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

[Petros]

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.

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by Petros

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?

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Petros

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.

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

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

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?

[hoytedow]

Good point. I'm just saying.

[Petros]

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.

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by Petros

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.

[hoytedow]

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

[Yobarnacle]

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.

[sharpii2]

Originally Posted by Petros

Since it appears comments slowed down I thought I would post below my current proposed rules, along with my comments that I submitted to the committee. they will likely get tweaked some more before we finalize them. All of you are free to comment.

Here is my reasons for the changes (from everyone's input): The cost limit being too low seems to be a legitimate concern. IF too low it will inhibit innovation, performance and quality construction. But if the cost is too high it will exclude a lot of people from participating. I thought raising the cost limit gives more flexibility and encourage better quality boat builds.

The size limit should be reconsidered as well. 16' is the size of boat that does not have to be licensed in WA, and a few other states (some states do not require registration of any boat without a motor, some exempt all racing boats), but there are a number that require an inspection, a data plate and boat license no matter the size. Also, a 14' boat will
take a lot less material, and space in a shop/garage than a 16' boat. As we get more participation we can add both a larger, more expensive class, and perhaps a junior class [i.e. 16'x 8'-$1000, 10' x 5'-$300), and perhaps a separate multi-hull. I am going to suggest that we start out with a mono and multi-hull class if we get more than three entrants in each category.

All the other suggestions for limiting cost will limit design choices, creativity, and not always limit total cost, and some are not practical to enforce (it would encourage cheating). However I think a simple statement about construction methods might be useful: "tooling and construction methods should be kept simple and limited to those suited to a typical home workshop".

Limiting the build to group events I think will reduce participation, raise costs, and might also limit creativity for certain time consuming operations. Many would build at their leisure in the home shop, a few hours at a time, but could not afford to spend a week in a building workshop. However, building workshops would be a great optional event, if some people are a bit intimidated by the design and building process, they can do it an a workshop with lots of tools available, and expert instruction (perhaps with design assistance as well).
================================================== ===========
PROPOSED RULES

1. Max length 14', max beam 7', max mast length (step to peak) 16'
including all appendages (except external detachable rudder). Size is measured
with the sails centered on the hull, so booms or jibs, yards, etc. can
go outside the box rule when underway. No spinnaker, or trapeze allowed,
but foot straps and bars or benches for hiking out are okay (as long as all
appendages are within max size limits).

2. Races will be with two man crew or singled handed. To make sure
the boats stay practical, some races will require boats to accommodate
a minimum crew-plus-cargo weight of 500 lbs, and room for large cooler
sized box (the "cargo box") must be included in the design. [need to find out what is
the size of a standard large Colman cooler]

3. Wood or wood/pulp based materiel must be incorporated into the
structure of the hull (but the building method does not have to use
wood exclusively-other materials are allowed). Construction method is
wide open, but should be suitable for building in a home shop without
extensive tooling (plywood forms or strong back acceptable, making
parts in a numerically controlled mill is not).

4. All the materials, fasteners and adhesives purchased for use in
the construction of the complete boat, sails and rigging is limited to
$600 (not counting sales tax and shipping costs). All materials must
be purchased new in small quantities at retail prices from any mail
order or national hardware store chain (such as-but not limited to-
Home Depot, Lowes, or Ace hardware stores), this means no wholesale
suppliers or bulk purchase prices to make it fair for everyone. The
purchase unit of materials shall be used, such as if a hull uses 4.3
sheets of plywood, material cost is 5 sheets. Fabrics or lines and
rigging supplies sold by the running yard or by the foot, are counted
to the next unit of measure. Screws, fittings or fasteners are
counted by the way they are sold, by the box, pound, or each.

5. All entrants must submit copies of receipts and a list of
materials used when a boat is registered for the season. Entrants
must keep original purchase receipts (or record of purchases) and a
detailed record of the build (including photos) for examination if a protest filed.

6. The cost of paint, sealant or preservatives will not count toward
the materials cost, any type of one-part paint or sealant is allowed.
Bright colors and attractive paint schemes are encouraged. The cost of
the thread incidental to any sewing of fabric or webbing will also not
be counted towards material cost. The cost of maintenance or repairs
is not counted toward materials cost, nor the cost of replacing whole
assemblies of items replaced (if a sail or rudder is replaced with one
of a new design, but the cost of the materials is the same, than it
will not affect the materials costs), experimentation is encouraged.
However, if the replacement component materials costs more, than the
difference from what is removed and what is installed, will count
toward the class limit. Detailed records of cost of materials,
and quantities used should be kept. Major repairs that significantly
affect the cost of materials will require a judge to approve, with the
intent that no advantage would be gained.

7. At the end of each season winner must allow design plans to be
drawn from their boat, and published for next season and made
available to anyone for a reasonable fee (TBD). The proceeds from the
sale of the plans are to be split between race organization and the
boat designer.

Any construction method, design, sail plan or type, and materials can
be used within these limitations.

==============================================

Options to consider;

To keep changes in material costs more fair from one year to the next
we might adjust the cost limit based on an index of a sample list of
supplies that equals the $ limit: like 5 sheets of 4x8-1/4" AC
plywood, one gallon of Tightbond 3, 2 pounds of stainless screws. 100
ft of 1/4" woven polyester cord, etc. And each year the race committee
announces by Jan 31st the years build index cost. This would also
allow different areas of the country to adjust for local materials costs.

Another idea is that cost records should be kept on the honor
system, and only the top 3 or 4 finishers must surrender the cost
receipts for scrutiny at the end of the season. keeps judges efforts
to a min. and will only focus on wining boats anyway.

We could also perhaps consider publishing the plans for the top 3
finishers as well, since each could have been the season winner if
conditions were different. Also gives us more of a variety of plans
to publish too.

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.

[Petros]

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?

[sharpii2]

Originally Posted by Petros

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 ass 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.

[Petros]

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.

[Doug Lord]

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

[CT 249]

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!