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

Chaps,

it is well said that those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Rule writing is not easy at all, but there's a fair bit of knowledge out there about what evasions have been tried in the past and how to deal with them. Personally I always like to learn from other folks experience rather than repeat it myself.

Its almost universal experience that very open rules have led to freakish boats which are extremely difficult to sail. If you wish to avoid that you need to legislate. If you don't wish to avoid that, well that's your choice too.

If you can find a copy of Uffa Fox' Sail and Power you'll find a discussion about the International 14 rules in the 1920s. Much of it will be familiar to readers of the thread. This includes the issue of spar length, where what was happening was that Uffa was buying 24ft bamboo poles and putting a fishing rod joint in them so they met the "no spar longer than 15'6" rule they had at the time. When it was complained that 24' poles seemed to be unobtainable Uffa said it was because he'd bought the entire stockin the country!

I guess the thing I'd counsel in rules more than anything else is straightforwardness. If you try and limit things indirectly you will get complicated evasions. So limiting the length of spars will lead to complications with joints, and spars lashed together on the beach and goodness knows what else. Limiting the height of any portion of the rig above the deck will be simpler in the long run.

 

Sharpie;

While the Canoe does have a horsepower and weight advantage these days, in earlier times not all of them did and yet they still went to very narrow waterlines and found lots of speed. The k1 and Merlin have heavy hulls and still have around 3' waterline beam. So with respect, I think the evidence is that a fairly narrow hull (with all that means in stability issues) will win.

Fair call about the problems with a big-main cat rig under this rule set. You could see a quick reaction to the problems created by having a mast well forward, in the form of alternative mast steps that could allow the mast to be moved aft as sail area was reduced in a breeze.

It seems that your "1:1 gaff" is the same as what I call a gunter rig, and therefore we're both of the opinion that's what the rig would end up looking like. IMHO though a gunter (while great in some ways) is now proven to be more hassle and expense than the Bermudan by the fact that the biggest (and second biggest?) classes that had gunter rigs are now dropping them.

By the way, if there is nothing to stop you hanging the forestay half-way up the gaff/gunter yard arm then you will end up with a speed and sail advantage if you do so, but you will also end up with major engineering issues that could act against the purpose of the rule banning longer spars. And how do you define what is a "normal" practical gaff or gunter, and what is a bermudan rig in which the two spars are joined by a meticulously-crafted joint like those Uffa Fox rigs that Gguuest mentioned? And if you want a rig that's hard to handle, try a Historical 18 Foot Skiff rig where you have a spinnaker set from the PEAK of the gaff!

I've sailed some Bermudan rigs that were extremely simple. The 20' (ish) lightweight mast on the 20' International Flying 15 or the rig on the International 420 are classic examples - they've got no "real" forestay, only one set of spreaders and one set of stays, yet they are controllable and light.

Nothing is wrong with a 'no spinnakers" rule - until someone comes in with a sail like a Code Zero and sets it downwind. Or until someone comes along with a masthead headsail of very deep cut and vast area, and sets it downwind. Or until someone comes along with a flat-cut kite and sets it downwind, or even a "square sail" with a "yard" consisting of a piece of bendy lightweight plastic and a cut that means that it sets like a masthead spinnaker .....and then either they get around the "no spi" rule or someone has to try to define what a spinnaker is or isn't.

If you research classes who have worked out how to define a spinnaker so they can ban it, then you benefit from their experience. As Ggguuest says, many people have been there before, why ignore their wisdom?

By the way, banning hiking straps and traps has issues too. If you ban hiking straps, short people like me end up trying to hike off the sheets in Etchells to make up for our lack of height and (compared to Etchell sailors before rule changes) weight. It's extremely uncomfortable.


Upchurchmr

You asked us to "prove it" - were you referring to the issue of allowing very tippy boats? If so, the problem was proven in the history of sailing canoes of the 1800s - the very first international small boat class - and it has been repeated many times since.

You may be able to sneer at the hard earned knowledge of those from the Merlin, int 14, N12, NS, MG, Canoe and other classes, but in reality those who were there found out about the issue.

Narrow waterline boats are almost always faster, it's just that only those who can spend a lot of time practising to sail them normally win (all else being equal) and therefore very few people sail them and they provide fewer lessons that can be applied to normal craft.

You have completely sidestepped the issue that defining 'the better sailing design' is not that simple. McKay could have designed faster clippers, but they would not have many any money and could have sunk after a year - would they have been "better" because they were faster? He walked a delicate balance between practicality and speed, and that is the sort of things that rules are designed to do.

