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

[CT249]

I wonder if a time from car top to sail ready is a practical thing to score. But I like the car top capable rule (at least for the main hull and rigging perhaps).

They tried a trailer-to-water race at the America's Teacup, the regatta that launched the Laser. It was noted in reports that it was amazing how many boats were apparently trailed with rudders on......

Seriously, though, that is the issue. How you define the state at which the boat is supposedly trailed in? Personally I trail the same boat in a whole bunch of different states, depending on how long it will be before it's sailed next, how long the trailing will take, the roads it's over, the weather over the next few days, the weather last time it was sailed, whether it was raced last time or will be raced next time, where the boat is currently stored at home, etc.

If one person has so many different methods of setting a boat up on its trailer, how could anyone ever define the starting point adequately?

 

[Segler]

Car topping is an excellent idea, though I did not want to complicate it further, it is a simple rule. Of course with those dimensions there is no reason it could not be a car top design.

Where, in your judgement, would you draw the line between trailer and car top? It would have to be weight. Geometry is fixed by the "box".

Both our hulls (Dunnage and myself) weigh 150 lb. Both of us used 5 mm plywood and mostly pine for chine logs etc. I think that's too heavy for car topping. Would 3mm be doable for a boat with crew + ballast of 500 lb? I doubt it.

 

[SukiSolo]

PS - as I understand it the Dart 18 requires quite a light crew and it's quite a big boat, so it's not in the same bracket as a cat version of an Ent, Tasar etc. It is of course quite possible that the sort of boat I'm thinking of just won't work in a cat for some fairly good reasons, but the lack of a cat version of such a popular style of craft does seem odd. Basically I suspect that a major reason that cats aren't more popular is that they haven't hit the right market segments, and I know at least one of the major cat builders down here has a similar belief. Of course, it's highly likely that I'm talking complete rubbish.

Not forgetting that a Cat needs a little more 'sea room' when tacking on a LOT of restricted UK waters. The main Cat fleets are sea and large reservoir based, over here. Plus you have the 'problem' of mixed fleets racing at the same time on the same water which is not insignificant. So maybe Mirrors and Dart 18s?... Nothing against Cats, sailed a few types, but in the end it's still you against the next man/woman if your racing and somehow simpler in a mono very often.

 

[Richard Woods]

since no one to my knowledge has started building a multi hull, changes can be made now.

I know that some of you disapprove on my ideas, as I don't see the point of making a mast or mainsheet block when I have them in stock and can easily buy used ones very cheaply

But no matter. Here is my attempt at a "hardware store" multihull

http://sailingcatamarans.com/index....-under-25/458-zeta-14ft-singlehanded-trimaran

7 sheets of ply, 3 x 3mm, 3 x 4mm, 1 x 6mm. I wrote before that I paid USD17 for each 3mm sheet and USD34 for each 4mm, and that those were 10ft x 5ft so I didn't need 3 sheets. All plywood is okoume WBP

Epoxy use is slightly complicated to work out, as the sheathing/coating epoxy doesn't count in the total cost. But I reckon we spent USD150 on epoxy and 2 rolls of glass tape. Wood came from Home Depot. For example, crossbeams are 2in x 3in, maybe cost USD20 including the fasteners. Shroud lanyards lash to beams, which are lashed to the hulls. No shroud plates.

Although not included in the costs, all the paint came from Walmart

Nothing bought new from West Marine. So it would be well under USD1000 even if I had bought a new 420 mainsail for USD179 from Intensity Sails http://www.intensitysails.com/pohemasafor4.html

It is a quick build. Petros will recognise the main hull as the Zest dinghy we built in two days at last years Edensaw Challenge (plywood sheets on Friday, I was sailing it as a skiff type dinghy on Sunday). I always knew I would convert it to a trimaran, so the Zest we built was narrower than the standard Zest dinghy.

It is also a simple build. The outriggers were built without using a plane for example. So no "sophisticated" tools used, like nail guns, routers, lathe etc

The photos tell the story. Light weight, obviously. Car toppable, ditto. Room for two crew or a 300lb box of lead(!) You may say "no its too small" but read this comment from a builder of my 10ft Tryst trimaran. "It works well for my larger body (105kg) and I have been out with my son (he is 95kg) and we never had a problem with swamping the boat. The wind was strong and the swells high on Lake Ontario." The Zeta is 40% longer so has plenty of safe carrying capacity and has a self draining hull.

It sails well, at least in light winds, see video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS7rgAbw9OU

It will be on display (finished!) at this years Port Townsend WBF Sept 9-11 and I will be racing it on the Friday.

