaran with asymmetrical hulls.

I don't think hiking straps should be allowed because they give tall, trim, physically fit people an unfair advantage.

The full extent of the hiking bench is counted, where the full extent a tall trim person can hike out is not.

 

Sharpii,

Nice work. Interesting analysis, how do these numbers compare with a lazer, PD, 470 and other similar popular small sailboats? We might consider tweaking the size based on those numbers.

I was also thinking to make the hull length 14' bow to transom, and 16' overall including bowsprit and rudder and other appendages (allows builder to trade off boom length, sprit length, rudder location, etc) . It would be an inexpensive way to get more sail area and improve performance. What do you think? Would that change your numbers much?

 

No.

Limitations are good for designers. A boat without a bowsprit is less of a pain in the *** to trailer and has less set up work at the launch ramp.

OK, maybe a 16 ft over all length limit, not including the rudder, might be appropriate. That would allow a 2 ft bowsprit which is not that big of a deal.

I must confess a total lack of ignorance on other classes of racing dinghies.

Your proposal is unique in that it doesn't allow a spinnaker and it has a 'cargo' requirement. Both of these design requirements have considerable consequences. Good ones, IMHO. You will end up with something that's more like a real boat an less of a piece of sports equipment that can do only one thing well.

I've always hated spinnakers and thought they were just a dodge to make a primarily upwind rig shine, better than it deserves, downwind. Spinnakers also favor taller masts, creating what I consider another unfair advantage for taller rigs.

 

I have sailed both with and without spinnakers, and other than making nice photos, I do not find them very practical other than to keep the crew occupied during down wind runs.

That is why only racers use them, and consider that they were NEVER used on anything other than racing sailboats, and than only recently.

I love small sailboats, but those designed for just racing were no fun except in a race. Too much work, too complicated, and not practical for just day sailing. And way too expensive. My idea with this contest was to develop some low cost yet good performing practical sailboats. It might even revive the lost hobby of homebuilt sailboats.

 

I love spinnakers-particularly asymetric sails. I think they're beautiful and fun to sail with. Oh, well.......

 

Wow.....I know many people who use spinnakers for cruising. Even my mother used to use a spinnaker on the 36' cat she lived aboard, because she found that it made a real difference in her enjoyment when doing coastal passages - and it allowed her to make port in the daylight hours.

I think you'll find that the mass manufacturers of modern dinghies, even the ones aimed at leisure and resort use, normally make spinnakers an option because many people love them, especially when they make the difference between sliding along and getting up on the plane.

The UK and Australian development dinghy classes have of course spent years experimenting with spinnaker-less rigs, and that experience seems to indicate that there is little difference in rig (apart of course from the lack of a spinnaker!) between non-spin boats and comparable "kite" boats.

A case in point could be the traditional UK development dinghies. The Merlin Rocket rig is largely similar to that of the National 12 (which is roughly similar in heritage, age, rule set and ratios) despite the fact that the MR has a spinnaker and the N12 doesn't.

Similarly, in Australia there's two development classes that share the same hull and working rig rules, namely the NS14 and MG14. The rig on the spinnaker- and trapeze-carrying MG14 is basically identical (apart from minor details) to that of the non-spin and non-trap NS14. See, for example, this championship boat wearing the insignias of both classes on its mainsail at once!



The fact that the NS14 rig designed to do this;



can also do this;


appears to underline that the spinnaker does not typeform tall rigs - the NS14 rig is hardly low aspect - nor does its presence radically change rig design.

But any rule that measures all sail area will completely discourage spinnakers anyway, since they are an extremely inefficient way to spend area. A case in point in the MG14/NS14 - the difference around the course is small despite the fact that one has about twice the sail area. And in the International Canoe, the spinnaker version has about 4 x the sail area and is about 3-5% (approx) faster!