- Description of contents
JUNE 1995 UK’s TOP SELLER AVENGER Plan feature for Italian 500 Series Boat Krick’s Steamboat with Cheddar Models’ reviewed 06> ~ NEXUS 9 “770144°291046 Race Officer John Cleave kept everyone on their toes, keeping the whole thing running when breakages caused a problem with the planned rotation of the yachts. The event was also an excellent meeting place for old friends. Here two MYSA members discuss the abilities of the competing teams. ost regular readers of this ne will be aware that the M magazi man behind our regular Yacht Although the Club or Yachting Press Rise to a New (& Bigger ?) Challenge. Sponsored by Smurfit Paper + Boards (Burnley); Boats may not be at the cutting edge of the latest re-yacht technology, there is no disguising the pedigree of their Model Boats; and Whirlwind Winches. design. Graceful, heavy displacement yachts, they are well suited to Organised by The MYA under the MYSA Flag, at The Round Pond, Kensington Gardens, London — Friday 24 March match and team race events. Lines column, is also the Publicity & Promotions Officer for the Model Yachting Association. Anthony was co-opted onto the MYA Council when he prepared a paper setting out ideas for achieving “2000 by 2000”, the stated objective adopted by MYA Chairman Chris Dicks. Anthony’s ideas were based on targeting two specific groups; modellers such as the readers of this publication and sailors in the more general sense. Getting a message through to the latter group is not as easy as one might think but one of the ways suggested was to run an invitation event specifically for the staff and contributors to the “full-sized” press. This competition has been lurking in the back of Anthony’s mind for sometime, where he felt it was condemned to rest for another year until Mark Petrushkin, the now President of the M.Y.S.A Kensington, stepped into the breach with the offer of using the ten club boats. These boats, or miniature yachts, are based on a very graceful 10 Rater design with long waterline and an oversized rig. As such, they are certain to appeal to the more traditional sailor and model maker, as they are far removed from the latest generation of competition designs seen at most of today’s championships. Other modifications have been made to the keel to suit the restricted depth of the Round Pond’s paved banks, all of which has resulted in a large and fairly heavy displacement yacht that can be very arr en = : The first Model Yachting Challenge Cup attracted sunshine, wer a good bre eze, lot’s of spectators as well as TV and press coverage. demanding to sail but wonderful to look at. The history of these particular boats is MODEL BOATS JUNE 95 38 Far left: The skippers of each team represented various publications aimed at the “full-sized” sailing world. They all commented on the immense concentration that racing the yachts demanded. Left: Captain of RYA News Two, Gaye Sarma and Tom Cuncliffe of RYA News One, their half-time substitute, demonstrate the concentration needed to sail the MYSA club boats successfully. Tom was really enthusiastic about the event and the whole idea of reyachting. Praise indeed from a skipper well known for his ability and seamanship. from each magazine’s editori al or journalistic staff. All well known sailors, the teams included the British Olympic Team Coach, the U.K.’s Admiral’s Cup coach and an all woman team from the Royal Yachting Associ ation that. unlike it’s America’s Cup counterpart resisted any need to substitute a male skipper in a bid to improve their overall also interesting in that they were originally ordered by a M.Y.S.A. club membe r for use performance. However all this experience did not prepare the teams for the skills needed to extract the very best performance from these demanding small yachts . Team racing is a different discip line to match racing. Each race consis ts of one team at corporate entertainm ent events, Their completion coincided with the beginning of the recession and the slashi ng of company’s entertainment budgets, so the yachts were put into the care of the M.Y.S. A. where members are allowed to adopt a boat and competing against another, meaning that become responsible for it’s mainte nance. In there are six boats on the water for each the “Club Boats” at regular races held at the club’s wonderful Kensington venue, attracts a reduction to threequarter’s of a return they can race what are now known as For those that are unaware of the M.Y.S.A, it has a history of organising model yachting at the Round Pond, Kensington since before it’s formation in 1876. In the early days there were no nationally recogn ised classes of boats and consequently there was very little inter-club