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

Sorry, CT. Didn't mean to piss you off.

Nor did I mean to insult dinghy sailors, designers, and rule makers.

Perhaps I stated my case clumsily.

I am an evolutionist by philosophy.

I would think dinghy design, dinghy sailing, and dinghy rule making all grew up together. As the dinghy sailors improved, they got faster, more challenging boats.

And, as you well pointed out, they can handle some hair raising conditions, just like the work boat sailors who preceded them could ( they had to).

When dinghy design rule makers sit down and do their thing, my thinking goes, they take into account this sailing skill. They may not do this consciously, but, since they all grew up together, they know each other well (the sailors, designers, and rule makers). They know each others likes, dislikes, and over all value system.

I think you would agree that the racing dinghy sailor wants a boat that is both fast and maneuverable, but one that he/she can handle quite well with her/his level of experience.

The designer wants to produce a winning boat and the rule maker wants him to produce a reasonably workable, safe one.

This produces what appears to be a conflict, as the rule maker wants the boat to be safe and workable, at perhaps some sacrifice of performance (especially if boats that have already been built for this class have these virtues) and the designer and sailor want that puppy to be as fast and maneuverable as possible.

But, once a new class starts, or and old one gets redefined, the rule maker gets more liberal in his/her thinking and the designers and sailors handle this with aplomb.

Now we are talking about not only a new class, but a class of boats that are clearly intended for purposes other than just racing. So I don't think it is fair to expect rule makers, for boats that are intended for pure racing, to think up crude, simple screening test for those that aren't.

I never meant to imply that my suggestion is fool proof or unbeatable.

Certainly, clever designers (or sea lawyers) will be able to get around it. But, for a $500 boat and no money or prestige for winning, do you think someone is going to go to that much trouble?

But saying that it is worthless for that reason, is like saying taxes are worthless because someone will always find a way to get out of paying them.

BTW, I think the 'Tornado' cat you mentioned would have passed my tip test, as would the boat I mentioned that capsized, to be fair.

But some crazy wing thing, like a 'Moth' with a narrow hull and hiking wings, certainly wouldn't. This is precisely what this test is meant to screen out.

Not tender designs, but ridiculously tender ones.

 

Petros,

Please start a new Thread when you and your buddies decide on the rules.
I can't stand reading the talk, talk, talk.

Marc

 

About Proposed rules

Petros,

I like the look of the rule. Very open and fun. I have some suggestions, mostly about making the rule more broadly attractive or better restriction to low cost/high performance.

1) -2 classes, and both are double hand. I think it would be a good idea to have one class be focused on single hand -like giving it a reduced weight requirement.

-I think you need a 'no concavity' rule for the mono class

-it appears to me that the multihull class is dramatically faster in most conditions. It would be nice if both classes were closer in capability, just for logistics sake.

-you have a max mast length, but no restrictions on sail area. I think it will be difficult to contain cost and size of sails.
I think you need to specify no part of the rig or sail extend above mast height.
-you imply but don't specify a single mast.
-define spinnaker

-I think you will need to specify how many sails can be used in a season.
-I think that limitations need to be put on construction cost, if someone shows up with a 160sf radial cut sail and counts it as material cost for 160sf, it would not be fair and a huge violation of the low cost intent.
I know this is a lot of restriction to add on sails but when you look at all the one design classes (or all sailboat racing for that matter) , the number one cost of keeping a boat competitive is sails. If this class achieved nothing but fixing the high cost of racing sails, it would be the most important development in sailing. We don't need another class that is a spending war with sailmakers supplying all the weapons.

2) I think the addition a lighter weight (and smaller cooler size) single hand crew weight would increase fleet sizes. Maybe this weight could be used to even up the performance disparity between monos and multis.
It doesn't say anything about moving the weight. I would recommend that there be a minimum crew weight for all races, and a fixed central cargo for some. I think that there should be a net buoyancy requirement for safety (more buoyant than wood say).

3) I appreciate the intent but how could you say for sure that CNC was used? I think CNC should be limited to kits offered to ALL boats in the fleet, and possibly some cost of process be added to the boats Cap. Generally I think this is the best way to handle advanced processes -charge them against the cap.

4) it would be nice to have group discounts for the fleet for common hardware and material

5) maybe have a standard file that everyone uses to track all spending for ease of administration

6) I think you need to limit the cost of all parts used in one season. If I have $10,000 worth of rigs hulls and appendages that I put together into a $500 boat optimised for conditions every outing I don't think anyone who has just one complete boat will stand a chance.

7) per above, it could be difficult to say what constitutes the winning boat.
I will speak to intellectual property later.

