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

By making the sail area it is allowed to carry based on the weight of the boat and crew, and doing so in a way that gives heavier boats a slight advantage.

Lighter boats will win on windier days and heavier boats will win in more ordinary conditions.

 

I already have a 500 lb crew plus cargo rule. Heavier crew carry less "cargo" in their cargo box (also required by the rules), lighter crew must carry more sand bags in their cargo box.

In windy conditions heavier crew will have the advantage since they will have more righting moment, can carry more sail than light crew.

That should help even out the differences. Hopefully the different types of races, including all day "raid" events, will also not favor one narrow design over another, but yield the best overall performing design.

I see lots of problems to require switching crews, however we can have a fun challenge rule for a "demonstration race" with crew swapping, if owners and crews agree. For if someone complains they would have won if they were in another boat, the winning team can say "yea? Prove it!".

 

I really think your on to something, Petros.

By having multiple types of races (raid style and buoy style) you are already mitigating the advantage of more extreme boat types.

The 500 lb crew plus 200 lb 'cargo' bit puzzles me.

This makes a total payload of 700 lbs. This would require around 300 lbs of boat to carry all this, raising the over all displacement very close to 1,000 lbs. To get a D/L of say 150, you are going to need about 14.5 feet of waterline. An S/D of 20, which I imagine most would consider minimal for a performance oriented class, will require approximately 126 sf of sail.

That's quite a big boat to build for $500.

That being said, I encourage your efforts and can't wait to see your final rules.

 

The way I read the rules,the original intent was to have crew PLUS cargo to equal 500 lbs.So if the occupants of the boat weigh 300 lbs,they would have to carry 200 lbs of "cargo"to come up to the minimum 500 lb payload requirement.This still strikes me as somewhat of an onerous requirement given the original intent to foster" low cost ,high performance design".Unless you,re really,really good,the boat itself will weigh probably 150-200 lbs--so were talking a gross wt of around 700 lbs--and remember the mast height requirement will limit the amount of power you have to push that 700 lbs around.

 

to Skyyak---yes there are some conditions that are not ideal for the scow.But that can be said of any design.If the wind is light ,one can sit to leeward and pick some of that bottom up out of the water--may still lose to a narrow boat in light air--but guess what --if the wind is moderate to strong, I win!

 

Not really.

What I'm talking about is not an accurate measure of initial stability, as an 'inclination experiment' implies, but a simple 'go or no go' test, which should be a lot easier to set up and administer. If the boat being tested heels at or less than the maximum allowed, it's in.

To do this test, you would need a simple device strapped to the mast. It would have an upright, a plumb bob, and a horizontal arm. If the plumb bob swings past the end of the horizontal arm, when the heeling weight is applied, the boat fails the test. If it doesn't, the boat passes.

If the boat has a hiking bench, the heeling weight will be applied to it's outer edge.

This, I hope you will agree, is a lot simpler than finding a triple digit multiple, as was attempted with IOR boats (and probably the IMS ones as well).

Being that this proposed class has no defined hull shape, it is going to require some technical sophistication to design a successful boat.

If the designer knows ahead of time this test will be applied, she/he will consider it early in the design process. Also, various 'rule of thumb' advisories could be given out with the rules to help insure someone doesn't inadvertently design a boat that is too tender, even if he/she doesn't have such sophistication.

A good 'class' to look at is the pdracer. It has well defined hull design limits such as Length, Beam, Hull type, and immersed waterlines. It's Sail Area, sail type, maximum free board, and deck design are totally up to the designer. Pdracers have carried just about every sail type known to man, including a wing sail.

Now, they have settled on basically two: The Balanced Lug and the sprit boom Bermuda (aka leg o' mutton). The ordinary Bermuda and the boom Lateen sail are also often seen, rounding out, what I call, 'the big four'.

 

Just a suggestion for how to encourage designs that the whole class enjoys.

My commentary would be greatly improved if I was to review the current state of the rule. What message number was it last posted in?

It sounds like the thread has reached their conclusions about the best hull configuration. What about rig and sail? Every dingy class I know of charges $500 or more for a new sail alone. What is the best configuration for the dramatic low cost of this class! Anyone?

What about sail material?

