Trying Again -- Sailing Dinghies & Box Rules

[Carl Cramer]

Dear All,

Is there any enthusiasm for a SIMPLE series of box rules, to inspire new sailing dinghies.

Simple, simple.

Say in increments of 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 feet? Or 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19?

I'm willing to take another stab at it if you are.

[john welsford]

Having designed to "Box Rules" I'm all for it. We'd need a clear breif as to number and weight of crew, style of sailing whether flat out racer, cruiser racer, or daysailer, safety aspects required and, especially in this case, construction medium.
My experience was in Mini Transats, and while their rules were initially very simple, without guidelines on safety in particular the boats got pretty risky very quickly.
For a dinghy I'd say we need guidelines on bouyancy and placement thereof, perhaps a requirement for the boat to float high enough when fully swamped to self drain would work.
Perhaps some guidelines for rig and sail materials, and type of sails, limits on spinnakers etc to stop the costs getting out of control, and as mentioned a very clear guideline as to the objectives of the class.
Maybe along the lines of " boat should be of generally "traditional" appearance, should be suited to an overnourished and underexersized middle aged husband and wife team, should be sailed with no part of the body excluding arms outside the gunwale. Should be suited to family sailing with two adults and two sub teen kids when daysailing, should have a place to put a portable icebox with picnic lunch and beers within" and so on.

I'm interested

JohnWelsford
Designer


Dear All,

Is there any enthusiasm for a SIMPLE series of box rules, to inspire new saioing dinghies.

Simple, simple.

Say in increments of 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 feet? Or 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19?

I'm willing to take another stab at it if you are.

[Thorne]

Should be suited to family sailing with two adults and two sub teen kids when daysailing, should have a place to put a portable icebox with picnic lunch and beers within" and so on.


Wot, no cupholders?

Seriously, sounds good -- voice of experience and all that.

[mmd]

What Mr. Welsford said - I'm in.

Will we be able to show Forumites what we're doing, or would that break the "self-promotion" rules? If an amateur can post their designs here, pros should be able to, as well.

[paladin]

When you make the rules, live by them and don't arbitrarily change them because you think someone has found a loophole. The rules should not be ambiguous.....and then no whining from anyone.....if a rule needs to be changed then if it substantially changes the rules of the game it should be voted on by a commission involved in the design and members involved in the construction of said vessels.

[JimD]

What Mr. Welsford said - I'm in.

Will we be able to show Forumites what we're doing, or would that break the "self-promotion" rules?.

You can say I designed them and you're just being nice guys and posting the pictures for me. Later, off forum, I'll acknowledge true authorship and hand over title to the designs to you 'cause I'm a nice guy, too.

[john welsford]

One more, no fixed appendages outside the "box" and some regulation on moveable appendages other than the rudder, Les Minis are up to prods that are more than half the boat length and which are stiff and well braced enough to carry huge light weather headsails with high luff tensions. Thats clearly outside the intent of the rule but because the prod can be folded back its allowable. Just!

JohnW


Having designed to "Box Rules" I'm all for it. We'd need a clear breif as to number and weight of crew, style of sailing whether flat out racer, cruiser racer, or daysailer, safety aspects required and, especially in this case, construction medium.
My experience was in Mini Transats, and while their rules were initially very simple, without guidelines on safety in particular the boats got pretty risky very quickly.
For a dinghy I'd say we need guidelines on bouyancy and placement thereof, perhaps a requirement for the boat to float high enough when fully swamped to self drain would work.
Perhaps some guidelines for rig and sail materials, and type of sails, limits on spinnakers etc to stop the costs getting out of control, and as mentioned a very clear guideline as to the objectives of the class.
Maybe along the lines of " boat should be of generally "traditional" appearance, should be suited to an overnourished and underexersized middle aged husband and wife team, should be sailed with no part of the body excluding arms outside the gunwale. Should be suited to family sailing with two adults and two sub teen kids when daysailing, should have a place to put a portable icebox with picnic lunch and beers within" and so on.

I'm interested

JohnWelsford
Designer

[john welsford]

Oh, one more again, are we to design a rule, or a boat to a rule which we or yourself ( Carl) will develop?

JohnW

Dear All,

Is there any enthusiasm for a SIMPLE series of box rules, to inspire new saioing dinghies.

Simple, simple.

Say in increments of 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 feet? Or 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19?

I'm willing to take another stab at it if you are.

[Chris Ostlind]

Sounds like fun, Dudes.

I'm going to need a little help from you guys in the form of writing letters to my street-wise lady, as the time to participate will probably be at the expense of walking the dog with her each evening...

I just know I'm going to pay for this in ways in which I have no depth.

ChrisO

[johnw]

I can't wait to see what you guys come up with, and I hope you can post progress.

Will there be sail area restrictions for the classes? And will they be judged on speed alone, or are there other factors, such as cost and comfort? (As a Snipe sailor, I'm wanting something that isn't so wet.)

I suggest that to help keep down the sail area, the boats be required to sail in some races single handed, in some races with a target daysailing crew -- say three people on a 17' boat. That would encourage the kind of flexibility that makes a boat useful when you're not racing.

[SchoonerRat]

What about boats like the International 14 and the Australian skiffs in various sizes? Aren't these dinghies designed to a box rule?

[C. Ross]

Will we be able to show Forumites what we're doing, or would that break the "self-promotion" rules? If an amateur can posttheir designs here, pros should be able to, as well.

Surely a "design competition" exemption would be in order. But then I liked the old thread that proposed letting all designs be shown here....

[paladin]

Mr. Welsford and Mr. Mason have said it well, let's all play by the same rules.

[rbgarr]

Carl,

How is the powerboat design competition coming along? Was there a solicitation of ideas for those design comp rules also or was the final set published without preamble for those who wished to enter?

