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

'22 Foot' 'Golf' 'Raid' Class


This is a crazy idea that I had that might be relevant to this this
thread.

The idea is to take a number and base most of the design limitations
around it.

The number, in this case is '22'.

This number will determine the design displacement, the maximum Beam, the
Length, and the Sail Area.

The Length and Sail Area, in this case can be traded off against one
another. The Length is up to 1.25 times the Water Line Length, at design
displacement, including overhangs, bowsprits and boomkins. The Water Line
Length is subtracted from 22 and the sum is squared.

The displacement is ((22 divided by 20)cubed) times seven, in cubic feet of fresh water, in pounds.

That is where the word 'Golf' comes from. It represents the letter 'G',
which is the seventh letter of the English alphabet.

In this case, the design displacement comes to 581 pounds of fresh water.
I think this is a good displacement for a one person raid boat, built
with unsophisticated construction techniques.

The maximum Beam is 22 divided by four, in feet, or 5.5 feet.
This is the general rule I propose.

Now for some specifics.

1.) Design boat and crew weight will be 581 total. In some races boat and
crew will be required to weigh at least this much.

2.) Beam shall be 5.5 max, not including hiking benches that will be
allowed to extend one foot past the sides of the boat. This one foot
extension limit applies to narrower boats as well.

3.) Length shall be Water Line Length (WLL) at 581 pounds displacement
times 1.25, including overhangs, bowsprits, and boomkins, but not the
rudder.

3.) Sail Area (SA) shall be (22 minus WLL, in feet) squared, in square
feet. Specialized down wind sails, such as, 'spinnakers', 'square sails',
and 'down wind jibs', will be allowed, if they increase the total SA by
no more than 125%.

4.) Rig shall be able to be set up or taken down within six minutes, by
one crew, with no outside help.
a.) Mast shall be able to be raised and lowered in deep water, by
one crew, with no outside help. It shall be able to be lowered enough to
pass under a five foot high obstacle, with the boat floating at it's
design waterline. Mast includes all 'top masts' and other extensions, but
not 'yards' and 'gaffs', which can be raised and lowered, after the mast
is raised.
b.) Booms and Yards shall not extend past the Length of the boat,
except when the sails are reefed or furled.
c.) All spars shall be made of standard sized lumber, piping, and
or conduit. Thickness planing is not allowed. Taper cutting of lumber,
is. All hollow spars shall have a simple rectangular section, or be
standard piping, and or conduit. Rounded spars, otherwise, must be solid
lumber.
d.)Sails shall be build able by owner and be made of 'poly tarp'
material. 'Gores' and 'Darts', in sail construction, are not allowed.
Curved edges are.
e.) 'Hiking Straps', 'Trapezes', and other devices that allow the
crew to extend their body past the ends of the hiking benches, are not
allowed.

6.) Hull shall provide room for one crew to lay down in with mast either
raised or lowered.
a.)Shall be made of plywood with either 'taped seam' or 'chine'
construction, with no visible compound curves or twists.
b.) Hull section will be allowed a maximum of six facets, not
including the deck. 'Hull' means all hulls of the boat, if there are more
than one. A catamaran, for instance, would be allowed three sectional
facets for each hull (six, divided by two hulls, equals three per hull)

Race Scoring System

One point, for starting.
Two points, for finishing.
Three points for coming in third.
Four points for coming in second.
Five points for wining the race.

This system, IMHO, will help insure that the best over all boat will win
the series, not necessarily the fastest.

 

I would counsel against formulae that trade off one factor against another. You have no chance of actually getting the balance right because the trade offs are so very very complicated. That means that there will inevitably be a correct place for each formula, but it will take a lot of trial and error to find it. This is really getting into the area of measurement handicapping rules, and they have a long history of generating enormous complexity, complication and expense without ever succeeding in enabling radically different boats to race together evenly.

Better, IMNSHO, to just pick maxima and minima for various dimensions to consitute the box the boat must fit in rather than attempt formulae to balance one against another.

On the detail above, are you intending to ban "tortured ply" construction? That will be an effect of the restrictions on compound curves and twists.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Actually I am suspicious of tortured plywood construction, as the sheets you see these days seem pre tortured.

I do want to limit this sort of thing, so everyone could make a successful boat, not just those who are lucky enough to get a good piece of plywood that can stand the abuse. Most of the wood I see at the big box stores seems to be crap.

I don't see anything wrong with a trade off rule, as long as the trade offs are limited. A longer boat with less sail area might be quite fast on windy days, but a dog in light breezes.

This is why I posted the scoring system I did. You get two points for just completing the race and just five points if you win that race. It think it would be more fun, if different boats won on different days, and the boat that won the most races wouldn't necessarily take home all the silver. Good average performance would be encouraged under this system, IMHO, more than excellent performance in ideal conditions.