 

Its obvious to me that the hull will need to be built from old wood pallets stuffed with polystyrene, with no curves in the hull, and the sails will be used shopping bags, sewn together into a junk rig.

On a serious note, I reckon that people who submit designs should also be able to show a working prototype sailing around a specified length course.

Also, would skin on frame designs be precluded ? There are lots of modern materials both cheap and fairly robust.

 

Sharpii wrote "Building into the class devices, such as hiking straps, is already sending a signal that this class will be over canvassed for anything other than racing."

Not really. The Wayfarer has hiking straps and Frank Dye sailed one from the UK to Iceland and later from the UK to Norway. They are not races, they were high-latitude oceanic cruises of 650 miles or so. The Wanderer has hiking straps and Margaret Dye used hers for extensive offshore cruising. The Mirror has hiking straps and one sailed from the UK to the Black Sea.

In many places, a dinghy without hiking straps would probably be considered unseaworthy because there's no other practical way to generate the power to beat home against a heavy headwind while cruising. Perching on the gunwale is precarious.

With respect, if you have only sailed your scow and a SS, you may not be in contact with the wider world of dinghy sailing and the attitude of dinghy sailors to hiking straps - or, for that matter, hiking benches. Have you sailed with benches? They are widely accepted to have implications for capsize recovery, and not good ones.

In marginal cases, which are always the hard ones, measuring stability remains problematic. I've done it for physical self-righting tests (as well as helping with IMS etc a bit) and have seen in real life the way that a tiny bit of wind or chop dramatically effects measurment. There is also the issue of hull trim; fore and aft trim dramatically affects stability in many boats so in what fore and aft trim do you measure it? It doesn't seem hard to design a boat that would measure with more stability than another boat and be faster, yet be less seaworthy because of the means taken to get around the stability measurement.

The impact of mast weight, which is recognised as being critical in narrow boats, also means that a stability rule using the mast means that cutting down weight aloft will be critical and that may not be a good thing in a boat designed as an average sailor's cruiser/racer. There is also the issue of alterations - do you re-incline a boat every time a change to rig, foils and hull are made? If not then how do you stop people changing to a faster and tippier configuration? How do you check whether such a change has been made?

I've thought about a similar stability test so I'm not denying that it could have value and worth. However, it IS going to significantly increase complexity.





Sharpii wrote "This, I hope you will agree, is a lot simpler than finding a triple digit multiple, as was attempted with IOR boats (and probably the IMS ones as well)."

Not sure; if there are borderline cases then people will still want them to be accurately determined. I have taken part in physical self-righting tests of offshore boats and the borderline cases were impossible to measure precisely in a moderate breeze, when when the test was simply measuring the upward force of the mast (at horizontal) at 90 degrees.

At what flotation do you measure the stability? Many boats - even something as stable as a Laser - vary their stability dramatically according to how level they are fore and aft, which is why you can stand in a Laser cockpit all day long but getting around the mast to the foredeck required timing and fast moves.

A stability test such as this will of course create more incentive to reducing rig weight as the mast weight is critical in narrower boats at heel, as anyone who has sailed a skiff Moth knows. I'm not saying that the idea is not workable and I've chucked around a similar idea in thought experiments myself as I struggle with the issues of creating a development class suitable for average sailors, but there are issues that have to be worked out and there will be side effects as well as complications; eg does the boat have to be re-inclined after every modification to hull and rig?

 

Proposed rules

PROPOSED RULES

1. two classes: Monohulll. Max hull length 14', max beam 7', max mast length (step to peak) 16'. overall length 16' including all appendages (bow sprint, rudders, etc). No spinnaker, or trapeze allowed, but foot straps and bars for hiking out are okay (as long as all appendages are within max size limits). Multihull: max length 18' (including all appendages), max mast length 20', no beam limit but it must be able to be reconfigures/dismatled to 8' towing width. No spinnakers but trapeze are allowed. Size is measured with the sails centered on the hull, so booms or jibs, yards, etc. can go outside the box rule when underway (not centered).

2. Races will be with two man crew or singled handed. To make sure the boats stay practical, some races will require boats to accommodate a minimum crew-plus-cargo weight of 500 lbs, and room for large cooler sized box must be included in the design.