[john welsford]

No need for sail area limitations, a "box" rule for those who are not familiar give a maximum length, width and depth, the depth being from the very top of the mast to the very bottom of the boats keel. If the promulgator of the rule so wishes, the height measurement can be a little conservative to keep heeling moment suitable for an intended type of use.

Note, gaff rigs made with modern materials are great for box rules, they give a lot more area within the measurement requirements and with modern materials and sail trimming knowlege a gaff rig can be very efficient.

I did a box rule model yacht design and build paper with my Year two marine design college students. They had to design, build test models and tow test, build rigs and wind tunnel test ( assigments for each) then build the finished article and race it as a radio control model. There were bonus marks for winning and placing, a loss of 5% of the paper marks for not completing the course and 10% loss for not getting to the starting line.
The rule had some interesting variations available, they could make the boat shorter and gain mast height, beam and draft, they could make it narrower and gain length and so on. Each change to make a gain cost them somewhere else.

I dont think that this kind of variable rule is Carls intention as he is asking for boats that will fit size increments, but it does point out some of the issues to be considered when the rule is being debated.

JohnWelsford


I can't wait to see what you guys come up with, and I hope you can post progress.

Will there be sail area restrictions for the classes? And will they be judged on speed alone, or are there other factors, such as cost and comfort? (As a Snipe sailor, I'm wanting something that isn't so wet.)

I suggest that to help keep down the sail area, the boats be required to sail in some races single handed, in some races with a target daysailing crew -- say three people on a 17' boat. That would encourage the kind of flexibility that makes a boat useful when you're not racing.

[johnw]

I seem to recall the sandbagger Cruiser having about the same mast height as my Snipe and more than 1,000 square feet of sail. I presume the box excludes bowsprits and overhanging booms?

[john welsford]

You have it, everything bar the rudder has to fit inside the "box". that normally includes the boom but in some box rules the spinnaker pole or prod is exempted. Sorry if I was not clear on that.
Without being too outrageous the most area that you can get into this sort of rule is a gaff headed cat schooner, but the rulemakers can set the height of the box so that a fairly conventional rig will allow sufficient sail area for the conditions envisaged.

JohnW ( the Welsford one)

I seem to recall the sandbagger Cruiser having about the same mast height as my Snipe and more than 1,000 square feet of sail. I presume the box excludes bowsprits and overhanging booms?

[Don Kurylko]

I like the idea of a box rule, but, like John points out, it has to be pretty specific to work. I don’t see this happening. It might be better to simply say: design any boat you like from 10 to 20 feet in length, not including appendages, and let’s see what we get. The judges can then decide on the most promising submissions and later develop a design rule around the winning boat(s) if desired.

This would leave things wide open and unrestricted to encourage some seriously creative thinking outside of the “box”, initially at least. The only restrictions I would like to see is that the boats and spars be made out wood, with no, or very limited, use of fabric sheathing materials – FG, Dynel, Nomex, etc. Any form of construction would be fine, including traditional plank on frame, clinker ply, cold-moulded, strip-planked, sheet ply, etc. – as long as it’s predominantly wood. Sails should probably also be restricted to Dacron for economic reasons.

I don’t think weights need to be limited at this point either. That will sort itself out later. It would be a shame, in my opinion, to discourage heavy boats. Light and fast is fine, but there is no reason why some really nice heavier displacement designs couldn’t be considered. I’m thinking about something like those lovely little Itchen racing cutters found in Dixon Kemps “Manual of Yacht and Boat Sailing”. That would be cool!

Oh yes, and, let’s not call it a contest. Design challenge would be more like it – no winners, no losers, just lots of really interesting designs from amateurs and professionals alike participating on an equal footing. And, to further encourage amateurs, how about letting the professionals help them out with technical hurdles and the like – barring aesthetics, of course. All this could easily be done via this Forum and could generate a lot of interest for our most benevolent mother ship, WoodenBoat Magazine!

[john welsford]

Having thought about it overnight, I figure that one of the areas that defines the character of a sailing dinghy is the seating and freeboard configuration. For example, if the boat is to be a pure racer, there may be no restrictions here at all as long as the thing floats and there is a place to put your butt, but for a boat which is intended for multi purpose use as a daysailer, camp cruiser ( my particular passion) and a fleet racer with a club, then something as below might suit. Assuming a 3,6 or 4,2m ( 12 or 14 ft) boat as an example.

"Seating.
There shall be seating for the full crew on each side of the boat. The seat fore and aft inner edges to be no less than 400mm from the centerline, seat tops to be no less than 300mm wide, not less than 200mm from the floorboards or where floorboards or decking is not fitted, the inside of the boats skin at the hulls deepest point. The boats sheerline shall be no less than 200mm above the seat tops at the lowest point, and the side decks shall be no less than 100mm wide at any point."

This would set the boats minimum depth, freeboard and beam, and together with a rule prohibiting toe straps would make a boat suited to the less athletic who want to use their boat for other than racedays. It does to some extent prescribe a boat that will have fore and aft seating each side, but thats no big deal and the above is just an example to illustrate my point.


JohnW

[johnw]

Rather than limit the boats by proscribing toe straps, why not encourage them to have more than one way to rig the boat, like the old jib & mainsail boats that could be rigged as a sloop or catboat? I'm giving the boat I'm now building a long centerboard case so that I can balance the rig under main alone when I go single handing. When I'm feeling my oats, I'll raise the jib and get more speed.

If this is really not a competition for building the fastest boats, judges can decide what setup is the most practical.

By the way, I should think a sprit rig would get you more sail area for a given mast height. More practical for a trailer boat, as well.

[DGentry]

Really, other than showcasing some designers here (not a bad thing), what is the point of basically reproducing the traits and costs of already established boats like the Laser, the Snipe, the Albacore, the 470, the Flying Scott, the Lightning, the Daysailor, or even something like a 49er or 110, etc? Do we really need to dilute our time and money for this?

