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

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by Petros, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,709
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    Who judges appearance? Sounds like an easy way for judges to simply make sure that the boat and person they don't like is the winner, and a recipe for bias.

    Who can score a contest on "ease of use"? "Ease" in what way? "Use" by who?

    There's nothing in these rules that would stop someone building a low-tech and short-lasting old-style International Canoe. It would be costly, fragile, evil-handling, dangerous and slow compared to what other rules could create, but it would probably have little difficulty winning every race.

    There is a vast amount of information about rule development out there if one wants to research, and one also learns a lot when you actually do it. The US sailing scene is very OD focussed so these lessons may not be as well known there. The big lesson (IMHO) is that rule makers (and those agitating for changes) have to respect those who have different opinions, or else any discussion becomes ugly and classes suffer. They should also try to keep discussions fact based. Implying that anyone who differs from you suffers from a defect of the imagination is not a good way to set up a rule set.

    Development class dinghies are popular in some places. We already know what makes an effective set of rules and what rules have to cover. Completely ignoring 100+ years of work by hundreds of intelligent knowledgeable people, steeped in sailing cultures and often qualified formally and as champion sailors, is not a great way to create great rules. It's a bit odd that almost everyone on this thread is effectively saying to the many people who have been involved in the creation of many great classes "you have nothing to teach us" by their refusal to research other rules.
     
  2. Owen423
    Joined: Aug 2012
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: City of Sail

    Owen423 Junior Member

    I've a huge respect for what is trying to be achieved on this thread, having read all of it - and the desire to create effectively a 'garage class' - but in doing so, please remember that I am that pop in the garage - my children (and I), periodically have absurd ideas and would like to enjoy a *class* that has design variety, but most of all, the build and materials are accessible (a sailing soapbox-derby if you like)

    In my book, inexpensive and hardware store would be *just the ticket* for pop&son built in a garage affair - hence my straw man of rules. It was intended as an exercise in the socratic method, on the basis that yes, 90% of the population could get those materials from a hardware store, and build some kind of craft inexpensively that thanks to some simple rules wouldn't fall apart on the water first time out, and had half a chance of actually sailing (even if it was at 1/4 Knot).

    Like all sets of rules, mine contained absurdities, but what I tried to do was focus less on the craft, and more on the source. The focus was deliberately on the amount of key materials and more importantly that pop in the garage who's son has had the latest brainchild for the series and is desperate to try it out. (for example the trimaran that is being developed for trans-oceanic rowing, that is a new swept shape)

    Yup, there are lots of dinghy classes - and to be competitive, they tend to be compromised by those very rules - because to win, measures have to be taken that maximise the potential of the craft through the minutiae, either One Design (Laser, Opti) or experimental like the modern Moth class - what the vast majority of rulings cover is maintenance of a boat 'form' - a great example of which are the square meter classes. Rules also target restrictions on 'features' that are seen to have a performance connotation - Vangs, adjustable stays, movable mast steps and more...

    indeed there is - and in almost all cases, they pertain to the intention aimed at, here that is an inexpensive hardware store materials source.

    Like all sets of rules, my straw man contained absurdities, but what I tried to do was focus less on the craft. The focus was deliberately on the amount of key materials, their type and more importantly anticipate the skills that pop in the garage who's son has had the latest brainchild for the series and is desperate to try it out, against his mate's and their dad's garage efforts.

    I couldn't agree more. I only sought to provoke a discussion on the rules as currently proposed, in relation to stated original intent - that of a low cost hardware store racing class, with hull form(s) and obvious design variety not enjoyed other classes.

    But by implication the *We already know what makes an effective set of rules*, and *one also learns a lot when you actually do it.* is surely the academic equivalent of imagining a brick - a fair shot, as I've deliberately played the fool, but I most certainly meant no offence by my comments, and hope that none was taken.

    However, no-one actually asked *Why*, I posted my straw man.

    I want the whole process to be fun, and creative.