3. Wood or wood/pulp based materiel must be incorporated into the structure of the hull (but the building method does not have to use wood exclusively-other materials are allowed). Construction method is wide open, but should be suitable for building in a home shop without extensive tooling (plywood forms or strong back acceptable, making parts in a numerically controlled mill is not).

4. All the materials, fasteners and adhesives purchased for use in the construction of the complete boat, sails and rigging is limited to
$600 monohull class, $1000 multihull class (not counting sales tax and shipping costs). The cost basis will be for normal retail cost available to anyone, purchased new in small quantities at retail prices from any mail order or national supplier (such as-but not limited to- Home Depot, Lowes, or Ace hardware stores), or actual sales receipts. This means you can buy wholesale suppliers or bulk purchase prices, but the normal small quantity retail price will be your cost basis. The purchase unit of materials shall be used, such as if a hull uses 4.3 sheets of plywood, material cost is 5 sheets. Fabrics or lines and rigging supplies sold by the running yard or by the foot, are counted to the next unit of measure. Screws, fittings or fasteners are counted by the way they are sold, by the box, pound, or each.

5. The entrant must supply documentation of value of materials. All entrants must submit copies of receipts or print out from a national retailer for the cost basis and a list of materials used when a boat is registered for the season. Entrants must keep original purchase receipts (or record of purchases) and a detailed record of the build for examination if a protest filed.

6. The cost of paint, sealant or preservatives will not count toward the materials cost, any type of one-part paint or sealant is allowed.
Bright colors and attractive paint schemes are encouraged. The cost of the thread incidental to any sewing of fabric or webbing will also not be counted towards material cost. The cost of maintenance or repairs is not counted toward materials cost, nor the cost of replacing whole assemblies of items replaced (if a sail or rudder is replaced with one of a new design, but the cost of the materials is the same, than it will not affect the materials costs), experimentation is encouraged.
However, if the replacement component materials costs more, than the difference will count toward the class limit. Keep detailed records of cost of materials, and quantities used should be kept. Major repairs that significantly affect the cost of materials will require a judge to approve, with the intent that no advantage would be gained.


7. At the end of each season winner must allow design plans to be drawn from their boat, and published for next season and made available to anyone for a reasonable fee (TBD). The proceeds from the sale of the plans are to be split between race organization and the boat designer.

Any construction method, design, sail plan or type, and materials can be used within these limitations.

==============================================

Type of Racing Events;

There shall be three or four race day events for each season (series), with varied events as outlined below.

Each racing day event shall consist of two or three (or more) races arrange as either;

1) a triangle coarse around 3 markers (with option of circling the "long way" around one, two or three of the markers).

2) a rectangular coarse with a "bow tie" option around 4 coarse markers,

3) a straight line coarse out and back around one marker. Each marker must be at least 660 ft (1/8 mile) nominally apart or distance from the starting line, longer distances preferred.

4) At least one of the races on each race day, it shall be required to have crew and cargo equal 500 lbs, with cargo box carried on each vessel.

5) The first contestant across the finish line shall be awarded 100 points, second place finisher will receive 60 points, third place shall receive 40 points, fourth place shall receive 20 points, and each contestant that finishes the race after 4th place shall receive
10 points. DNF receives zero points for that race.

6) There shall be at least one Raid type event each season. It shall last 4 hours or more in duration, first leg out to a distant landmark or location (preferably a restaurant or park with a BBQ), and than back for the second leg. A beach "Le Mans" style start is required, and all skids, wheels or launching equipment (if used) must be carried on the boat for the duration of the event. All gear, refreshments used during each stage of the race, clothing, supplies and equipment must be carried on the boat or the crew for the whole event.

First contestant to return will receive 300 points, second 180 points, third 120 points, fourth 60 points, and every finisher after, within the time limit (if any), 30 points each.

Highest point total for crew and boat at the end of the season shall be the season winner.

If both crews agree, a demonstration "crew swap challenge" can be made between two or more crew and boats. No points except bragging rights earned.

Event organizers or event sponsors are free to add other awards or prizes, such as best new design, or most innovative use of non-boat hardware, winner of any individual race, people choice award, etc.
But these will not add points toward season total.

All racing rules not specifically stated will be generally according to the current Racing Rules for Sailing by the International Sailing Federation. Rules will be generally observed but not necessarily strictly enforced.