Perhaps that's why the previous threads on this have failed to produce. Yes, it's fun to dream about and design new boats that might possibly "improve" on an established boat, but potential builders might have realized that they could spend the same amount of money, and much less effort, by just buying or building a Snipe (or whatever), instead of reinventing the wheel. Then they'd have a well proven boat, with active one design racing if they wanted it, and with a large number of fellow sailors and resources supporting them.

To be successful as a class, I think the box rule boat is going to have to do something different, and I sure don't feel we should spread our resources out in trying to come up with 6 different classes.

The PDR is a good model, I think, though still only marginally popular. It filled a niche in that there were no other boats of that size that were also incredibly inexpensive and quick to build, provided near equal racing for adults and yet still had room for lots of individual ideas and development.

Of course, the one-design hull is a major factor in it being so cheap to build, and a box rule would, err, rule that out. A conundrum.

Anyway, I think there's a niche in boats between 8-11', and I feel that a box rule generating a boat that is a step (or ten!) up - performance wise - from a PDR, but not approaching a Laser - expense wise - might be attractive to many builders.

Again, I don't feel that box rule boats that basically recreate one of the hundreds of fine daysailors and racing boats already in existence is going to be successful as a class, as it makes much more sense just to buy or build one of those.
Likewise if I am going to spend thousands of dollars on a boat I'm going to be competing in, then I will spend that money on a well established class that has solid one-design racing in my area - not on an unproven design that I'll likely never be able to find a fleet of.

To be successful, I feel a box rule boat should be relatively small, performance oriented and fun to sail, provide for adult racing, be extremely easy to transport, use and store and should cost less than $1000, all up.
Ease of building is important, too, to many builders, but that would likely be a function of one design hulls.

So, I think the box rule could produce a successful class of boats, and I think that a boat smaller and cheaper than a Laser, but much better, faster and more fun than a pram might be just the ticket.

Dave Gentry
Hmm, didn't Phil Bolger talk about the 3 meter class in Boats With an Open Mind? Perhaps that should be revisited.

[Carl Cramer]

Carl,

How is the powerboat design competition coming along? Was there a solicitation of ideas for those design comp rules also or was the final set published without preamble for those who wished to enter?

It's going great, thanks. The deadline for submissions is April 20. We'll publish winners sometime in the fall, and hope to have some on hand at the WoodenBoat Show. All rights to the designs remain with the designers.

[Carl Cramer]

Good contributions, all. I'll try to come up with some beginnings and let you all critique.

The goal isn't for these to be the property of WoodenBoat -- It's to inject some new enthusiasm into the dinghy market, in affordable way. Back to Andrew Hurst's original idea.

[rbgarr]

I have little skill for designing a boat and was explaining Andrew Hurst's yearnings to Margaret yesterday (in a lame attempt to justify time spent on the forum)

One approach is to build a 'nesting' (bolt-together) design that can be lengthened with different size aft sections. The bow section would consist of all fittings except the main traveller and rudder arrangement, whatever they might be. Movable partners could allow for rigs of different sizes depending on the length of the boat and size of crew. CNC "tab A into B" parts kits could be offered for each module and be shipped to those who wish to build. It could even be designed so that the aft module is very slightly smaller in section than the bow's where the modules mate, so a joint offering a smooth flow wouldn't be crucial to the boats performance. In this way a class of boats of varying box sizes could be less expensively offered... perhaps.

[john welsford]

The fact that we are discussing a "rule" infers that the boat is intended as a racer, and sprit rigs while useful for knockabout boats where performance as far as speed or windward ability is concerned, are not attractive to the kind of people who would be interested in a club racer. For any proposal to be successful the boat has to be attractive to the market.
Remember that this is not only about the box rule, and that we dont yet have a clear objective or brief as yet.

JohnWelsford

Rather than limit the boats by proscribing toe straps, why not encourage them to have more than one way to rig the boat, like the old jib & mainsail boats that could be rigged as a sloop or catboat? I'm giving the boat I'm now building a long centerboard case so that I can balance the rig under main alone when I go single handing. When I'm feeling my oats, I'll raise the jib and get more speed.

If this is really not a competition for building the fastest boats, judges can decide what setup is the most practical.

By the way, I should think a sprit rig would get you more sail area for a given mast height. More practical for a trailer boat, as well.

[john welsford]

A clear brief as to use and objectives would be a real help Carl, it would give the discussion some direction.
I'm looking forward to getting on with it.

JohnW
Good contributions, all. I'll try to come up with some beginnings and let you all critique.

The goal isn't for these to be the property of WoodenBoat -- It's to inject some new enthusiasm into the dinghy market, in affordable way. Back to Andrew Hurst's original idea.

[john welsford]

Don, the way I see it, Carl has a "customer" for whom he is researching a project, and we dont know what it is we are to work up a rule for , until we know what the boat is to achieve.

JohNW

I like the idea of a box rule, but, like John points out, it has to be pretty specific to work. I don’t see this happening. It might be better to simply say: design any boat you like from 10 to 20 feet in length, not including appendages, and let’s see what we get. The judges can then decide on the most promising submissions and later develop a design rule around the winning boat(s) if desired.

This would leave things wide open and unrestricted to encourage some seriously creative thinking outside of the “box”, initially at least. The only restrictions I would like to see is that the boats and spars be made out wood, with no, or very limited, use of fabric sheathing materials – FG, Dynel, Nomex, etc. Any form of construction would be fine, including traditional plank on frame, clinker ply, cold-moulded, strip-planked, sheet ply, etc. – as long as it’s predominantly wood. Sails should probably also be restricted to Dacron for economic reasons.

I don’t think weights need to be limited at this point either. That will sort itself out later. It would be a shame, in my opinion, to discourage heavy boats. Light and fast is fine, but there is no reason why some really nice heavier displacement designs couldn’t be considered. I’m thinking about something like those lovely little Itchen racing cutters found in Dixon Kemps “Manual of Yacht and Boat Sailing”. That would be cool!

