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

Did you read the ERS for the exact definition of HULL APPENDAGE?

 

He has a point that any rule you write may or may not translate.

Therefore, fewer words is better.

A number can be translated with great accuracy. Anything else, not so much.

 

three cultures separated by a common language



My original intent was to make the hull length 14 ft, that would keep costs down and a useful size that is easy to transport with a typical family car. The 16 ft overall length was intended to include both rudders, bow sprits and extra long booms or other rigging hanging over the rear.

But now since there are hulls under construction that made assumptions I had not intended, I am willing to alter or clarify the rules to accommodate the hulls being built now. I am easy with it, right now it is still an informal class, but I do want to work this out for when it becomes a real and regular class. The only purpose for the overall length was to limit the size of the appendages and sails, it will not make much difference if they are a foot or two either way.

so my intent is that you can have the rudder extend total, including a gantry if any, 18" aft of the rear most part of the hull (or transom), plus the 16 ft overall rule (so from rear most part of the rudder assembly to the bow sprint could be as much as 17.5 ft). But it occurred to me that what if the boom extend out over the transom? should any sail or boom too be limited to the 16' overall rule, or can it extend even to the aft most part of the rudder?

I am not particular to any one configuration, I just want a clear set of rules for everyone.

 

Originally posted by Petros

"My original intent was to make the hull length 14 ft, that would keep costs down and a useful size that is easy to transport with a typical family car. The 16 ft overall length was intended to include both rudders, bow sprits and extra long booms or other rigging hanging over the rear.

But now since there are hulls under construction that made assumptions I had not intended, I am willing to alter or clarify the rules to accommodate the hulls being built now. I am easy with it, right now it is still an informal class, but I do want to work this out for when it becomes a real and regular class. The only purpose for the overall length was to limit the size of the appendages and sails, it will not make much difference if they are a foot or two either way.

so my intent is that you can have the rudder extend total, including a gantry if any, 18" aft of the rear most part of the hull (or transom), plus the 16 ft overall rule (so from rear most part of the rudder assembly to the bow sprint could be as much as 17.5 ft). But it occurred to me that what if the boom extend out over the transom? should any sail or boom too be limited to the 16' overall rule, or can it extend even to the aft most part of the rudder?

I am not particular to any one configuration, I just want a clear set of rules for everyone."[/QUOTE]




My build, the BLUE HERON, was done to the rules published on page 34 of this thread and, to my knowledge, is in full compliance, regardless of how you treat the rudder.

In these rules the ambiguous term "length overall" (LOA) is never used. Instead, length is defined by two measures: hull length (stem to transom) and rigged length which, to me, would be everything, every THING, attached to the boat. No reason to separate things out as appendages, spars, gantries or whatever.

So, I like this way of controlling length. My only concern is that 16 ft for rigged length is a little tight. A few more feet would still prevent extreme designs but open the door to more innovative sail plans and add a little excitement.

 

I think doing so would be a wise compromise.

doing the math: 17.5 ft Overall Length (including spars and rudder(s))/14 foot Hull Length = 1.25.

I don't see 25% Hull Length as excessive over hang.

Of course, those who are actually building boats for this class should have more say than me.

 

Peter, I've just read the rules on 34 and they raise a question. This rule:


A. Monohull. (hollows or concavity in hull not to exceed 1”, below gunwale, aft of mid point)

has been interpreted in the classic Moth class to mean that hiking wings are not allowed. Most of the designs on this thread seem designed to comply with this sense of the rule, but then you mention hiking benches. Are hiking wings allowed or not, and if so, how does this square with the rule as written?

 

We are progressing, one is painted, one has its bottom on, and mine is slower as I've been away.

All our boats interpret this rule in the same way as the Moths, lots of flair, but no 'wings' as such. We also have <14' hulls, and <17' fully rigged length, ie from bowsprit to rudder or boom end.

I think Richard's original concept had detachable 'wings' but I do not know his latest.

I for one do not care which way it goes, as the long races with heavy loads will probably limit minimum beam at some point. Remember, this boat has to perform well with 200lb AND 600lb ballast/load to score points overall. I'm assuming too specialized boats might shine at some tasks, but perform poorly at others, so a good consistent performer should win overall.

 

I have been away for 3 months, but I'm back now and starting to build again. This shows the gunwales and chine stringers, and a start to the side sheathing (forward left).

 

Thanks. I probably won't have time to build this year, but I was thinking that a narrow, wall-sided boat with hiking wings would have a considerable advantage over the design I've been contemplating, which would have flare above the waterline and would gain waterline beam as it was loaded up.

 

This is one of the concepts we as a group considered as one of our original proposals. It was rejected for various reasons, but it could still work, quick and easy. It might be sailed like an old Moth, on one edge.

 

My concept isn't a scow, and doesn't have hiking benches, because I interpreted the rule as banning them.

 

Looks good. Just build it.

Why a curved forefoot, I would have thought water-line length would be paramount though.

 

the hollow only applies to below the gunwale, so hiking wings out to the max width would be allowed as long as they are at or above the level of the gunwales.

 

Sounds like you've basically got people building to two different rules.

 

The original concept was for one panel per side, and you can't get the panels to develop properly without some curvature. In any case, the loss of waterline length is very small.



The narrow waterline beam is because rowing performance is required. Otherwise, you could build a more stable boat and just add more sail area. The box for the rig seems to allow for around 300 square feet, after all, though I doubt a rig that filled the box would be practical.

In any case, if hiking wings are allowed, the class will follow the course the Moth class took, no doubt.

This is a Cherub, but Moths had pretty much gone in the same direction before they went to foiling:



I think this takes the boats in a very race-oriented direction. Not sure it's compatible with the idea of a practical all-'rounder.