racing. However, over the years various classes such as 10 Rater, A, 36 inch restricted and the Marblehead 50/800 classes became established. Many of the designs and equipment well known to present day free-sailing fanatic s, were actually innovations by past club members such as Daniels, Braine and Littlejohn. With boats secured and the format of an event established, Mark and Anthony set about raising the Sponsorshi p needed to cover the anticipated costs and were extremely pleased to receiv e the support of Model Boats Magazine as well as Smurfit Paper & Board Mills (Burn ley) Ltd and Whirlwind Winches. Model Boats does not really need any introduction to the reader and most of you will have heard of Whirlwind Winches, who are well known for suppl ying a wide range of specialist winches suited to many types of competition and scale model yachts. Smurfit Paper + Boards (Burnley) Ltd., are the U.K. division of Smurfit, an Irish company supplying paper and board s to alll types of publishing and manufacturing companies MODEL BOATS incidents. Here the resting teams study one of the yachts more closely after …… Left: it had virtually sunk following an unseen collision. Next year more protection will have to fitted to the bows of these boats which can inflict a lot of damage when travelling at speed. race. Points are awarded equal to each yacht’s finishing position (excep t first which competing for one of the many magnificent trophies that reflect the 120 year history of the club. Far left: Unfortunately the day was not without its gear failures and point), the aim being to achiev e the lowest score for a win. This deman ds a very throughout the EEC. Invitations were issued and entrie s received from four publications including Seahorse Magazine, Yachts & Yachting, Yachting World and RYA News, the in-house publication of the Royal Yachti ng Association. In fact there was so much enthus iasm for the event within the RYA, they put in an entry for two teams (the maximum permitted) and still had an awful lot of disappointed potential rc- yachts skippers. Friday 24th March saw the inaugu ration of The Model Yachting Challenge Cup, which if the response of all involved is anythi ng to go by, is set to become a regular date in the calendar. Apart from organising fantast ic weather, the M.Y.S.A. has as part of their contribution to the event, loaned and refurb ished a magnificent trophy formally known as the Burton Trophy, presented by Sir William Burton in 1936. The Deed of Gift has been worded in such a way as to ensure the retention of the event in the format envisaged by Anthony, in that the Challenge is to remain an invitation only event and be organised as an annual team race between skippers representing yachti ng publications, sailing radio-controlled yachts . Greeted by bright sunshine and a good breeze blowing from the North West across the widest part of the pond, the five teams were made up of three skippe rs selected different tactical approach as one has to be conscious of each team membe r’s position on the water, it often paying to hold up the opposition to let a member of your own team through. The excellent conditions allowed Race Officer John Cleave to set a course based on the standard Olympic format of a beat, two reaching legs followed by a beat, run and a final beat to the finish. The first race got away close to the scheduled start time of 10.30 a.m. with the RYA News Team One sailing against Yachts & Yachti ng. Readers of these magazines will probably realise that Yachts & Yachti ng has a competition bias, so were expect ed to put up a strong challenge for the trophy, although it has to be said that there was a lot of talent in all the other teams as well. First blood did in fact go to Yachts & Yachting who beat RYA News One who were perhapsa little distracted by a failure of one of their yachts seconds after the start. This proble m was resolved by the R.O. awarding an average of the total points available to the other five competitors, however this did not change the result as Y&Y had taken Ist and 2nd places, an unbeatable on the water result. Y@Y also went on to win their next race (race four) against the glamorous all ladies team sailing as RYA News Two. Although the boats had been available for practice before racing commenced, it was noticeable that the early races did not feature JUNE 95 39 Right: After the event, prevail over Seahorse, a team that had not performed as well as expected. This would all hands set-to in a very rapid clear up at lakeside and adjourned have left the event tied between three teams with three wins a piece, demandinga tie to the clubhouse for tea, break to decide the winner. However it was not to