Type of Racing Events;

Looks like fun! The one major surprise to me was that this looks heavy on reaching with little or no tacking up and gybing down wind. This greatly reduces performance demands and could result in boats that don't go upwind well.

Regarding safety I think you should put in that all local regulations will be observed plus whatever the fleet mandates for the meet.

I think you should have some provision for paddling (for the raids at least). It makes a better boat design and should be required for safety anyway.


I will write more later about design, invention, allowance/banning from class.

 

Skyak,

good ideas all, spinnaker and hollows in the hull are defined by the international sailing rules (one reason for invoking them, no reason to reinvent the rules).

I thought about the sail area limit but did not want to limit innovation. Howeer, I think limiting the sail area to top of mast, and within the box is a good way to go, and only one mast allowed as well. Good call on that one.

I think having each participant keep logs of on going expenses for examination later if questioned is the best way to handle using multiple sails/rigs. There is no way to separate legitimate improving the design, or doing repairs/replacement, from "rule beater" cheating. So it will have to be at the discretion of judges, and I think handles as a complaint, where the entrant has produce the records. For most entrants it will not matter, for the few ones that cheat in that way, there is a means of enforcing it without burdening all those that stay within the intent of the rules.

 

also, I intended to allow paddles/oars for raids, and "when the judges deem appropriate because of low wind conditions"

That should make things interesting

 

Sorry if my reply was over-wrought. FWIW the best way to create any rule seems to be to put it up and then let others try to crack it by pointing out what could happen under that rule, which is what I am trying to do. It's much better to find an issue before boats have been built than it is after boats have been built.

There is a difference betweenn making an unbeatable rule and an unenforceable rule. IMHO this is not a rule that "sea lawyers" can get around, so much as a rule that is incapable of being applied, if I can put it so bluntly.

The issues about fore-and-aft trim and its effect on measured stability are very real issues and it's not a matter of anyone "getting around" anything. "Normal operations" does not provide enough information for anyone to be able to work out where to judge where to put the weight. It would also require some pretty good design skills to get anywhere near the "correct" stability, which is making a simple class into a very complicated one from some aspects. And that's leaving alone the issue of what happens when crew weight changes; it would be pretty annoying if one could not sail a regatta unless one had the right crew weight*, or bought or built a design and then realised that it was illegal for them to sail it because the new crew's weight was different and therefore the trim in "normal operations" changed enough to make the boat illegal. Rules to avoid that issue would be complicated and have significant side effects.

All of this stuff is not nit-picking or sea lawyering; instead it is the sort of brainstorming and testing that has to be done before a set of rules are launched. The issue of measuring "normal" stowage of gear and inclination in offshore boats was so problematic that in some rules (ie IRC) gear is now stripped off for measurement and no inclination is done. That's further evidence that inclining is not simple (as I know from personal experience).

If you measured the stability by placing a weight equivalent to a medium-weight crew at a certain specific fore-and-aft point and a specific distance above the CofG and used a specific measuring jig instead of the mast you may be able to get around some problems, but you could also end up with a situation where designing the optimal boat is very difficult, because fixing a measured stability problem and still remaining competitive could be a major problem and intimidate many designers.

As you say, classes evolve with the expertise of the sailors but even the sophisticated and evolved dinghy classes that DO try to control stability do not use inclination tests to do so because of the enormous problems they cause. The development classes use beam measurements because they are simpler. FWIW I'd hazard a guess that the best thing to do to control stability would be to study the development classes that do control stability via beam measurements (NS14, MG14, Cherub, Javelin, Merlin, N12, H Jolle, Int 14, Canoe etc) and learn how designs have evolved in those classes. For example, the arrival of assymetrics changed the way designers approached the restrictions in the original Cherub class and therefore changed the hull shape and the way the beam restrictions were achieved.



* this happens in some classes where there is a minimum or maximum crew weight, but that is easy to calculate. Under the proposed rule for this class, one would have to take the boat down to the water with the proposed crew, measure the waterlines with that crew in the "normal" position (whatever that means) and then get out the measuring jig and hope that the boat still measures in. And if not, what does one do? It's not as simple as adding ballast which is allowed in some classes with a minimum crew weight.

 

Bitter experience tells me that if you make measurement too complicated then it just won't be done... It would be somewhat in line with the class discipline to ensure that full rule compliance can be checked in under 30 minutes at any location, using only equipment sourced from the same hardware store as the materials and costing no more than say 50 dollars and 45 minutes of fabrication time for jigs...

 

Just a thought,

"Bitter experience tells me that if you make measurement too complicated then it just won't be done"

This is supposed to combine FUN, CHEAP and easy.