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/RRS20092012with2010changes-[8222].pdf

A few notes;

We should adopt a policy of adjustments to any rules will be announced by January 31 for that seasons rules. Rule changes should be done by committee of course.

To keep changes in material costs more fair from one year to the next we might adjust the cost limit based on an index of a sample list of supplies that equals the $ limit: like 5 sheets of 4x8-1/4" AC plywood, one gallon of Tightbond 3, 2 pounds of stainless screws. 100 ft of 1/4" woven polyester cord, etc. And each year the race committee announces by Jan 31st the years build index cost. This would also allow different areas of the country to adjust for local materials cost.

Also, all competitors mush wear PFD, and immersion gear for the long distance events. The race officials reserve the right to disqualify any boat if it appears unsafe (especially for the longer distance events).

Another suggestion was that cost records should be kept on the honor system, and only the top 3 or 4 finishers must surrender the cost receipts for scrutiny at the end of the season. keeps judges efforts to a min. and will only focus on wining boats anyway.

We could also perhaps consider publishing the plans for the top 3 finishers as well, since each could have been the season winner if conditions were different. Also gives us more of a variety of plans to publish too.

 

Also, I want to include the rule that the righting moment must be transmitted through the hull, to exclude sailboards/windsurfers.

still considering the floor rise requirement.

 

Then why design a narrow boat, if it's going to cause this many problems?

I think a lot of your objections come from experience with classes that were designed primarily for 'around the cans' type of racing. 'Raid' style racing puts more functionality demands on a boat, which a designer is wise to consider over demands for speed alone. You can't win if you don't finish. If your wonder boat flips over while you're pushing it off a mucky beach into a gentle surf, it's not likely to do well in a 'raid+around the cans' competition. This fact alone may be sufficient to prevent the more extreme types my tip test is supposed to screen out.

Haven't heard of very many narrow moth type boats in 'raid' type events, but have heard of several pdracers participating (and even completing the course, in some cases). Just an example.

 

At last. Now let's see if anyone can come up with some design concepts for this class.

 

First amendment -

get your spellchecker out and replace "coarse" with "course"

 

Sharpii2 wrote

"You measure it in the worst trim it's likely to be in during normal operations. If the boat has a pointed bow and you have to go forward routinely, then the measurement will be taken at that trim. You can design your way around these problems by designing a fuller bow, or designing a rig where the foresail is less important and is generally brought down quickly with a down haul, for one example."

Define "normal". Does it include adjusting the jib cunningham eye, which may require the crew on the foredeck? Does it include sailing in a drifter, which may mean that all the weight should be as far forward as possible? Does it include when gybing the jib pole and when the skipper is leaning forward to grab the new sheet, or does it only include gybes when the skipper is further aft? Does it include broad reaching in a zephry in flat water on a long run, when the crew leans forward to hold out the jib and the skipper is as far forward as he can be?

And which crew do we allow for? The 80+kg I sailed with yesterday? The 70kg crew I normally sail with? The 50kg crew I could sail with? Which of those do we use when assessing how far the bow is down for measuring stability?

If we settle on a crew weight, what happens when (as one sailor faced recently in a title) ones 60kg crew has an emergency and is replaced by a 95kg crew, who will depress the bow far more?

If we define it as when the crew are in "X" position, how will we enforce it? Do you disqualify anyone whose crew moves further forward than "X" for "Y" seconds? How do you make this apparent to the other sailors?

Sorry, but this is a completely unworkable definition as those who have actually raced a reasonable amount, or sailed more than a couple of boats well, would know.


SharpieII wrote;


Then why design a narrow boat, if it's going to cause this many problems?

It's not causing problems for the sailor/builder who can create and sail something like a Moth or Canoe. It IS perhaps causing problems for the other sailors who want something more cruising-oriented and easier to sail.



SharpieII wrote;

"I think a lot of your objections come from experience with classes that were designed primarily for 'around the cans' type of racing. 'Raid' style racing puts more functionality demands on a boat, which a designer is wise to consider over demands for speed alone. You can't win if you don't finish. If your wonder boat flips over while you're pushing it off a mucky beach into a gentle surf, it's not likely to do well in a 'raid+around the cans' competition. This fact alone may be sufficient to prevent the more extreme types my tip test is supposed to screen out."

