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

==============
Petros, why did the maximum beam change to 7'??

 

Not to be too obnoxious, but your rules at the start were 11 sentences. Last set I saw had 23. This is repeating history. More law making than sailing.

New proposed rule. Only 16 sentences only 4 compound sentences.

Look at the last three pages, most comments were on how to interpret the rules to make the best - barely-in-the-rules boats.

Simple, minimum, don't exclude anything.

$600 new parts prices, 16 foot overall (without rudder), min total crew weight 320#, 100# extra cargo for 1/4 of the races.

One class the first year. Split out a maximum of one new class each year, if there is enough participation.

Ready set go. Let the best concept and cleverness "win".

Encourage redesign and modification during the race days. You wanted to foster creativity - actually make that a part of the "event".

Why would you ever care about restricting hollows if you want the best boat? Nitpicking to build up somebodys ego based on preconcieved ideas.

Doug - 7 went to 8 to keep out sneaky attempts to duplicate a multihull cheater. My guess anyway.

Marc

 

=======
Do you mean 8 to 7? Seems to me that 8' is logical because thats the maximum trailerable beam. Probably happened because, for some reason(that I think is unfortunate) length was reduced to 14' and beam was kept at 50% of length.

 

Doug,

Yes, I got it backwards. Just like these rules are going. Seems to be the same game other rulemakers play at $1M are being duplicated at $600.

Hey that gives me an idea. What about just setting the money amount?
$500 class
$1000 class
etc.

you could even have a diy class, a bought it second hand, and a new purchase price set of classes.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see what $500 and innovation would produce? Really no rules.

 

sausage making and law making should never be witnessed by the public.

 

Sharpii;

1) Re "The problem with going with a narrow waterline on a boat this heavy (approx 11 cf displacement), is you won't get the hull fine enough for super displacement speeds, (going narrower at the WL will make it deeper) and it will be harder to get it to plane.

This strategy worked with with a 'Moth', because that boat was mostly moveable ballast (the crew). I don't know how much the typical 'Moth' weighed, so I'll wing it (no pun intended) and guess around 90 lbs. Winging it again, and my guess for this proposed class is closer to 200 lbs, not including the 'cargo'...I can conceive boats of this class planing in some conditions, such as down wind in blowing conditions."

There's plenty of evidence that around 3' of waterline beam is plenty for a planing boat of 180-270lb rigged weight. NS14s, K1, Canoes, MG14s, Merlins etc are all restricted to a minimum of around 3' and all of them certainly plane a lot, including reaches and in medium winds (and in some cases, upwind as well). Since all these plane very well and routinely with 3' of waterline beam, a slightly narrower boat could also plane a lot, particularly since it may have a much bigger rig and it may have less of a displacement-speed hump.

2) If you limit the area of a spinnaker to the size of the largest sail, you will effectively mandate cat rigs, since any increase in the size of the main will result in a pro-rata increase in spinnaker area.

3) Yes, gunter rigs will probably become universal. Balanced lugs were once very common, they were dropped because they are slower. Square sails were once very common, they were dropped because they were slow, unwieldy and poor to windward.

Gunter rigs certainly have advantages (my brother is playing around with one on one of his designs) but there is a reason that the most popular gunter boat in the world (Mirror) is dropping them, because the bermudan is cheaper and easier to rig. The second most popular gunter rig in the world (I think) is also adopting the Bermudan rig for these reasons.

Such influential people in dinghy design as Uffa Fox, Paul Bieker (current leading Int 14 designer), Conrad Gulcher (creator of the Flying Dutchman), Paul Elvstrom, Peter Mander (Olympic gold medallist, 18 Foot Skiff "world" champ), Jack Holt (designer of many of the most popular boats in the UK and Australia) and many others were very familiar with gaff, gunter and/or lug rigs, so it's not from want of knowledge that bermudan rigs are so popular now.

4) If you don't want kites, just ban them using a set of rules taken from established classes.

UpchurchMr, about "Why would you ever care about restricting hollows if you want the best boat? Nitpicking to build up somebodys ego based on preconcieved ideas."

The definition of "best boat" is not simple - yes, a boat with hollows may be faster, but if it requires sailors who are miles above the average, in terms of boathandling ability, then it may not be "the best boat" according to many criteria. A class in which a couple of boats blast around and everyone else struggles or capsizes for a few regattas before giving up is not exactly a success.

And the price-limit idea is an old one with problems that have already been covered.

May I ask what high performance development classes you sail?

 

There's two Moth classes. International Moth, with the foils and hiking wings, ect. And Classic Moth, which the International Moth sprang from.
Classic Moth is still raced in the states. Similar to what's being proposed here, except 11 ft long.