Slight aside, it will be a busy festival for me again. I will also be displaying a 10ft Duo dinghy and giving two capsize/recovery demos/talks

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

 

[sharpii2]

I know that some of you disapprove on my ideas, as I don't see the point of making a mast or mainsheet block when I have them in stock and can easily buy used ones very cheaply

But no matter. Here is my attempt at a "hardware store" multihull

http://sailingcatamarans.com/index....-under-25/458-zeta-14ft-singlehanded-trimaran

7 sheets of ply, 3 x 3mm, 3 x 4mm, 1 x 6mm. I wrote before that I paid USD17 for each 3mm sheet and USD34 for each 4mm, and that those were 10ft x 5ft so I didn't need 3 sheets. All plywood is okoume WBP

Epoxy use is slightly complicated to work out, as the sheathing/coating epoxy doesn't count in the total cost. But I reckon we spent USD150 on epoxy and 2 rolls of glass tape. Wood came from Home Depot. For example, crossbeams are 2in x 3in, maybe cost USD20 including the fasteners. Shroud lanyards lash to beams, which are lashed to the hulls. No shroud plates.

Although not included in the costs, all the paint came from Walmart

Nothing bought new from West Marine. So it would be well under USD1000 even if I had bought a new 420 mainsail for USD179 from Intensity Sails http://www.intensitysails.com/pohemasafor4.html

It is a quick build. Petros will recognise the main hull as the Zest dinghy we built in two days at last years Edensaw Challenge (plywood sheets on Friday, I was sailing it as a skiff type dinghy on Sunday). I always knew I would convert it to a trimaran, so the Zest we built was narrower than the standard Zest dinghy.

It is also a simple build. The outriggers were built without using a plane for example. So no "sophisticated" tools used, like nail guns, routers, lathe etc

The photos tell the story. Light weight, obviously. Car toppable, ditto. Room for two crew or a 300lb box of lead(!) You may say "no its too small" but read this comment from a builder of my 10ft Tryst trimaran. "It works well for my larger body (105kg) and I have been out with my son (he is 95kg) and we never had a problem with swamping the boat. The wind was strong and the swells high on Lake Ontario." The Zeta is 40% longer so has plenty of safe carrying capacity and has a self draining hull.

It sails well, at least in light winds, see video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS7rgAbw9OU

It will be on display (finished!) at this years Port Townsend WBF Sept 9-11 and I will be racing it on the Friday.

Slight aside, it will be a busy festival for me again. I will also be displaying a 10ft Duo dinghy and giving two capsize/recovery demos/talks

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

Nice small trimaran.

As I can see it car tops reasonably well (with the amas trailing out behind the SUV).

But I think it would be most convincingly beat by a longer tri, even one with an 8 ft Beam limit.

Such a tri would be almost impossible to car top, but, who knows, with proper ingenuity it may be doable. I can already imagine two inverted ammas nested under the flaired sides of the upright main hull. Over all, the structure might be quite heavy, but the six or seven individual pieces need not be.

As for set up rules, perhaps it would be best to stipulate that the whole boat can be assembled except for the rig.

This stipulation would accomplish two things:

1.) It would penalize over elaborate stay systems, and
2.) It would make no effective distinction between a boat that is car topped and one that is trailered.

 

[Richard Woods]

As I said on my FB page, we have no trailer or roofrack. Just carpet and rope. It would have been quite feasible to cartop the outriggers as well, had I made some roof rack cross braces, but it works as it is and why make work for myself. We only drive 10 miles down the road and I won't sail it again after the WBF until June next year as we leave the US on Oct 1st

RW

 

[Richard Woods]

The fastest I ever went from cartop to water was in a Byte. I did it in 8 minutes, but did get a passerby to help me get the boat off the car roof and another to zip up my drysuit. The rest of the fleet was already on the water and sailing as I drove up. I made the start line with literally three seconds to spare. Finished second.

RW

 

[Richard Woods]

Not forgetting that a Cat needs a little more 'sea room' when tacking on a LOT of restricted UK waters. The main Cat fleets are sea and large reservoir based, over here. Plus you have the 'problem' of mixed fleets racing at the same time on the same water which is not insignificant. So maybe Mirrors and Dart 18s?... Nothing against Cats, sailed a few types, but in the end it's still you against the next man/woman if your racing and somehow simpler in a mono very often.

How do you think my Zeta compares to a Solo when tacking? Pretty similar I would guess

If you disconnect the beams form the main hull and lie the outriggers on top (the mast could stay up, but not as I did it, I had the shrouds attached to the beams as it is cheaper/easier) then it would take up no more dinghypark space than say a Merlin or RS400

Foiling Moths are the dangerous boats on congested waters. They go very fast and you cannot hear them coming.