I was one of the four who created what could have been just about the simplest set of rules ever (three lines) and it lasted right up until extreme designs killed it......... I've also sailed one of the most radical 'free rule' dinghies ever (put it this way, its predecessor was 18' long, had a 42' mast, 30' wings and the full carbon/nomex hull weighed about the same as a Club 420 IIRC)..... Within a couple of years the class was down to half a dozen boats and now it survives only as a one design. Development is great, but it has problems that cannot be ignored.

As Gguest says, the development classes of the world have spent decades working out how to write rules. It is NOT simple to write rules that people cannot interpret differently or try to evade (and who can tell who is "evading" and who is "interpreting"?), and only those who are determined to ignore reality can close their eyes to the lessons and problems that history has revealed.

 

By 1:1 pitch, I mean I.0 vertical to 1.0 horizontal, which will mean the gaff would be at a 45 deg angle from the mast, which I have found, (through experimentation) spreads the most sail per given length of spars. The butt of the gaff will have to be set half its pitch height below the mast head in order for the mast head to have the purchase to hold it up. A Gunter would have a 1:0 pitch under this system.

I love the moveable mast idea, but for it to work with this preliminary rule, the boom would have to be shortened each time the mast was moved aft.
(spars must be kept within the length of the boat)

This kind of petty rule beating reminds me of an article I read In GOOD OLD BOAT magazine, by Bob Perry, about the IOR rule.

It was so droll.

Designers kept drawing rule beating freaks, with ribbon mains, pinched ends, huge head sails, and even ballast bolted to the cabin top, until a few Aussies and Kiwi's came along and simply designed fast boats, (they seem to like such things) taking the rating penalties for doing so, and still winning. I guess there is a bit of larceny in every designer's blood. arhhhh.

As for your 'no spinnaker' remarks. I say that's what committees are for. To determine if someone is violating the 'spirit' of the rule.

Of course this, in itself, could make for some comic shenanigans (especially if there is a lot of beer involved).

This is one reason I dropped my original suggestion to ban spinnakers and posted my suggestion to regulate their size in its place. (Limiting their size to that of the largest upwind sail). This way, you don't end up with spinnakers with area dwarfing that of the rest of the sails combined.

Your comments about straps and traps has me confused.

With no hiking strap, you can't lean your upper body over the side of the boat without falling overboard (seat top ledges one can catch their toes under would be counted as straps, if they are ever used for this purpose BTW). Without traps, one could use a halyard line to hold their body up, extended over the side of the boat (another very obvious 'spirit' violation of the rules).

Therefore, I would think the no straps or traps rule would actually benefit short people. If the boat is required to carry 200 lbs of 'cargo' (an excellent idea, IMHO) and two crew, and have a minimum hull weight, the supposedly lighter short people might actually end up with an advantage. They would have a lighter boat and do better, perhaps, in light wind conditions, and not get utterly creamed in heavier winds. Hiking benches allow the sailors to put their bodies past the sides of a narrower boat, without giving any advantage to a sailor's height or physique, as long as their span is reasonably limited as they would be with a 7 ft Beam limit.

I think it is also worth mentioning that these boats are to be raced in raid like events, as well as around the cans. The raid like conditions may weed out the more outrageous freaks. Imagine having to balance a tippy, top heavy boat for dozens of miles, then beach it through even a modest surf. Then imagine relaunching into onshore winds.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

I too think the raid events would weed out impractical boats, and I wanted to have enough points count in it where you would be hard pressed to win the series if you choose not to do a raid (that is why I suggested its own point system, some races count more than others). And with some races with the 500 lb payload rule in force, and some not, there would not be a clear advantage to any one hull design I suspect.

I have also thought it would be an interesting race to have a "slalom" type of race: a row of cans about 50 yard apart each, in a straight line, where you have to pass each one on opposite sides out and back. lots of turns would eliminate the advantage of extreme designs that were not controllable. Not sure it is very practical, but I have never seen a sailboat slalom, it would be an interesting experiment.

I have worked for fully sponsored auto racing teams. When you are a front runner, you study every rule in detail to push the envalope to your advantage, especially if there is a lot of money at stake. Because you know all of the other front runners are doing the same thing.

So my inclination is to leave the rules as open as possible and than design the races to yield the best design, rather than limiting what people can or can not do. With the payload and the various types of races, you get a boat that acheives that goal best. So the object is to design the contest around the "mission" of the goal of best all around low cost boat, rather than limiting what can or can not be done. The only exceptions is to keep the boats simple and safe with the class rules.

There are already definitions of spinnakers in the sailing rules, I seem to recall it is any fore sale that has a width half way up that is more than have the base width. Or something equally simple. It does create limits, but it is simple. Instead we might consider a rule that states you can not change sails during a race; so if you start with a spinnaker you have leave it up and finish with it. That should eliminate the use of extreme size sails I would expect. but still leaves the acceptable option of using an asymmetrical spinnaker hybrid that can be controlled and operated at all points of sail.