Both Moths are experimental. The specs for a Classic Moth:

http://mothboat.com/
With an eleven foot over-all length, a maximum beam of 60 inches, a minimum hull weight of 75 pounds, 72 Sq Ft sail area, and very few other restrictions a Classic Moth can be a skiff, pram, scow, skinny tube, dinghy, or any combination thereof. The Classic Moth Boat is an ideal class for amateur designers builders and tinkerers, and can be easily built from inexpensive materials
Classic Moths have three divisons within the class. At major regattas, all Classic Moths race together but are scored in three different divisions; a Gen 2 division for full on narrow waterline, low wetted surface designs, a Gen 1 division for more stable, higher wetted surface designs, and a Vintage division for restored Moths built before 1950.

I designed, built, and raced 4 hulls in early 60s. My spars and sail migrated to each new hull.

 

That's my story. And I'm sticking to it.

 

Just my $0.02

 

CT429,

In my ancient past I sailed a Tornado. Never did much good since I could not afford a new boat. Well, that was the first reason. Being an average sailor at best was the second.

Sharpi2,

"The definition of "best boat" is not simple - yes, a boat with hollows may be faster, but if it requires sailors who are miles above the average, in terms of boat handling ability, then it may not be "the best boat" according to many criteria. A class in which a couple of boats blast around and everyone else struggles or capsizes for a few regattas before giving up is not exactly a success." PROVE IT.

Wasn't the purpose here to find better ways to make a boat with an emphasis on clever instead of expensive? How can you get better if you are not willing to try something. I remember a sailing story about Donald McKay - Clipper ship designer. Everyone said large boats needed big puffed out bows, laughed when he came out with one that had a significant hollowed bow. The owner listed to the nay sayers, and had deadwood built up to get the "typical" shape. The boat didn't sail well, pounded into the sea, until the deadwood fell off and the boat finally picked up speed. The only point here is this rule mimics a 100+ year old fallacy that was disproved in the most graphic way possible.

I don't care about hollows or bluff bows, or any other fad. I would like to see what is the better sailing design. But we Might not with this rule.

"23 sentences is nothing. 23 pages, and I would start to worry." Obviously you are more interested in playing games based on preconceived ideas. Wait, you just proved it in your next to last post. "The gaff, set up at a 1 to 1 pitch, would extend above the masthead and provide more area."

I would consider this "race" as successful if it proved something I personally do not believe. For instance - would a PD racer (or something developed from one) win over more traditional boats?

Marc

 

The extra requirements were largely from inputs of what could happen if the intent of the rules were not clear. Also, someone pointed out that the type of race is also important to know since that might also affect design, so more words were added to describe the type of racing that is going to occur.

With little or no restrictions you end up with boats way outside the intended goal of this contest. Most of the restrictions are going to be from the $600 limit anyway, but by cutting the size down a bit means I think better quality, more durable boats will be built. And a 7 ft wide hull is a lot easier to trailer (or roof top) than an 8 ft wide one, and it seemed reasonable to make it narrower with the shorter length limit. It just seems a length to beam ratio of 2:1 is a "natural" since I would like to create a mono and multi hull class, and I would want the multi-hulls to be 16' x 8' w/ $1000 limit (and it might be kind of fun to later add a "junior" class of 8' x 5' w/$300 limit, and perhaps a crew age limit too).

Rules are always a vexing issue, we can never please everyone. All of you are actually fortunate enough to have some input early in the idea stage. If this becomes a national class, or even international, than all of you had some valuable input, even if it was not included in the final rule.

At next week's meeting I am going to go over each of the proposed rules and summarize the various ideas and variations proposed for it. We will discuss how it compares to the goals for this kind of contest.

Part of me just likes the idea of setting a cost limit, and describe type of races that will be done, and see what develops. OTOH, we indeed could end up with designs that few would want to build and are not really practical sailing boats. So some limits are going to have to be imposed.

This thread has been very active and gone on much longer than I would have guessed. All of the input has been interesting and some of it very thought provoking. I appreciate everyone's input, shared ideas and experiences.

 

Obviously a very interesting subject for all us wannabe designers - possibly some real ones.
Looking forward to the unveiling.

Last question, would a Bruce foil stabilized monohull with no ama float pass the test? meeting the 7' limit of course

 

Trimaran Defense League Official Response

==================
A multihulls legal class is good but a 16' X 8' size limit cuts out performance trimarans and limits "multihulls" to cats or proas. I know I saw your original proposal was just 16' LOA with no beam restriction. A performance tri needs to be at least 85% square, square or oversquare. Maybe a folded or trailerable beam of 8'? I think making such a restriction is arbitrary even for cats but most especially so for tri's.

 

Good point Doug. I had also thought of 16' length and foldable/dismounted able to 8' (road legal) width, with no "on the water" beam or height limit.

 

Trimarans!

=====
Thanks. I'm glad you're open to that-big difference....