Hasn't the Everglades Challenge been won by a Tornado, which is a racing machine? Didn't a lightweight tri enter? The evidence seems to indicate that Raids can be won by racers.

Nor are 'racing machines" impossible to launch in surf. I have launched racing dinghies and then gone surfing that same day at exactly the same spot (small surf, but surf nevertheless).

In some places it is routine to launch into surf with racing machines. This is the surf at one popular club in Australia;

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c0.145.851.315/p851x315/555482_10150772264217305_209596011_n.jpg. This club has high-performance A Class cats, 420-style (but lighter) types, etc and they launch there without problems if handled well enough. The conditions scared off the Olympic sailors many years ago but faster boats launch there each week, showing that design is not the issue.

You can launch an International Canoe into a gentle surf, of a couple of feet high (i.e. high enough for surfers to ride if they are desperate). And at my old club the shorebreak was so bad that I have seen waves literally breaking over the top of the head of crews standing at the water's edge while they held their boats. That crew was the world champ in that class(15' boat, 68kg hull) and therefore they could handle what others couldn't, underlining that it is crew skill and not design that makes the difference if you only launch occasionally.

I used to compete in the waves in windsurfers and from that angle I'd say that the launching "problem" is far from enough to rule out 'racing machines.' In fact having a speed advantage allows you to wait for lulls or run the craft through the foam to a more sheltered location, and a cockpit-less racer is easier to get through surf than a "cruiser" in my experience. If you can wait 20 minutes for a lull/wind shift/walk the boat to a less exposed area and still win through speed, then launching is not a major issue.

BTW I have done a lot of dinghy sailing and ocean racing and have yet to see conditions in which a cruising-style dinghy would be faster than a racer of comparable size.

SharpieII wrote;

Why would anyone have to go around the mast in a Laser(r)? I would consider such a necessity an indication of a bad design for a more general purpose sailboat.[/B]

I brought up getting on a Laser bow simply as a well-known example of stability varying with fore and aft trim, not as example of a problem.

But since you asked why someone would go around the mast on a Laser, how about tying to a jetty; re-tying the centreboard line; going to get a drink from a coach boat; or (most common IME) paddling home by lying on the bow in a calm.

These activities are quite common in Lasers. If you do not know about them then it is an example of your lack of knowledge of the world's most popular boat, not any bad design. The "problem" of lack of stability when going around the mast is of course much less important than the advantage gained by a narrower boat. As I said, this is not a real problem but simply an example of a moderate design in which stability varies a lot depending on fore-and-aft trim and therefore defining stability is an extremely complicated problem.


SharpieII wrote;

I think a bit of reasonable judgment goes a long way in anticipating the likely hood of a boat ending up in an unstable trim during normal operations.[/B]

Have you ever raced? Many craft are fastest when unstable. Winners can control the craft in such a situation if they have trained hard enough but people without decades of training and a high degree of skill cannot, therefore it can be better to ensure that the class does not create boats that are normally unstable when sailed at their peak.

SharpieII wrote;

Haven't heard of very many narrow moth type boats in 'raid' type events, but have heard of several pdracers participating (and even completing the course, in some cases). Just an example.

The "Raid" races are only a minor component of the proposed series so even poor finishes (if they occurred) would not prevent race machines from winning this series.

Basically, this proposal is completely unworkable. The people who created the rules we have today are NOT stupid, NOT inferior in cognitive capacity to you and they are most definitely equipped with vastly more and wider experience than you. The reasons that they have not been able to come up with simple rules to control stability etc are NOT down to foolishness, ignorance or whatever you seem to think.

These issues are complicated and extremely difficult to solve. Dinghy design and rules are extremely complicated issues that have fascinated and vexed leading scientists, America's Cup designers, significant artistic/[political/sporting figures, etc. Please stop implicitly insulting these very smart people and understand that the reason they have not used these simple rules you propose is NOT because they are fools or closed minded, it is because the rules are not simple (eg defining "normal operations" is extremely difficult) and not workable.

If you start by respecting the decisions made by the enormously experienced dinghy sailors of the world, rather than assuming that they had missed making simple rules, then you would be much better equipped to come up with rules that would work.