    Heck, the racing could even be side by side booths, a pile of materials, a few tools and a marked course. Standing grandprix start - first round the marks in the the boat that they've just built wins - open teams fixed price of entry that covers material, perfect for boat shows and the like… and every team takes a boat home - Bill of provided materials and range of suggested plans provided on the confirmation of entry perhaps :?:
     
  3. CutOnce

    CutOnce Previous Member

    All:

    It seems this party has reached that point where the fresh interesting discussion has repeated itself into boredom, many of the participants have gone home to relieve the babysitter and only the very late arrivals have the excited energy to keep CTRL-ALT-DELETE looping the discussion into reboot.

    Although I very much hope the original poster (Petros) succeeds and gains traction with a new class of boat that lowers the bar and allows more people to build and sail, I fear from personal experience that reaching critical mass is almost impossible.

    A summer's worth of time building has been lost. Prices at building centres have risen (they sure don't go down). Consensus amongst the interested but divergent parties is not neatly coalescing. Petros should just post HIS final class rules and ask Jeff (the moderator) to close the thread from further discussion. Analysis paralysis is a killer.

    If I were serious about a concept like this, I'd have long ago been seeking sponsorship (Home Depot, Lowes?) and promotion assistance (National Sailing Associations, Boy/Girl Scouts, Woodenboat, Boatdesign.net, etc.) to get the idea out there to potential participants with a firm goal of the first regatta date and location.

    Polls, forums and focus groups are NOT leadership. Sometimes you just have to let people vote by their action to join in or sit out the fun. Two real families building in garages is better progress than a nineteen page forum debate about minutia and details.

    Just my thoughts.

    --
    CutOnce
     
  4. upchurchmr
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 3,287
    Likes: 259, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 579
    Location: Ft. Worth, Tx, USA

    upchurchmr Senior Member

    CutOnce for PRESIDENT!

    Petros, get on with it, no matter what you do!
     
  5. Petros
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,934
    Likes: 148, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1593
    Location: Arlington, WA-USA

    Petros Senior Member

    not to worry, we will get there. The plan was all along to have the first race in the summer of 2013, and right now everyone is busy with summer activities. I will be posting a proposed final set of rules within the next month or so.

    Once we have rules and the kernel of an organization to execute it, I will be looking for sponsorship and sharing the idea with other boat building schools and organizations to see if we can get the contest going at several places around the country.
     
  6. sharpii2
    Joined: May 2004
    Posts: 2,246
    Likes: 329, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 611
    Location: Michigan, USA

    sharpii2 Senior Member

    As for cooler size, I suggest 24 x 15w x 16h in inches. I think its better to have a little too much room than not have a quite enough. Especially if the boat changes hands and the cooler doesn't. As I think about this, I find myself designing the boat around the cooler.

    I see nothing wrong with a stayed rig. I have sailed fiberglass boats that have been given up for dead and have found that a 3/4 sloop can sail up wind reasonably well with an incredible amount of slop in the rig. A three stay or even a five stay rig, with one pair of shrouds lined up with the mast, can be quickly set up with almost supernatural suddeness, if the shrouds have turnbuckles and the fore stay has a multi part lanyard.

    I think stayed rigs are best for wide boats, as wide boats provide ample staying base and usually have greater initial stability, requiring a greater section in an unstayed mast than some might find reasonable.

    Narrow boats (without deep, heavy ballast keels) are the opposite. They provide a miserly staying base and usually have less initial stability as well, making a stayed rig impractical as well as unnecessary.

    A good way to limit rig height and complexity is to limit set up time and/or have a part of the race where the mast must be lowered then raised again. I think this is a far more practical and defensible limit to rig height and complexity than just about anything else I can think of, other than limity the size of the downwind sail.
     
  7. ancient kayaker
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 3,497
    Likes: 147, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2291
    Location: Alliston, Ontario, Canada

    ancient kayaker aka Terry Haines

    Well, let’s try to liven things up a bit. I like the purpose of this thread but stopped following it a while ago. I think we can still achieve a new and inspiring set of rules yet, we don’t want something that will lead to sterile design results.