For typical competitions, allow officials to wave checking compliance with the details of the design rules (other than those for safety) with the qualifier that winners can be challenged for compliance issues. Major violations (not even close based on Judges opinion) get disqualified, minor violations get a "don't race again until fixed".

The opinion part is messy, but a message of "make a good faith attempt and we will let is slide at least once" is the kind of thing that reduces worry & promotes giving it a try.

If you win, but get flagged for a small issue, you have incentive to fix the boat (or the rule) and continue.

If you don't win, you have no worries at all. Also, no measurement / inspection effort is wasted on stuff that does not matter.

If you win a race, but lose out based on an inspection, you get taught a lesson on cutting corners/cheating the spirit.

Not such a bad combination.

Heck, some might cut corners trying for a single victory. If they pull it off, so what. If it turns out that the rule infringement did not really hurt anything & was an advantage, the sailor cam appeal to have the rules updates such that everyone can benefit.

 

P Flados,

Great contribution. This has been my thoughts on it all along. size is an easy thing to measure, but cheating on material costs is a lot of extra effort to prove, but for most entrants it does not really matter since they will not be in the top three.

Many years ago I worked for fully sponsored auto racing team. We built race cars for out team and on contract for others. Rules cheating was common and often winners were disqualified because of blatant cheating. these were fully sponsored professional teams with big price money, you would think they would know better, but in that buisness egos are very large. But at the same time there was also a low cost form of auto racing that used street tires, mostly stripped but stock small cars, the class severely limited the mods you could do. There were lots and lots of entries, not as fast as the professinal classes, but the owners had fun. The thing with that is the guys back in 20th and 21st place were fighting it out just as much as the top three. they were all there to have fun in cheap cars tweaked only a bit. There was rarely a rules protest, and it only involved the fist place finisher. The rest just ran with little scrutiny, and had fun. I sure many cheated a little, but it did not matter for the also rans.

I imagine this will be something like that. People will come with their latest idea or invention to try out, and most of them will just be "also rans", but that will not make it any less fun. So if someone in the top places gets caught, they will lose out, and no one else cares enough to bother checking compliance. A lot of time will not be wasted measuring, weighing, checking records, etc. since it will only matter for the top place, and hopefully someone with that much skill and discipline will not cheat, or they get disqualified.

I like the idea of warning/correction order, if there is no significant advantage, they can race if they have it fixed for the next event. But a clear violation with an advantage, they are disqualified.

 

I have a comment from one of the staff at the Center for wooden boats about the rules. They want to know why I am limiting the height of the mast/sails, that cost should control that. He points out that most 14 ft boats have much longer masts.

My thought were to limit the sail size to keep them managable boats to sail for low time crew, keeping mast height at 16 ft (which means the height above water could be a bit higher with tabernacle or deck mounted mast) puts a practical limit for sail size/height that is easy to measure. Also considering the warnings about a class like this degenerating down to only a few difficult to sail designs that would keep most people out of the running, I thought this would be another way to keep design from becoming too extreme for most people to operate.

Any thoughts.

 

re:mast height

I believe I got an afirmative reply when I asked earlier if a yard or gaff on a gunter or gaff rig could exceed the 16 ft height requirement.I believe that unless the mast height is raised t at least a little ,the majority of entrants will be forced to go to some sort of lug/gunter/lateen or gaff rig in order to get enough power to push a 500 lb payload and probably at least a 200 lb hull at any appreciable speed.As we all know ,these types of rigs (with the possible exception of the gunter) are somewhat less efficient upwind,thats why they are seldom used today.I dont see any advantage to this rule --all its going to do is to result in a bunch of over powered,under efficient gaff and lateen rigged dinghys.If stability is the concern,why not just limit sail area and vertical center of effort--say no more than x number of feet above the waterline for a certain sq ft of area,and let the vertical center of effort allowed to increase,as sail area decreases-(in inverse proportion)--That way some would go for lower aspect ratio higher area to optimize downwind performance,while others might opt for a higher aspect ratio and put up with the smaller area to maximize upwind performance.IMHO that would both foster diversity and innovation while still addressing stability concerns.

 

I agree with your statement, no reason to force people to use a more complex gunter rig to improve performance. the rule was modified so no sail can be above the top of the mast, so now the question is does that make the mast too small?

limiting the heeling moment with sail area x height is a good idea but I want to keep the rules compliance easy to field measure, like I have with mast length. Sail area is more complex to do accurately, and height to the centroid is even more difficult to do accurately in the field. So that idea is out, but how can we achieve the same thing with easy to measure rules? Mast mast height, and all sails when centered on the center line having to be within the "Box" limit does that indirectly. How high should the mast be? Keep in mind that total sail area could potentially be 16' x 16' (mast height) = 256 SF. with a 20 ft mast limit 16x20= 320 sf. It could be even larger since there is nothing that prevents the mast from being mounted on a tabernacle to have an effective mast height of say 26 ft.