Oh yes, and, let’s not call it a contest. Design challenge would be more like it – no winners, no losers, just lots of really interesting designs from amateurs and professionals alike participating on an equal footing. And, to further encourage amateurs, how about letting the professionals help them out with technical hurdles and the like – barring aesthetics, of course. All this could easily be done via this Forum and could generate a lot of interest for our most benevolent mother ship, WoodenBoat Magazine!

[rbgarr]

IIRC the idea was to create simple, inexpensive class(es) that could be built out of wood by non-professionals who wished to get into sailing (worldwide, i.e., developing nations) in a a one-design and moderately high performance craft.

[htom]

Rather than different aft sections, how about different center sections, where the craft is divided into three parts (optionally, two parts that will linktogether, with some total length (say 3 meters), with different center parts in 1, 2, 3, ... meter lengths?

[Don Kurylko]

Don, the way I see it, Carl has a "customer" for whom he is researching a project, and we dont know what it is we are to work up a rule for , until we know what the boat is to achieve.

JohNW


I hear you John and I agree that there is no sense of direction here as yet. I was just thinking that it might be easier to let go of the reins and let the horses run, so to speak. I think it will be impossible to establish a single box rule to fit all the various length categories proposed, so why bother. Lay down a few basic ground rules instead and let the designs pour in and see what shakes out. The good, the bad and the ugly will get sorted out quick enough. This is the wooden boat forum after all! :D

[Daniel Noyes]

A clear brief as to use and objectives would be a real help Carl, it would give the discussion some direction.
I'm looking forward to getting on with it.

JohnW

If I'm following I think this is a continuation of the previous thread on a cost efficient, club/olympic trainer.
Dan
http://dansdories.googlepages.com

[Carl Cramer]

Don, the way I see it, Carl has a "customer" for whom he is researching a project, and we dont know what it is we are to work up a rule for , until we know what the boat is to achieve.

JohNW

Thank you, John and all. I'm trying to continue the spirit that Andrew Hurst challenged us with. I don't have his piece here at home but will post it again when I'm back at work tomorrow.

And I want to do some research on parameters of existing one-designs so that they are not rendered incompatible. I'll post that all here in a few days.

[SailorBob]

IIRC the idea was to create simple, inexpensive class(es) that could be built out of wood by non-professionals who wished to get into sailing (worldwide, i.e., developing nations) in a a one-design and moderately high performance craft.

. . . I know nothing about the 'box rule' and, I'm certainly not a designer. However, if the above comments of 'rbgarr' are correct, surely the old Stitch & Glue 'Mirror Dinghy' had to be one of the very best at meeting the criteria.

. . . More recently, another S&G vessel of similar construction called 'The Passagemaker' ... appeared on the market, produced by CLC (Chesapeake Light Craft) out of Annapolis, Maryland.

. . . This dinghy is very similar to the Mirror in many ways eg: dims. Weight etc. What I like about it is, it has rounded chines a opposed to the hard chine of the Mirror. It is definitely esthetically more pleasing to the eye, having a lovely sheer. Also comes in a 'Take apart' model.

. . . Both of these 'Stitch & Glue' boats are, or should-be, easy-to-build. What is more, they appear to fit the criteria in all ways as I see it. Another shared feature: They both use the 'Sliding Gunter' rig allowing easy stowage of spars for trailering.

. . . I myself built two Mirror's many years ago (build time less than 100hrs.) . . . I would love to build another for my grand children. Unfortunately, and particularly in today's economic climate, the cost of kits has ballooned beyond what I'm prepared to pay. Same goes for the CLC kit.

. . . I guess what I'm saying is, a family dinghy should not be beyond the family budget for sailing fun. What is required (IMO), is a simple set of plans a person could take to the local lumber yard, and buy all the wood required to build the boat.

[rbgarr]

IIRC the idea was to create simple... one-design and moderately high performance craft.

?
http://i41.tinypic.com/14ltxtt.jpg

[Carl Cramer]

No need for sail area limitations, a "box" rule for those who are not familiar give a maximum length, width and depth, the depth being from the very top of the mast to the very bottom of the boats keel. If the promulgator of the rule so wishes, the height measurement can be a little conservative to keep heeling moment suitable for an intended type of use.

Note, gaff rigs made with modern materials are great for box rules, they give a lot more area within the measurement requirements and with modern materials and sail trimming knowlege a gaff rig can be very efficient.

I did a box rule model yacht design and build paper with my Year two marine design college students. They had to design, build test models and tow test, build rigs and wind tunnel test ( assigments for each) then build the finished article and race it as a radio control model. There were bonus marks for winning and placing, a loss of 5% of the paper marks for not completing the course and 10% loss for not getting to the starting line.
The rule had some interesting variations available, they could make the boat shorter and gain mast height, beam and draft, they could make it narrower and gain length and so on. Each change to make a gain cost them somewhere else.

I dont think that this kind of variable rule is Carls intention as he is asking for boats that will fit size increments, but it does point out some of the issues to be considered when the rule is being debated.

JohnWelsford

Dear JohnW,

This PRECISELY the point I'm trying to get to. But in an empirical way so that older classes will still fit and be competitive.

There needs to be a way to include older classes, but also a way to stimulate new designs and building technologies. Tom Lathrop with the Windmill; Joe Norton with the Snipe; many others. It may not be revolutionary, but it does need to be inclusionary.

I think there need to be two overall classifications: Perhaps one is called "Basic," which will include the older one-designs and new designs built to those criteria, and a second entitled "Performance," which is tilted more to new racers such as the Solo and the PaperJet and those yet to come. Using the box as the first criterion will, perhaps and hopefully, inspire wonderful new designs while also including established classes.

The different "boxes" can all race together -- because that is what this design challenge is all about -- rated under Portsmouth or some better measurement system unbeknownst to me. But, also, they should also be able to race within their own boxes.