These are all interesting points you raise. How to we craft the rules to be simple, but yield the kind of designs that leads to good performing low cost practical sailboats. I think the best way to to design the rules to measure the outcome by the type of race events; hence the payload rule and a mix of can races and raid events. The only other restrictions are raw materials costs, and overall size so they are easy to move around and store.

 

I was thinking of something on the lines of:

1. Total sail area shall be a maximum of X square metres.

2. No more than 2 sails may be carried or used in a race.

As a software developer, I like simple & clear rules. Those ones would be pretty hard to game.

PDW

 

I have done a bit of rule drafting in the past and have been a class measurer in a few classes. Probably 1000 boats if you include the Finns, 470s, Europes and optimists we use to build. Now it's mostly A Class Catamarans, ICs and I14s.


I wrote the following when trying to build enthusiasm for a revitalization of the old Suicide Class. I thought it would be a way to throw a blanket over enough small boas that they could "race" each other with some semblance of order. In the end the effort devolved into a squabble between individual hobbyhorses and the will to build anything wasn't there.

This rule envisions a larger more complex boat than we are talking here, but the format is based on what ISAF has promulgated over the years and is pretty consistent with what the I14, A Class, IC and other classes have found workable. Trying to get it down to less than 13 rules is quite hard.
Anyway for your amusement:


Atkin 1.25 Class Rules.


Preamble
The Aitkin 1.25 class is a derivative of the 125 Square Foot Development Class started by William Atkin in Huntington Long Island New York in 1928. This class was alternately known as the Suicide Class and enjoyed a vital history until the early 1960s when organized activity declined below a sustainable level. In 1987 a number of surviving class members attempted to revive the class but failed to achieve stability.
The current rules attempt to define a type of boat that is in keeping with the history of the 125 Square Foot Development Class or Suicide but to restate some of the particulars in order to make the class more attractive for 21st century designers and builders. The authors respect the history of the Suicide Class, but feel that the continuation of that title is detrimental to the acceptance of the class and chose to use this alternate designation.
Any boat which measured in as a class legal Suicide is eligible for competition in the Atkin 1.25 Class.

Measurement rules
The Aitkin 1.25 is an un-ballasted monohull development class having the following restrictions:
1: The bow shall fit within an angle of 40 degrees either side of centerline.
a) The vertex of the included angle shall not be further than 2” from the stem.

2: Sail area shall not be more than 125 square feet. The sail area shall be measured in accordance with the “IYRU Measurement & Calculation of Sail Area Instructions” (Last issued May 1985)

3: The overall length shall not be more than 22.5 feet.
The length shall be taken between perpendiculars with the hull upright in its normal trim.
The measurement shall exclude rudder fittings, but if the athwartships width of rudder within 6 inches of the bottom of the hull is more than 3 inches, the length shall be taken from the aftermost extremity of the rudder.

4: The hull shall have a beam no greater than 66’.
The hull shall a beam of at least 42” for at least 1/3 of its overall length.
The beam shall be measured perpendicular to centerline with the hull.

5: The hull shall nowhere have freeboard of less than 6”

6: The hull shall have at least one cockpit or foot well of 12 square feet.
a) The floorboards shall nowhere be less than 12” below the upper surface of the deck excluding any coamings.

7: A taught tape stretched from gunwale to gunwale shall nowhere bridge a hollow of more than 1”

8: The minimum weight of the hull with essential fixed fastenings and hardware shall be determined by the formula:
(Overall length in feet) x (Maximum beam in feet) x (Maximum hull depth) = weight in pounds.

9: There shall be not more than one centerboard.
a) The centerboard shall be un-ballasted and shall float.
b) With the boat floating upright, the centerboard shall be capable of being withdrawn such that it does not project below the hull skin.

10: There shall be not more than one rudder
a) The rudder shall be un-ballasted and shall float.
b) With the boat floating upright, the rudder shall be capable of being withdrawn such that it does not project below the hull skin.

11) No spar shall have a cross section greater than 5”
a) If the mast rotates, ½ of its surface area shall be considered sail area.

12: The boat shall have built in buoyancy or buoyancy devices such that the crew can right, bail and resume sailing unassisted within 5 minutes.

13: Sails shall be capable of being raised and lowered with the boat floating upright. Roller furling is accepted as an alternative to raising and lowering.

14) The crew shall be not more or less than two.
a) one crew member is permitted to use a trapeze.

SHC

 

That is a set of interesting rules, it very much looks like that class is intended to fit in a pretty narrow configuration. I would not want to limit it that much, but a max sail area is an interesting idea, or perhaps a rule that the sails must also fit within the box rule when the booms, yards or poles are on the center line.