be, as Seahorse chose this race to come into form, beating Yachts and Yachting cakes and the all important prize-giving. and overturning the predicted result. The racing was swiftly followed by a well organised clear-up, tea and the prize giving at which MYA President Mr Norman Hatfield Below right: MYA President Norman Hatfield not only gave a expressed his gratitude to all involved and in marvellous address particular the sponsors, Smurfit Paper & Boards, Model Boats and Whirlwind thanking the sponsors Winches. Mr Colin Coules presented the and competitors but prizes on behalf of Smurfit to all the also conveniently stood competitors, everyone taking home a next to the yachts to memento of what all agreed had been one of give an indication of the best competitions they had been to in their size. many a 2nd, 3rd and 4th to win this match. At the break and after five races, it was Yachts & Yachting and Yachting World looking very strong with two wins each, RYA confrontation and took the very impressive silver Model Yachting Challenge Cup with before lunch, when they met Yachting World. This time sub Robin Redhead made no mistakes but was unable to slow his rivals up enough to change Yachting World taking Below: Whilst Anthony provided a reading from his bible, “Boat Tuning for Beginners”, Colin Coules, presented the prizes on behalf of the principal sponsor Smurfit. Alan Warren a lot of boat on boat tactics, the skippers and Matthew Sheehan having to concentrate on developing their overall control of the yachts. As one could have predicted, the first races did not really accept on behalf of Yachting World (and team captain Andrew Bray who had eloped to an engagement at the ORC) their award for second place. Below far right: RYA News One, captained by Rodd Carr took the wonderful Model Yachting Challenge Cup. To the left of Rodd holding the trophy is Bill Edgerton, Tom Cuncliffe and Alan Hill. I don’t think we’ll have any trouble getting any of them back to feature the competitive starts seen at most other regattas and there were more than a fair share of collisions as the boats broached in the gusting conditions. Yachting World and RYA News Two took to the water for Race 2 and it was interesting to see how quickly the former gained control of their boats, dominating the ladies to take year. Rod Carr, RYA Offshore Team Coach and Captain of the winning team, summed this up by saying that this was the best yachting event he had been to because he was going home well fed, warm, dry and victorious. The final result? RYA News One came first having beaten Yachting World in their News One had a win and a loss, with the RYA three wins. Yachting World finished second, News Two and Seahorse struggling with two Seahorse Magazine third, Yachts & Yachting losses. After a generous lunch hosted in the near- fourth and RYA News Two fifth. by Orangery, the two RYA teams met for model yachting by contacting the MYA Race 6 and a marked improvement was noticeable in the handling of the boats by all parties. Suddenly we were seeing some very Information Officer Mr David Hackwood on tight starts and a lot of boat on boat tactics. We also noticed that the skippers now had their You can obtain more information about 01642 595577. If you wish to know more about the MYSA Kensington, then contact Commodore Mr Graham Frazer on 0171 351 5398. time to talk to their team mates, deciding on who perhaps was best placed to “stuff” the opposition. This lead to some very tactical sailing by all the teams, however the ladies were not able to stop their opposite numbers taking this particular race. RYA News One also went 1st, 2nd and 3rd. For Race Three, the skippers of Seahorse on to win their subsequent match in race 9 Magazine, helped by an M.Y.S.A club member lost to Yachting World in Race 7, the latter substituting for Andrew Hurst who had to cry now being helped by their own substitute, Norman Hatfield (President of the MYA and Chairman of TYRU-MYRD) and Seahorse against Yachting World. Yachts & Yachting off at the last minute, faced up to RYA News One. Perhaps a little disadvantaged by the fact that RYA News had already sailed in anger, Seahorse came near to taking the race as their substitute lead the fleet around the course, only to fall at the last hurdle when he overstood the new finishing line. Seahorse stayed on for the final race prevailed over RYA News Two in Race 8. Going into the last race of the series, the successful RYA News’s Team One had three wins, as did Yachting World. The ladies were In 5th place, RYA News Two. Left to right, out of contention and all assumed that the Caroline Griffen, Mary Ann Hambly & final race would see Yachts & Yachting Captain Gaye