And we could easily include more cruising classes under a third category entitled... "Cruisers"? With the same philosophy as above.

Thus, two primary goals: Stimulate existing classes, and develop new ones. Keep costs down by ingenuity. Get more people designing, building, and sailing.

Thanks so much, all, Carl

Thanks, Carl

[john welsford]

Right, got that. Something to consider is that box rules, like any rule, tend to produce design solutions that are optimised to getting the best performance within the rule. While the box and associated rules can be such that they include exisiting classes or designs, within a generation or two of boats designed specifically to the rule they will inevitably be blowing the doors off those boats not designed with the rule in mind. I dont see a simple way to prevent this.
On the positive side, the economic situation will tend to have people seeking more cost effective ways to have fun, and instead of spending thirty grand on a carbon fibre and "expensiveabilium" sailing ironing board thats completely ready to go, a development class that allows innovation within a framework that encourages home builders could achieve quite a following.
New Zealand and Australia had a huge number of "moth" class boats in the late 50s and 60s, a race start would see 50 or more boats, all home built, almost all different, and every winter would see perhaps 20% of the owners either making huge changes or building new boats.
The rules for that class were essentially sail area (one sail only) , max mast height and max length, and the range of design variation within competitive boats that this rule produced was amazing.

Yes I am in sympathy with the aims of this, and will mull it over. ANyone else got some ideas?

JohnW

Dear JohnW,

This PRECISELY the point I'm trying to get to. But in an empirical way so that older classes will still fit and be competitive.

There needs to be a way to include older classes, but also a way to stimulate new designs and building technologies. Tom Lathrop with the Windmill; Joe Norton with the Snipe; many others. It may not be revolutionary, but it does need to be inclusionary.

I think there need to be two overall classifications: Perhaps one is called "Basic," which will include the older one-designs and new designs built to those criteria, and a second entitled "Performance," which is tilted more to new racers such as the Solo and the PaperJet and those yet to come. Using the box as the first criterion will, perhaps and hopefully, inspire wonderful new designs while also including established classes.

The different "boxes" can all race together -- because that is what this design challenge is all about -- rated under Portsmouth or some better measurement system unbeknownst to me. But, also, they should also be able to race within their own boxes.

And we could easily include more cruising classes under a third category entitled... "Cruisers"? With the same philosophy as above.

Thus, two primary goals: Stimulate existing classes, and develop new ones. Keep costs down by ingenuity. Get more people designing, building, and sailing.

Thanks so much, all, Carl

Thanks, Carl

[rbgarr]

I thought Hurst's concern and challenge was very different from the one described below, but Carl has the original reference somewhere.

quote=Carl Cramer;2126762]There needs to be a way to include older classes.... [/quote]

[john welsford]

Ok, here we go with a lunch hour first draft for a two adult person racer for a moderately fit and active crew.. The objective is to encourage a reasonably cheap to build boat with good performance within the skills of an amateur to build and sail, and with rules that don’t require a legal team to manage.
Lots of existing boats will fit into the rule, but it will generate boats that will have a considerably higher performance than they will as it does not have any "protections" built in. My intention here is to see if I'm heading in the right direction rather than to present a finshed product.

The rule shall be. L + B + H shall not exceed 46 feet in total.

L= Length, all of the boat except moveable parts of rudder and spinnaker pole to be within “L”

B= Beam. No part of the boats hull or appendages other than boom or spinnaker / gennaker pole, with the boat fully upright, shall be wider than “B”

H= Height. Height is from the lowest part of the hull or any fixed appendage ( known as “L” ) to the max hoist point of the mainsail. This max hoist point to be indicated by a black mast band no less than 1 inch in height, the max hoist point to be the lowest edge of the black band.

Appendices.

1. Mast and rig
1/a Shall be made from wood whether solid, hollowed or laminated.
Or from aluminium extrusion.
1/b Max hounds height for forestay and side stay attachment shall be no higher than 80% of H.
1/c Spinnaker or gennaker halyard shall be no more than 8 inches above the hounds.
1/d Jib halyard if used to be below the Hounds point.
1/e No restrictions on stay materials.
1/f Spinnaker or gennaker pole to be no more than 30% of “H” in total length.

2. Sails. 2/ Sails shall be made from sailcloth that does not include Mylar sheet, Carbon Fibre, Aramid fibre ( the list can go on, the idea is to limit cost and have reasonably long lived sails )
2/a Jib shall not overlap the mainsail by more than 10% of the foot length when sheeted on the centerline.
2/b Jib shall have a straight or hollow leach, a straight foot, no battens or stiffening devices.
2/c Jib clew shall be at least 20% of “H” above “L”

2/d Jib, or working foresail. The luff is to be set up inside a triangle formed by the hounds, tack, and the mast. The tack attachment point will not be adjustable while the boat is sailing.

2/e Mainsail. The leach of the mainsail shall not at any point extend more than 4% of H past a straight line from the end of the boom to the top after edge of the mast max hoist black band , that measurement to be taken at 90deg to said straight line..

2/d Mainsail may be battened. Batten materials may not include carbon fibre.
2/e No part of the mainsail or boom shall be less than 15% H above “L”
2/f No part of the mainsail, headboard, gaff, sprit or any other part of the sail or spar shall be above the max hoist point when set.

3. Hull. 3/a Hull materials shall not include Carbon fibre, Kevlar, or any other Aramid Fibre.

3/b Minimum hull weight with rig, centerboard or daggerboard, rudder and any moveable fittings or equipment removed shall be no less than 180 lbs. Any correction weights to be fitted to the foreside of the mast above the hounds.
Any weight or addition to the structure intended to bring a hull up to weight shall be bonded into place in such a manner than it cannot be removed . IE, glued and fiberglassed over, such additional weight or structure to be fitted to the boat no lower than 2.5% of H above L.
3/c One trapeze may be fitted and used. The helm position may use toestraps which shall be no more than 20% of “B” from the centerline when the slack including movement of tensioning devices is extended laterally.
3/d Hull to be so constructed that the boat can be righted and sailed away without any need for bailing.