RW

 

[macbeath]

How do you think my Zeta compares to a Solo when tacking? Pretty similar I would guess

If you disconnect the beams form the main hull and lie the outriggers on top (the mast could stay up, but not as I did it, I had the shrouds attached to the beams as it is cheaper/easier) then it would take up no more dinghypark space than say a Merlin or RS400

Foiling Moths are the dangerous boats on congested waters. They go very fast and you cannot hear them coming.

RW

Someone here got a ticket for exceeding 7 knots in the ship canal in a foiler Moth. One of the Buchans, I think.

The Zest trimaran looks more practical than most multihulls I've seen, and the 14' hull looks a lot more practical for cartopping than a larger boat would be. Building the multihull rule around that boat might get more people involved in the multi part of the class.

 

[jfraymond]

Just read this... Great idea guys..Would be a pig for racing but may have to show up for one of these if there ever done in Texas when im finished with my disposable microcruiser from all home depot materials.

Float test last month

 

[Skyak]

since no one to my knowledge has started building a multi hull, changes can be made now.

My thoughts were exactly that: usually multi hulls are much more performance oriented, so I made the rules around that idea. if a builder wanted less performance, than they can build a mono-hull.

I guess the question is what is the purpose of this multi hull class? almost all multi hull owners I have encountered are into performance, should a low cost one be any different?

if the rules limited performance (and innovation) on purpose, would it attract any participants?

Perhaps a better way to improve convenience would be to include a "handicap" based on the time it takes to go from "road" configuration to "sail ready", to encourage faster sets ups. would not that be a better goal?

"There are no multi hulls in the class yet" -Thank God! The worst thing for a class in it's infancy is to divide it up into different subclasses. My advice would be to pinch off the multihull section now into it's own class with nothing but the same guiding principles and the goal of sharing regattas with the monos. The HWS class at this point should be completely focused on sailing outings for the boats it has, what works, what doesn't, finding the joy and utility of the boats. The laser focus of the HWS for the next year should be to have so much fun that everyone wants to participate -and some do.

I understand that this is a forum about making a rule on a blog full of people who love talking about design (me included) but out of respect for 'what is' 'what if' must be subordinated. So HWS gets going with events and "HWS-multi" goes to committee for proposals -not to return until has an answer to the question "why?" and a handful of interested builders. Keep in mind that a combined mono/multihull class has been achieved hmmm NEVER! Let alone a development class, and it is inconceivable that doing so would be simple. They share the same wind and water -let's just build on that.

 

[Dunnage]

Mast Height

"First, the max mast hight (I'm assuming that the rules preclude any spars extending above this, it isn't really clear) will create some difficulty. by limiting the mast hight rather than the air draught of the boat you are creating a possibly unintended trade off. The best way to achieve a sizable rig (which the boats will need being in Puget sound with light air, and with their weight because of the 500lb crew min) will be to either rig the boats with standing rigging and deck step the masts or create sub structures on the decks to extend the rig as high as possible."

I am sure there is no rule specifying mast height. What the rule actually says is that the vertical extent from the highest point on any sail to the lowest point on any sail must be no more than twenty feet. Usually, that would limit the vertical distance from the mainsail head to a horizontal reference line tangent to the foot of the jib could not exceed twenty feet. On Naiad, that distance is about eighteen and a half feet.

 

[Petros]

that is correct, there is nothing that limits mast height, there is just a measurement that limits total sail height. That way it gives a large design variation that would not limit creativity to rigging/mast/spar design, but keeps the overall sail size within a reasonable limit. Also note that the sail size is not specifically limited, but there is an overall length, including rigging and sails (when centered along the hull center line). so the combination of sail height, and overall length would limit the sail size, but not the rig nor sail configuration.

both of these limits would be easy to measure and verify. I had considered max height above the water line, or max height from bottom of keel or dagger board, to top. But both of those would be difficult to measure/enforce. The idea was to keep the rule simple with a size limit, but not limit creatively or alternative rig and sail designs

 

[Stephen Ditmore]

Interest is brewing on the east coast, in Oyster Bay NY, in building boats based on the one you're prototyping, Peter. Are the rules posted on page 63 still current? Do they exist online anywhere else, or is page 63 of this thread the official reference?

As I read the length limits, a 2 foot bowsprit would be allowed if and only if the boom does not overhang the transom. An outboard rudder gantry and rudder would be allowed if the total, tip of bowsprit to trailing tip of rudder, does not exceed 18 feet. Is that right? Does the word "length" imply 18 feet is measured parallel to the waterline?

I see a couple boats have been built. Has there been any racing?

 

[Stephen Ditmore]

if a builder wanted less performance, than they can build a mono-hull.

The people I'm speaking with might be interested in doing a monohull wider than 60". An 11' x 5' classic moth (mothboat.com), scaled up to 14' length, would be 76 3/8" wide. A 6.50m x 3.00m Mini Transat 6.50, scaled down, would be 77 1/2" wide. Has this been discussed?