Sarma. defend the trophy in ‘96. Bottom right: Team Yachts & Yachting somehow managed to slip into 4th place. Digby Fox collects his prize after team mates Sue Pelling and Peter Spence had to rush off to another commitment. The gentleman on the left is our man Corbett. Detailed Results Team Name Results RYA News One Race 1 L W WwW WwW Yachting World Race 2 Race 5 Race 7 Race 9 Seahorse Magazine Yachts & Yachting RYA News Two 40 Race 3 Race 6 Race 9 Ww WwW Ww L Race 3 Race 5 Race 8 Race 10 bE A; W W Race 1 Ww Race 4 Ww Race 7 Race 10 Race 2 Race 4 Race 6 Race 8 L ie L 1 L L Wins Losses Position 3 1 Ist 3 1 2nd 2 2 3rd 2 2 4th 0 4 5th MODEL BOATS JUNE 95 Yachts ines} ANTHONY CORBETT discusses a Sports Division and continues his interview with Graham Bantock YACHTING A Kyosho Fairwind finished as a semi-scale model and as used for racing at both the Earls Court Boat Show and Sailboat ‘94. Would it measure as an R36R? Would you want it to? modelling and there are a few around that I cannot believe were developed to do anything other than put people off sailing for life. The problem as I see it, is that retailing is about selling product and when it comes to model yachting and racing yachts in particular, there are few products available in any quantity. Now I can just imagine people reaching for there pens to point to boats like the Graupner Butterfly and the Tamiya Whitbread 60, however these, like several other kits, have only been available in limited numbers. Neither have they been aggressively marketed in the same way as for instance model cars are, therefore information the punter really needs doesn’t get into general circulation. Whilst I reviewed many of the proprietary kits (see August 94), quite frankly few qualify as good all round A letter from Mr A Lapham from Chatham, recently passed on to me by the Editor, has once again raised the issue of a need for an alternative to the Class yachts sailed by most MYA affiliated clubs. Mr Lapham tells a story similar to a lot of modellers in that, having seen a group of radio-controlled yachts racing in the Burnham-on-Sea area, he went out and purchased a Kyosho Fairwind Yacht Kit. He was, and presumably still is, very happy with the boat but now asks the question, “Is there any where that I can now go and race the boat?” Also would it measure as an R36R or is there a form of handicap competition run by any club? He goes on to say that it would be helpful if budding yacht modellers had easy access to information on radio yacht racing rules, clubs etc., as this does not seem readily available from the shops that sell kits like the one he purchased. Given that Mr Lapham referred to my own contribution to this title and was very complimentary about Model Boats in general, I would refer both 42 him and others intending to get involved in model yachting, back to my sailing boats suited to the type of competitions run by MYA clubs. A Fairwind might measure as an R36R early articles in the June and August but would you want it to? It would not ‘94 editions. These contained an be competitive with the boats specifically designed to the rule and to modify it would perhaps cost more than starting all over-again. This is not to suggest that there is no place for kits like the Fairwind. Whilst I make no bones about the fact that they do not appeal to me, regular readers of my column will know that I appreciate the fact that a lot of people enjoy a different kind of sailing. It is for this reason that the MYA Council approved the creation of a Sports Division, where skippers could compete with kit style overview of the MYA and it’s classes, followed by a review of the proprietary kits available in the market place. Few model shops are in a position to offer advice on model yachting. One could argue that the same is true of the rest of their wares, however in my experience, a lot of the specialist retailers actually have a strong involvement in one particular aspect of modelling, such as planes or trains. Therefore they do offer some support, even if it is only guiding enquiries to local clubs that can be of more help. However model yachting is not like that. The evolution of businesses selling kits for construction of the more boats. Unfortunately, the idea has not received a lot of support from the clubs, presumably because there was no demand from their members. But if which contains all the details of clubs, racing rules etc. I suggest you contact the Association’s Information Officer, Mr David Hackwood on 01642 595577. Of course there are a lot of modelling clubs out there that are not affiliated to the MYA but I’m not their publicity officer! Marblehead Rules Revision Whoopee!, I hear you cry. And about time! Well