 

If you limit mast height too much for the sail area then you get fairly nasty rigs. Mast height off the bottom of the hull would probably be a more practical limitation, or maybe mainsail luff length. Otherwise everyone is going to stump rig their boat and that can go very badly wrong if your engineering isn't up to it. I know: I think I was the first person to rig a stump setup, and my engineering wasn't up to it and IIRC I put the mast through the foredeck every time until I gave up and waited for carbon fibre.

Sail area measurement isn't that easy, but there is a good technique available in the ISAF/IYRU sail measurement technique. See here for an example. http://www.uk-cherub.org/lib/exe/fetch.php/tech/sailmeasurement-2005.pdf. The calculations seem awfully complex, but nowadays we have spreadsheets.

 

Traditional rigs evolved to get the best out of the materials available at the time, which were no where near as stable as dacron, let alone what they use today. Requiring an inexpensive rig (due to the cost restraints of the class) will push us back to more traditional rig types, which I think is a good thing. See what has happened with the pdracer class, where what I call 'the big four' rig types dominate: leg 'o mutton, balanced lug, Boom Lateen, and Bermudan, with the first two consistently running neck and neck. Limiting sail cut complexity would be another useful restriction.

Rig height above waterline is, IMHO, a sensible limitation which is not so easy to get around. Tabernacles, and deck stepped masts would be no help here. Lower sided boats might help somewhat, but there is a limit to how low you can have the sides. And, the closer the base of the rig is to the water surface, the less wind it gets. Limiting the rig height will all but rule out Bermuda, lateen and leg o' mutton mains in favor of four sided sails, such as gaff, sprit, and lug sails, especially if only one mast is allowed. The idea, of course, is to get the largest sail area possible within the rule constraints.

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the cost limits, the cargo box requirement, and the multiple race event types will do more to police the class than all the clever rules any of us can come up with, other than the original box rule, which governed Length, Beam, and Mast height.

Of the three, Mast height could probably be safely dispensed with, as the rigors of a raid style race, along with cost constraints will probably take care of that. You can have a light strong mast that is expensive, or you can have a cheaper, stubbier mast. Keep in mind, a mast that is twice as high as another, has to weigh half as much as that other, in order to have the same VCG.

So, now the rules can be:

1.) 14 ft Length over all, including the rig, but not the rudder,
2.) 7 ft Beam with sails centered,
3.) over all construction materials cost of $500, including glues, fastenings, rigging and sails, but not paint.
4.) required to carry a 24 x 15 x 15 inch cargo box,
5.) required to have a crew of two which, combined with the cargo box, has an all up weight of at least 500 lbs, and
6.) required to start at least some of it's races with the mast down and the boat on the beach (or a trailer, if no beach is available)

The length limit and payload requirement may effectively limit the appeal of multihulls, so there may be no need to out right ban them.

I think it would be a real challenge to design a boat that fits these requirements while staying within a $500 materials budget.

Other useful requirements might include:

a.) a minimum mast weight of x lbs per foot of Mast Length,
b.) must use standard lumber thicknesses; no thickness planing allowed,
c.) sails may have no more than x amount of 'gores' or 'darts' cut out of or added into it.

 

Thank you for your reasoned, considered opinion.

Now that I think about it, a stability test or rule of any kind may not be right for this proposed class, and maybe not even necessary. The cargo box and 'LeMans race start' rules, along with the rock bottom materials cost allowance, already make this class much different than any usual class of racing dinghy.

Though you are right that high performance boats, such as a 'Tornado' cat have won the Everglades Challenge, time after time, that is mostly true with the two person boats. One person boats that have won tend to be much more conservative, 'cruisey' ones, such as Sand Flea, Paradox, and Enigma.

Even the Tornado most certainly had to be modified, giving it a smaller or adjustable Beam. And it's two man crew had to be able to take down the mast to get it under one of the bridges, which acts as a 'filter'. How they did it, and just how they modified their boat, no one is saying. they do seem to be the perennial winners of this event, as they sail so fast, they can complete the course in two days or less.

There seems to be a proliferation of two masted boats in that event. Especially with the two man boats.

Multihulls seem to be taking over, but I don't know of a single one that has won with a one man crew, but I'm sure it's coming.

On my 'bucket list' is the dream of building my Coal Car 12 scow, competing in that event, and making it to at least the first check point.