The above rule has quite a few holes in it and some of the appendices as written are wide open to abuse, but is an indication of one approach to a variable “box rule”. With some thought and refinement it should work fine.
When designed for an area with an average windspeed of 12 / 15 knots I expect that the rule above will produce a boat about 14 ft x 6 ft with about 140/155 sq ft of working sail which makes it workable to an upper limit around 20 knots of wind for a crew weight of about 300 lbs. That’s consistent with a father and middle to late teen, or husband and wife team.
For an area with mostly light weather, the boat that might be 15ft or a little more in length with the beam pulled in to gain more in the H direction to get sail area and waterline length, and for heavier weather venues a boat that’s perhaps 13 ft with more beam to get the leverage to carry a bigger rig and plane the boat upwind which changes the need for max waterline length..

Ideas and comments? Carl, is this the sort of thing that you are looking for?

JohnWelsford

[john welsford]

And there is more.
By changing " the number" and the weight, you have the classes.
In this case I'd say the classes could run "30ft" for a 10 footer, "35 ft" for a boat about 12 ft, both one man boats. "40ft" for a lightweight crew two person crewed boat, the "46" below and a bigger one for three at "54ft" . Hull weights to suit.

JohnW


Ok, here we go with a lunch hour first draft for a two adult person racer for a moderately fit and active crew.. The objective is to encourage a reasonably cheap to build boat with good performance within the skills of an amateur to build and sail, and with rules that don’t require a legal team to manage.
Lots of existing boats will fit into the rule, but it will generate boats that will have a considerably higher performance than they will as it does not have any "protections" built in. My intention here is to see if I'm heading in the right direction rather than to present a finshed product.

The rule shall be. L + B + H shall not exceed 46 feet in total.

L= Length, all of the boat except moveable parts of rudder and spinnaker pole to be within “L”

B= Beam. No part of the boats hull or appendages other than boom or spinnaker / gennaker pole, with the boat fully upright, shall be wider than “B”

H= Height. Height is from the lowest part of the hull or any fixed appendage ( known as “L” ) to the max hoist point of the mainsail. This max hoist point to be indicated by a black mast band no less than 1 inch in height, the max hoist point to be the lowest edge of the black band.

Appendices.

1. Mast and rig
1/a Shall be made from wood whether solid, hollowed or laminated.
Or from aluminium extrusion.
1/b Max hounds height for forestay and side stay attachment shall be no higher than 80% of H.
1/c Spinnaker or gennaker halyard shall be no more than 8 inches above the hounds.
1/d Jib halyard if used to be below the Hounds point.
1/e No restrictions on stay materials.
1/f Spinnaker or gennaker pole to be no more than 30% of “H” in total length.

2. Sails. 2/ Sails shall be made from sailcloth that does not include Mylar sheet, Carbon Fibre, Aramid fibre ( the list can go on, the idea is to limit cost and have reasonably long lived sails )
2/a Jib shall not overlap the mainsail by more than 10% of the foot length when sheeted on the centerline.
2/b Jib shall have a straight or hollow leach, a straight foot, no battens or stiffening devices.
2/c Jib clew shall be at least 20% of “H” above “L”

2/d Jib, or working foresail. The luff is to be set up inside a triangle formed by the hounds, tack, and the mast. The tack attachment point will not be adjustable while the boat is sailing.

2/e Mainsail. The leach of the mainsail shall not at any point extend more than 4% of H past a straight line from the end of the boom to the top after edge of the mast max hoist black band , that measurement to be taken at 90deg to said straight line..

2/d Mainsail may be battened. Batten materials may not include carbon fibre.
2/e No part of the mainsail or boom shall be less than 15% H above “L”
2/f No part of the mainsail, headboard, gaff, sprit or any other part of the sail or spar shall be above the max hoist point when set.

3. Hull. 3/a Hull materials shall not include Carbon fibre, Kevlar, or any other Aramid Fibre.

3/b Minimum hull weight with rig, centerboard or daggerboard, rudder and any moveable fittings or equipment removed shall be no less than 180 lbs. Any correction weights to be fitted to the foreside of the mast above the hounds.
Any weight or addition to the structure intended to bring a hull up to weight shall be bonded into place in such a manner than it cannot be removed . IE, glued and fiberglassed over, such additional weight or structure to be fitted to the boat no lower than 2.5% of H above L.
3/c One trapeze may be fitted and used. The helm position may use toestraps which shall be no more than 20% of “B” from the centerline when the slack including movement of tensioning devices is extended laterally.
3/d Hull to be so constructed that the boat can be righted and sailed away without any need for bailing.


The above rule has quite a few holes in it and some of the appendices as written are wide open to abuse, but is an indication of one approach to a variable “box rule”. With some thought and refinement it should work fine.
When designed for an area with an average windspeed of 12 / 15 knots I expect that the rule above will produce a boat about 14 ft x 6 ft with about 140/155 sq ft of working sail which makes it workable to an upper limit around 20 knots of wind for a crew weight of about 300 lbs. That’s consistent with a father and middle to late teen, or husband and wife team.
For an area with mostly light weather, the boat that might be 15ft or a little more in length with the beam pulled in to gain more in the H direction to get sail area and waterline length, and for heavier weather venues a boat that’s perhaps 13 ft with more beam to get the leverage to carry a bigger rig and plane the boat upwind which changes the need for max waterline length..

Ideas and comments? Carl, is this the sort of thing that you are looking for?