Most likely, the boats would come closely cropped together, length wise, form the start, as the allowable sail area increases and decreases drastically. There might be an odd duck who will build an unusually long or short boat and end up winning a few races. To that I say: "good for him"

He or she might value winning line honors, once or twice a season, more than winning the series

I don't think box rules are without their own problems.

to make a good boat with that kind of rule, you just maximize everything. Then you're more likely to end up with boats that always win and boats that always lose.

I think box rules are good for 'development' classes, for this reason.

I don't view my proposed class as such.

BTW- dedicated down wind sails are supposed to be allowed to increase the total sail area by 25%, not the 125% I originally posted.

 

And the purpose for such a complex rule?

What does it accomplish?

 

Probably not a heck of a lot.

Just an idea to throw out to you all.

It may be an embryo of a fair and relevant classing system, so widely divergent design concepts could be raced together with at least some hint of fairness.

Also, as I said in another post, I thought it would be fun to have races where the same boat didn't win time after time after time.

Really, the only kind of racing I have the least respect for is One design.

The rest I see as more of a lark. Or a jobs program for designers and builders, and I should add...sea lawyers.

 

RE:--final rules for Hardware store class:-has it been decided whether the 2 ft bowsprit previously under consideration would be permitted?It would be helpful for the forestay attachment on a mast placed way forward.

 

seriously... 16 pages? we could have had a $300 boat built by now.

 

This is sixteen pages of input and debate, not sixteen pages of rule.

I would much rather start out with with sixteen pages of debate and input, than end up with an over simplified rule which ends up needing sixteen pages of '...but ifs...".

The original US constitution was written after years of debate, and books of argument, for and against.

The actual document ended up being quite small, and still is, even after 27 amendments.

I carry a copy with me in my work kit.

And, for a lot of us, a $300 throwaway boat is simply not in the cards. If I ever do build a boat (not likely under my present economic situation) I will build one that so thoroughly meets my needs that it would only be replaced if it wears out.

It probably won't be a racing boat (you can race potato sacks) and it most likely won't be a pure sailboat (I want to be able to use it in dead calms and still have the sails along, if the wind ever picks up).

My point is that a whole lot of thinking has to go on before the building ever starts.

All of my actual and likely life opportunities must be ruthlessly examined (no, I probably never will sail across an ocean). Then, all of my personal values must be assessed. Finally, my ideas of what makes a useful boat must be evaluated and tested, at least on paper, against reality, as much as possible.

I think the same thing can be said for creating a design class rule.

 

Apparently not, if it increases the total length of the boat past the 14 ft limit, not including rudder.

 

I'd reccommend against naming a sailboat class "Golf".
Holes and boats aren't compatible.

 

OK.

I'll change the 'O' to a 'U', making it 'Gulf' instead of 'Golf'.

 

I have to write up all of the various pros and cons of the rule changes up for consideration, and than share it with the other commitee members. I have been busy at work with not a lot of time to devote to it.

Not much was decided at the last meeting, still in discussion. The feeling was to limit it to monohulls since these are more practical as day sailors. The bigest concern was that we had enough people committed to enter a boat for next year to show we have a viable class. So beside rule finalizing we are going to try and solicit people or groups to commit to entering a boat for next year.

Anyone here want to volunteer their time and effort to enter a boat into 4 races next summer in the Puget Sound area? if we can get at least 4 people to build multi-hulls we will likely create a separate multi-hull class with more generous rules from the begining. No prize money yet, but with a good showing we might get sponsorship for the following season.

The rules are still not finalized. I like the idea of hull size limit at 14, and overall at 16, gives more design flexibility with little cost increase. If we have a separate multi hull class I would like to alter the rules to allow $1000 materials budget, 16 ft hull/18 ft overall length, no beam limit (except that it must be folding/demountable to 8 ft transport width), and I am thinking no mast/rigging/sails or other limitations.

 

Petros,

Sounds like a reasonable compromise (monohull vs multi). Just go ahead and set both classes and let people show up. It would be a pity to generate interest and not allow the multihulls to try and generate a class.

Wish I was at least 1800 miles closer.

Marc

 

I wonder if it would have been better to have started with something like a Puddle Duck Racer. I wonder this for several reasons. First, it is often difficult to fully understand the scope of things without actually trying it. Is it harder than you thought to build a boat? Is it more expensive than you thought? Are the rules more complicated than you thought? I'm thinking that if several of you had built PDR's you would get some idea of cost, build complexity, and racing. More importantly you would be racing now instead of next year. Likewise you would already have some build experience under your belt.

I'm sure many on here snort and sneer at the idea of racing PDR's but that misses the whole point. You aren't married to a particular class of boat. If you quickly outgrow the PDR's (which is likely) then you can plan your next step while still having a boat to race. Also, when you do move up you could still use the PDR's for beginner races or junior races (which could help to increase participation). Planning is nice but often there is no substitute for just trying it.

 

I'd rather try a mono using the Bolger Gypsy.
Don't know if you could make $500, but I personally wouldn't snort and sneer.

Too far away for my opinion to count.
Texas is just about as far away as Indiana to Seattle?

When will we see the rules? Times a waste'n for a new design/ build/ tuneup.