    Here’s my take on objectives, and comments on some of the rules so far:

    A. Limiting costs can handicap high-price regions or result in unsafe boat entries.
    B. So can specifying materials like plywood which is not available World-wide.
    C. I don’t favor mandating design choices which limit ingenuity.
    D. I favor encouraging designs for amateur builders and day use by families.
    E. Rules must be expressed so they can be policed simply and effectively.
    F. For clarity, let’s have one rule for each aspect’ e.g., material, size etc.
    G. I favor monos for the reasons given in post #18.
    H. The type of race should favor design over crew skills and strength.
    I. The race should be held in a manner that favors family-friendly designs.


    Here’s my suggestion for an effective and minimalist rule set - if it seem’s a complete departure from previous approaches, it’s meant to be:

    1. Size: hull skin area, excluding any decks shall not exceed xxx square feet.

    2. Permitted materials: the boat design must be capable of implementing entirely in wood, plus adhesive, fasteners and rig materials. For design evaluation purposes metals or thermo-plastics in sheet form may be used in wood-poor regions but boat builders are cautioned that the RC has discretion to disqualify any boat deemed given an unfair advantage.

    3. Forbidden materials: the use of “High-technology” materials such as composites and extrusions is expressly forbidden (list to be appended).

    4. Building: the builder must construct the entire boat from permitted materials including rig.

    5. Cargo: during the race each boat carry a removable container of yyy capacity filled with water in a fixed location. Such containers shall start full and shall be emptied at some time during the race but may not be moved during the race for other purposes (this to eliminate water ballast and suchlike)

    6. Crew: the crew shall consist of the builder and at most one other person.

    7. Launching: at the start of the race the boat shall start in a condition in which it can be transported on or in a car, van or pickup, and be rigged and launched by the crew without aid. All devices used for rigging and launching shall be carried on board during the race.

    8. Propulsion: the boat shall carry sails and may carry oars but no other means of propulsion may be used during the race.

    9. Safety: crew shall remain inside the boat during the race. Any boat that sinks, capsizes, loses a crew member overboard or is swamped shall be disqualified. The boat must be stopped while bailing.


    Note: I did not specifically exclude multis because this can be done effectively by rule #1.
     
  8. sharpii2
    Joined: May 2004
    Posts: 2,246
    Likes: 329, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 611
    Location: Michigan, USA

    sharpii2 Senior Member

    AK, I like your Rules # 7 and 9 the best.

    I have now come to the point where I might have an opportunity to build a boat of my own design. I have been figuring out the cutting layouts for all the parts, trying to put butt joints were they will add strength rather than subtract it.

    Once the boat is built and sails successfully, I intend to create a developmental class around it.

    Since I know the basic hull type I have in mind and what variances I think should be allowed to create, perhaps, faster (but hopefully not disastrously so) versions of said boat, I think I may well create a credible class.

    I think too much design freedom is as bad as or worse than too little. Such opens the door to boats of this class being severely out classed by their competitors. That is no fun.

    My goal is to have a situation where some boats will do better than others in certain conditions, but fair worse than those others in different conditions.

    One way I thought of doing this is to limit sail area, basing it on the weight of the boat and crew, using a formula that gives a slight S/D advantage to heavier boats. Then, the theory goes, the lighter boats will win in windier conditions and the heavier boats will do well in lighter winds.

    Due to the design rules I have in mind, longer boats will also have greater D/L ratios, making the shorter, lighter boats, lower S/D boats more likely to plane than them, when the wind pipes up.

    I know this is a 'sum rule' where more of one thing requires less of another, to stay within the class. The more I think of this, the more convinced I am that this is the way to go.

    With this 'Hardware Store Class', I can see multi's becoming the best design solution. Especially when low cost speed, ample stowage space (on deck), and general user friendliness are concerned. Without lofty, high aspect ratio rigs, they need not have long set up times. Nor do they necessarily need to be all that Beamy Creating a Beam vs. Length trade off , by having a set sum of Beam plus Length, might give mono's a better chance. This would also help limit the amount of material used in the boat, effectively too.
     