JohnWelsford

[Cedric Rhyn]

What, no comment yet? JWs last posting has been there for close to a day and the normally argumentative and self opinionated bunch of reprobates cant be bothered posting any thoughts on the subject? Normally any thread worth its salt will have had another dozen or so postings by now, is Johns posting so compete and final that there is no need for any comment, or has he been using the wrong sort of ( metaphorical) soap .
C'mon people, get into it and participate.
I've been playing with graph paper and pencil, and think that the rule is close to workable, the size increments look ok, and there is lots of room in the rule for variation in type and I find that particularly in the two larger sizes there is the opportunity to get pretty wild. How about a miniature C scow with two free standing masts with fully battened gaff sails and bilge boards with handed foils? Or with the 54 ft class a cross between a Sydney harbour 18 footer and a foiler Moth? In conditions ideal for the boat, these would be winners, but overall I suspect that a fairly conventional approach would be the best over a seasons sailing.

Mr Cramer, your thoughts? I've not seen Andrew Hursts posting so dont know where this originated, but JWs attempt above looks like fun.

Cedric

[johnw]

I think what these rules produce will depend greatly on how they are kept upright. If trapezing is allowed, they will be long and narrow. If no hiking is allowed, they'll be much shorter and fatter.

[Hwyl]

I think John's ideas are great, but I'm still not sure that the ideas aren't already well served by Moths, Cherubs and International 14's.

[Don Kurylko]

Still in favour of the horse before the cart here! :D

[keyhavenpotterer]

Nice just to try the rule on a new design. Trim, my new Raid41 is designed for low cost easy build, fun sailing for one, planing performance and balanced lug rig. Self draining cockpit, buoyancy tanks. Hopefully a super fun little boat. I will be club racing her this season.

Her numbers are approx,

length 15.5 feet
beam 3.66 feet
mast 15.00 feet
total 34.16 plus lug rig hoist say 5.64 ft

approx result 40 ft. MIK and myself would love an open singlehanded Raid class. Perhaps more like PDR though.

Should the classes be one no scarf sides ie 8'
one scarf - just under 16'
two scarfs - under 24'

for efficient use of plywood. No point wasting wood.

Mast fits inside boat length?

Brian

[Carl Cramer]

Yikes, JohnW, you've nailed it again.

I see three distinct uber-classes emerging: existing; performance (new); and cruising. If there is any ability to rate them evenly under Portsmouth or whatever, we're golden.

I put aside Andrew Hurst's comments to input tonight. But of course I left them at work. If I get a spare 10 minutes tomorrow, I'll start a new thread with them.

There is something major here, and we're getting close. We need to be broad enough to encompass all existing one-designs, but also narrow enough so that the rule-cheaters don't co-opt the goals.

I have most of the primary parameters of existing one-designs, except for the masthead-bottom-of-deepest foil. I'll try to ballpark these for you this week, and will contact each class for existing numbers.

In the interests of disclosure, JohnW and I go WAY back. I am a huge fan of his wonderful work. And I greatly appreciate your guidance in this, John.

-- as I hope you can tell, I've been distracted lately be an interfering project which I posted moments ago. Have at it, with all barrels.

What a great project for a dismal March. I envy you in the southern hemisphere, John and others. Thanks, Carl

[johnw]

Maybe we could start with one box that fits a couple of popular existing classes like the Snipe and Windmill, and see what people come up with for new performance and cruising classes within that box. That way, we've got something to compare them to. If we try too many boxes at month, the designers will be spreading their efforts too widely.

[john welsford]

Thanks for the compliments Carl, much appreciated. Its high time I came and repaid your hospitalty during my last visit by taking you out to dinner. Damn long way to walk though but you never know. I'll come in the summer next time.

To massage the rule for differing objectives really needs only three items changing, and those are Weight, trapeze and hiking straps , and freeboard. By moving those we alter stability, power to weight ratio and hull type. To get a rule that will accommodate the existing classes needs some analysis of the types that will be included, Carl your measurements of classes such as the Windmill and Snipe would help as those classes are pretty much peculiar to the USA and we dont see them here in NZ. We'd need the Length, beam and H measurements for each, plus a realistic weight for each to see where to set those parameters.
Oh yes, I am not worried about the deepest foil, where the foil does not contribute to the boats stability as in a ballasted keel thats not really pertinent. Its the lowest point of the hull that would be the measurement base for all the verticals.

JohnW

Yikes, JohnW, you've nailed it again.

I see three distinct uber-classes emerging: existing; performance (new); and cruising. If there is any ability to rate them evenly under Portsmouth or whatever, we're golden.

I put aside Andrew Hurst's comments to input tonight. But of course I left them at work. If I get a spare 10 minutes tomorrow, I'll start a new thread with them.

There is something major here, and we're getting close. We need to be broad enough to encompass all existing one-designs, but also narrow enough so that the rule-cheaters don't co-opt the goals.

I have most of the primary parameters of existing one-designs, except for the masthead-bottom-of-deepest foil. I'll try to ballpark these for you this week, and will contact each class for existing numbers.

In the interests of disclosure, JohnW and I go WAY back. I am a huge fan of his wonderful work. And I greatly appreciate your guidance in this, John.

-- as I hope you can tell, I've been distracted lately be an interfering project which I posted moments ago. Have at it, with all barrels.

What a great project for a dismal March. I envy you in the southern hemisphere, John and others. Thanks, Carl

[Hwyl]

I put aside Andrew Hurst's comments to input tonight. But of course I left them at work. If I get a spare 10 minutes tomorrow, I'll start a new thread with them.



You need to be more adept at this forum

Originally posted by Carl Cramer
Andrew was praising and also criticizing the ISAF (the international sailing federation responsible for, among items, Olympic sailboat classes) for their selection of expensive dinghies for the Olympics, and the ramifications to less-opulent nations.

And now I am quoting him directly: ".. further down the pyramid, the ISAF overlooks the grass roots at its peril; many commentators around the world were busily bashing Olympic sailing during the Qingdao Regatta because of its perceived lack of access.