I have seen that rule on several classes that the sails must be able to be raised and lowered when on the water. I presume that it is a matter of safety, but many smaller boats have simple sails that are just a sleeve over a mast. I would hate to limit sail style, the means to lower or raise sails also adds a complication that can be avoided without that rule.

Any thoughts as to the importance of the rule to be able to raise and lower sails? For short races it does seem necessary, if it is too rough they just call the race off.

 

If you don't have such a rule the tendency is to abandon halyards and just tie the sails to the top of the mast, turning the boat on her side to rig. IN a lightweight two hander this is amazingly quick and easy, but it takes up an awful lot of space in the dinghy park and can be awkward at venues with very restricted launching space. With a singlehander rolling the boat over can be rather a nuisance. Anyway some classes and clubs find this undesirable.

I regard the safety argument as being something of a red herring, since people are always reluctant to cut or hack an expensive halyard, but if there's a 50p piece of string 4 inches long holding the sail on you just cut it and the sail comes down easily.

There's actually a great deal of variation possible with that rule set. Perhaps only the International Moth is more open. If there are few limitations we all know what is required - the boat should be as long as possible, have as much sail area as possible and as much righting moment as possible and as little displacement as possible.

There are a number of reasons why classes may wish to limit the design possibilities, and each class has to set its own balance. Here's some I can think of, there are many others
- to keep the boats reasonably similar in basic dimensions and hopefully speed so the event is more han just a design compeition
- to protect amateur designers from doing something arrantly silly and wasting a good deal of time and effort
- to protect the rest of the fleet from a real radical flyer that renders their boats all hopelessly outclassed
- to keep costs down by limiting possible design gains
- to reduce obsolescence of designs
- to avoid really extreme and difficult to sail craft
- to limit expenditure in general

There are many more. For any given class you have to figure out what will help out the aims of the class, and what will hinder

-

 

What does the resulting boat look like when the only rule is a maximum sail area?

 

Long and thin with tall masts. For keelboats think Skerry Cruiser.

 

I have built small sail boats with and without halyards. Much easier to just tie the sail off at the top of the mast, laying the boat over on its side is no big deal with a small boat. It only takes a minute.

Halyards always struck me as just another thing to malfunction, add weight and cost. Unless you plan on reefing or changing sails during the race, I see no advantage to it on a small boat. Some of the fastest wind driven water craft, sailboards, do not have halyards.

 

The whole point of class rules is to "type form" a group of boats so that some form of group activity is possible. This means that the performance variables (length, beam, sail area, and weight) are bracketed. There may be unique formulas used to control relationship of these variables that more or less define "what is interesting" about each class.
The next item on the agenda is to assure that boats remain "practical" and or "safe." This usually takes the form of some rule to prevent the boat from sinking out from under you when you capsize, and being durable enough to last more than a day or two. Rules like being able to pull the centerboard and rudder out from the top and raising and lowering the sails simply enforce a kind of practicality that assures you can indeed sail these boats in a wide variety of locations with minimal infrastructure.
As an example, I sail C Class catamarans, which have no such "practical" rules. They are 25' long, 14' wide and have 40' tall wings. They are as light as we can build them. I could not launch and sail one them from 90% of the yacht clubs in Rhode Island. This limits their practicality and thus chances of growth.
In the modern world, the concept of "one design" has come to mean "no perceptible variation in configuration or quality." The bar is so high that sailors now see classic dinghies like the Finn as "development" boats because the masts and sails are idiosyncratic.
The Suicide Class ( or 125 sq ft class) was originally proposed by the Billy Atkin as a competition to discover what was the "best small boat shape" within some simple parameters. For the purposes of this discussion, the values can easily be changed to suit the concept. An internet search of class rules will give you a pretty good handle on what rule makers have felt it necessary to control and the ISAF web site has class rules on line for their internationally recognized classes. You will quickly see that there are similarities like legal boilerplate.
SHC

 

Before this goes much further, I have to recognize that the weight formula was flawed.
In the original Suicide class rules, there was a minimum planking thickness specification. that more or less linked weight to hull and deck surface area. The old International Canoe rule had a similar concept where shorter narrower boats could be lighter than longer wider boats. In general, I like to encourage light construction, because light weight is generally desirable in small boats. But this only works at a certain scale. Once the thing is too big to car top or be carried around by two people, keeping it really light may just be a fetish.
SHC

 

A max empty weight rule might be a useful addition, the idea being that the boats can be moved around on land by two adults. However the "Le Mans" beach style start of the raids should pretty much take care of that. I wonder if we should have beach starts on regular "around the cans" races too, that would mean removeable rudders and dagger boards, and light weight hulls. that way we do not specify the solution, only the goal. This allows the designers to decide how that requirement will be met.

 

As much as I appreciate the expertise of those who have done this before, I applaud setting the goal and not specifying the solution.

Too many rules in this country limit the possible solutions. End of my soapbox.