  9. ancient kayaker
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 3,497
    Likes: 147, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2291
    Location: Alliston, Ontario, Canada

    ancient kayaker aka Terry Haines

    Glad you liked those rules Bob. I wanted to get back to what I saw as the family and first-timer roots of the thread.

    I still like the "skin area" limit which gets away from policing material cost and usage. Perhaps a 96 sq ft limit (3 ply sheets) would lead to boats around 15 ft or so with a range of different hull forms allowing experimentation.

    Perhaps a sail area limit, if neccessary, of the same amount would be appropriate. We could call it the 96/96 class!

    I thought there might have been more comment by now but perhaps the thread is getting too old and has lost most of its subscribers.
     
  10. sharpii2
    Joined: May 2004
    Posts: 2,246
    Likes: 329, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 611
    Location: Michigan, USA

    sharpii2 Senior Member

    How do propose to measure 'hull Skin area'? That can be difficult and dicey. Especially if the builder ops for a material other than standardized sheet goods.

    Something that might work as well but is a whole lot easier to measure is what I call a 'multiple rule'. It is different than a 'sum rule' in that, instead of adding Length and Beam together to get a sum, length are multiplied by each other to get a product. this would be very easy to check at the race with just a tape measure and a cheap calculator. I think you will find that, for general purposes, it would create results in the same range as you're thinking of.

    With a 'hull skin limit rule', I'd be very tempted to design a board boat, which is almost all Beam and Length and has almost no freeboard. If it is decked over, it won't sink, or even take on water. I could then put a low toe rail around it, so, while sitting on the deck, I could claim I'm sitting 'in' the boat.

    How about a 90/90 class? Or even a 96/96 class? Easy to check and very difficult to beat. if I went with a multi, I would have to settle for a considerably shorter length than with a mono, which, to stay in compliance with the other rules, especially the 'cargo' one, means I would be stuck with pretty fat, burdensome hulls. A six foot wide by 16ft cat, or single outrigger would be my best option then. I could then be faced with a 5 x 19.2ft sharpi or scow competitor.

    I don't like your jettisoning the cargo idea. The whole idea of 'cargo' is that it get from port to port. If I knew I would be jettisoning the cargo in the middle of the race, I would make different design decisions. Also, as the class developed, there would be a temptation to arrange the race so the 'cargo' would be carried up wind, then dumped shortly afterward, or at least before the downwind leg got started.
     
  11. ancient kayaker
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 3,497
    Likes: 147, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2291
    Location: Alliston, Ontario, Canada

    ancient kayaker aka Terry Haines

    Any reasonable rule could be used, but the stating the limit as area was intended to prevent extreme hulls that try to take advantage of the measuring procedure.


    No problem but rule #9 might make it diffcult to handle . . . simpler to put in a tiny cockpit for the crew’s feet. Several designs like that.

    Multis would be banned but as you’ve noticed the area rule makes them uncompetitive anyway.

    OK, we’ll call it consumable goods instread of cargo! The point is to ensure there is useful storage space, it can be moved easily and got at while under way, so the container doesn’t become part of the structure or some such useless thing. It also ensures the boat can sail well with and without “cargo” and introduces an interesting tactical decision to the race.

    I don’t know if any of the rules sound nicer with the explanations, I didn’t want to bulk up my earlier post too much.
     
  12. sharpii2
    Joined: May 2004
    Posts: 2,246
    Likes: 329, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 611
    Location: Michigan, USA

    sharpii2 Senior Member

    LENGTH + BEAM vs LENGTH x BEAM

    I've been thinking about my ideas of 'sum' and 'multiple' rules, where Beam is played against Length. I did some number crunching to compare the two methods.

    For the 'sum' rule, I used Beam + Length = 20ft.

    For the 'multiple rule', I used Beam x Length = 64ft.