"Even sailing's most eloquent ambassador[sic: s?] cannot defend the sport, when asked how easy it is for the less economically fortunate to try sailing, compared to, say, track and field. It is this, rather than continually repackaging a perceived elitist regatta for live TV (for which sailing is completely unsuited, edited highlights will always be better), that should be concerning ISAF.

"Have a look at the options, have a look at some of the cheaper, plywood-based skiff-types that are right now being created in garages across America and elsewhere, then launch a budget design initiative. Then give your new class a big championship and see what emerges."

Noble aspirations, Andrew, and well spoke.

[Carl Cramer]

You need to be more adept at this forum

Originally posted by Carl Cramer

Oh, thank you for saving me more typing....

[Carl Cramer]

Thanks for the compliments Carl, much appreciated. Its high time I came and repaid your hospitalty during my last visit by taking you out to dinner. Damn long way to walk though but you never know. I'll come in the summer next time.

To massage the rule for differing objectives really needs only three items changing, and those are Weight, trapeze and hiking straps , and freeboard. By moving those we alter stability, power to weight ratio and hull type. To get a rule that will accommodate the existing classes needs some analysis of the types that will be included, Carl your measurements of classes such as the Windmill and Snipe would help as those classes are pretty much peculiar to the USA and we dont see them here in NZ. We'd need the Length, beam and H measurements for each, plus a realistic weight for each to see where to set those parameters.
Oh yes, I am not worried about the deepest foil, where the foil does not contribute to the boats stability as in a ballasted keel thats not really pertinent. Its the lowest point of the hull that would be the measurement base for all the verticals.

JohnW

Dear JohnW,

Thank you so much for all your invaluable guidance to us.

And, No -- I am way past-due to come back to your fantastic country (I believe the statues of limitation have expired by now). Dinners/lunches on me, as long as you're willing to drive to the beloved north-North, Coromandel, or Nelson.

In my next career, I'm going to move to NZ and grow kiwis, avocadoes, artichokes, and have a few oyster traps out. I'll row out to tend them every day. But not in Bluff.... I do believe I still have a fair measure of stoop labor in me.

I guess I will have to sail DEVA there as well -- I can't bear to be apart from her.

Sorry, I'm off-topic and should and need to continue inputting one-design measurements. Hopefully I'll get those to you all before the weekend is out.

My best wishes, Carl

Oh, and as I am sure I mentioned to you when you visited (-- 10 years ago ?). My life-long dream is to ride a donkey from the extreme north of the North Island, to the extreme south of the South Island. Do you suppose any property-owners would mind?

[ChaseKenyon]

Is it possible to have a development class with $ limit for materials, a kind of KISS thing. Unstayed mast (S) Total mast height (combined) No real sail area limits but some of Johns roach and batten rules. I'd like to see it all home made . sprits and gaffs and whatever to increase aspect ration but main mast unstayed restriction to make it easy to set up and go from a trailer. Sails of common single specified dacron and no fancy super professional sails sailrite kit is top of the line here. Maybe the max ply panels for scarfs is a good one.

What I would like to see most is and open design development class run like LINUX where all design ideas become public property of the class. Some of the Iceboat classes get pretty close to this idea allready. this would be a situation where the total group of particpants is working together and by the class rules sharing all design ideas. I personall like the idea of a unstayed yawl and being able to float a staysail in light air as well as a big headsail.

Keep it low cost keep it interesting for all to see whats new each year, each race each meet. Yes it would problably be like the ice baot classes but not o5 years change a every year change. Boats like this can be made out of plain old lumberyard wood. Exterior grade ply and or dimensional lumber.low cost fittings, and etc.

Lets go back to the 50's when PM MI and PS and boat builder magazines were the rage. I can remember bing at the old Camp Iroquois on Winnepisaukee, and almost every camper had a boat of some kind and 70% of them were home built.
It was great. Maybe a class could bring that kind of enthusiasm back. Let's face a lot of the folks on this forum are building boats and using house paint and all. With the economic future short and long term we realy could take a step back to when everyone in the campground was proud of their boat they built. The concept of haveing the fanciest deep V bigger than yours did not exist. Folks built boats and they wer serious about being on the water. There aren't reeally more boats now, it's just they are bigger and the driver/owners are in hock for 30 years of interest andhave no clue how to drive/handle the big snot V. So they go 20 Knots and leave a big wake and swamp canoes but want speed limits on little hydros out for a run. Sorry got of thread ther need to start that one up separately.

CHase

[Boatmik]

rule prohibiting toe straps would make a boat suited to the less athletic who want to use their boat for other than racedays.
JohnW

Howdy ....

Not sure if I am quoting the right reprobate (and I mean that in the nicest sense!)

Having sailed boats without toe straps ... the competitive instinct always finds some place to stick ones toes to get more leverage. Normally this is considerably more painful and occasioning of actual body harm than a pair of $10 straps.

Nice toe straps give even the less athletic some chance of leaning out too! :-)

Also to get some acceptance inside mainstream sailing I think they are necessary too.

As you get to larger boats they are not very necessary and can be omitted ... but for littler boats they are highly useful and a lot of us not so athletic sailors find a lot of use for them in terms of staying with the boat!

As far as a list of "rules", I have a great fondness of highly stipulative rules and a bare minimum of them.

Instead of banning a big long list. Sails shall be woven dacron or polytarp. (or you can opt for one or the other for the rule)

You can have a look at the PDRacer rules here if you want to see a set aimed at keeping cost out.

Basically we thought of every loophole we could that had been used to increase the cost/complexity of racing boats compared to the relatively simple ones of the 1960s. Now Junior boats have a surprising number or gee gaws using expensive bits. Funny thing ... is that the fleets sail with the same degree of closeness as we did circa 1960 .. just now you have to spend thousands on the BLING that modern raceboats "require".

The PDR hull is already limited by a strong set of rules so they don't need to be in this set. This is for the OZ version of the boat which is intended to eliminate every chance for bling!
http:www.pdracer.info/PDRdesign/ausrule.html

Best wishes
Michael