    Both yielded similar results with when I tried them with Beam Length proportions that are relatively common.

    These are: 1:2, for multi hulls, 1:3 and 1:4, for most dinghies, and 1:5, for sailing canoes.

    Here, I'll show you what I came up with, under the heading of each proportion:

    1:2
    sum B = 6.67ft, L = 13.3ft
    mult. B = 5.66ft, L = 11.3ft
    1:3
    sum B = 5.00ft, L = 15.0ft
    mult. B = 4.62ft, L = 13.9ft
    1:4
    sum B = 4.00ft, L = 16.0ft
    mult. B = 4.00ft, L = 16.0ft
    1:5
    sum B = 3.33ft, L = 16.7ft
    mult. B = 3.58ft, L = 17.9ft

    Since the Beam will be measured from extreme outer hull skin to extreme outer hull skin, once the boat is set up, the multi hull is going to have to be significantly shorter than a mono hull with more or less typical proportions. Since the boats will have to carry at least one crew and 200lbs of 'cargo' and they are supposed to cost around $600 to build, I assume their all up weight will be around 600lbs.

    With this number in mind, assuming LWL will match LOA, I did a quick comparison of extreme D/L's (Displacement Length Ratios), using just the longest and shortest proportions, to give a rough idea of the implications of both kinds of rule.

    1:2
    sum D/L = 115
    mult D/L = 139
    1:5
    sum D/L = 58.0
    mult. D/L = 35.3

    As you can see, the 'multiple' rule produced the most extreme results. For this reason, I think the simpler 'sum' rule would be sufficient. Even with the more moderate 'sum' rule, the D/L of a likely multi would be double that of a sailing canoe, which would negate most of a multi's chief advantage: low D/L combined with awesome sail carrying capability. Now it will be burdened with a D/L that is twice as high as that a sailing canoe.

    The sailing canoe would have it's own burden. That would be most likely a mult mast rig. The 'heavy' multi would be better up wind and the 'lighter' canoe would be better reaching and down wind tacking.

    The choices and dilemma's offered by this kind of rule give hope for a diversified fleet where members would be free to build the kind of boat they want and still have a decent chance of winning on race day.
     
  13. ancient kayaker
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 3,497
    Likes: 147, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2291
    Location: Alliston, Ontario, Canada

    ancient kayaker aka Terry Haines

    I see how it works, but it is said that the more complicated the rule, the more loopholes it has. For example, where will the beam be measured? If it is to be maximum beam then multiple measurements must be made to located it, if midships, we may soon be seeing wasp-waisted boats.
     
  14. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,709
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    As noted earlier several times, there is over 100 years of experience in drafting rules that could be drawn from. Much of this experience shows that simple rules simply don't work.

    Having a committee able to deem things is very hazardous, although much of the time impossible to avoid in certain situations. Reasonable people can come to different opinions, and allowing committees to make judgement calls too much can lead to some very difficult times.
     

  15. Petros
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,934
    Likes: 148, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1593
    Location: Arlington, WA-USA

    Petros Senior Member

    I was away from the internet all weekend.

    I like the concept however it appears your wood rule would exclude the use of skin-on-frame construction which is very light and inexpensive. The intend is to limit cost, and not creativity, it seems to me this rule would not limit cost but would limit low cost solutions.

    I like the idea of a "le Mans" type launch, to start from "trailer ready" condition is a great idea, might change the way some rigs are designed. And making it more practical and useful.

    I think a simple box rule of length, beam and height will both limit cost, is easier to measure (and qualify), and there is no ambiguity, so it is a better approach. I suspect any of those proposed changes would result is very long, narrow beam designs. Not really a practical day sailor.

    My idea with the cargo plus crew weight crew was also to keep the boats practical, and with some races requiring the cargo box in place, and some without, you also get a measure of the performance at both ends of the gross weight spectrum. And I see no reason to require the builder to also be part of the crew. the object is to find the best performing low cost boat, not the best sailing skilled builder.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.