maybe not if the less wellinformed comments are anything to go by. However, if you own an RM and haven’t heard about this, then you better kick your club secretary or get on the telephone to MYA Secretary, Henry Farley (01707 265791) pretty quickly, as replies to a questionnaire circulated by the MYA on behalf on the International Yacht Racing Union Model Yacht Racing Division, are due back by the end of this month. (I’m writing in March for the June edition of this magazine, published in May. Glad that’s clear.) Once again the MYRD Technical Secretary has produced a pamphlet that explains why the rules need to be reviewed which to summarise are as follows :Since the last rule revision, there have been a number of interpretations that should be incorporated into the rule itself Jor clarity. Recent rule revisions in other classes (the One Metre?) have brought to light several points that could be a problem for owners and measurers if left as they are. There is a loophole in the sail measurement system. It is suggested that some of the more restrictive class rules might be relaxed to take more advantage of the composite materials and construction techniques common racing yachts is a fairly recent phenomena, probably spurred on in there are more people out there like Mr Lapham, perhaps you should all be now taken for granted in this class. part by the interest in the One Metre class. These products are not available through the high street retailer and no getting along to your local club to press owners are being given the opportunity major manufacturer that I am aware of, has grasped the opportunity to develop a boat specifically for racing. Most produce designs aimed at semi-scale the point. Of course this indirectly leads back to information, the main reason why I started to write these articles in the All good logical stuff then, however to go beyond this and review all aspects of the rule, which may well result in some more fundamental changes. Personally I do not have a problem with first place. The Model Yachting this as we are all being a good Association publishes a Year Book opportunity to contribute to the MODEL BOATS JUNE 95 process. It will also be interesting to The mast tube is part of the fin box see the results of the survey which I am sure will not only bring a good response from the current crop of moulding and allows the mast to be raked. Interesting things to note are the recessed track which avoids any sheet snags (essential on this and other racing UK skippers, but from other MYRD division members around the world. One of the rumours (and I stress the yachts), the mast ram which controls the low down bend of the mast, plus the one word rumours!) I have heard is a Suggestion that perhaps draft should be sheeting position which I have noticed appearing on more and more boats limited. Another is that the mast height restriction should be removed and recently. Whilst this can obviously be moved to suit each rig, there really isn’t any need to and having only one deck eye reduces the chance of a tangled sheet. there is also a suggestion that the “unfairness” in the measurement of pocket luff sails should be addressed. These are measured to the flattened luff edge as for normal sails, which means that they include the area of the mast. Not true of other rig configurations. I’ve noticed that your boat does not appear to have a movab le mast position. If I recall correctly, this is Whilst I do have some personal views on these and several other aspects of the rules, I think it is for both the owners and custodians of the rules to ask themselves as to how they perceive the class developing. Indeed, does the intention of the current rule have to be modified in any way to ensure the future success of the class? The Marblehead may seem like a free for all to the outsider but it is in fact a restricted development class, As Graham Bantock said in our interview last month, the basic RM rig is now virtually one design, certainly in the case of the top rig. The hulls have an enormous amount of diversit y, however basic principles or weight, strength and reliability are the key elements in the success of any particular design. The real controls in the development of the hulls and appendages are the materia ls and construction methods. If the RM is to remain at the cutting edge of development, then I am in favour of less restriction rather than more. If people are concerned about the cost, then the simplest way to limit this is to further restrict the number of rigs. But I would have to say that this is not a path I would particularly favour because if one follows the argument that a successful RM is a complete package (the Roar Edge is design ed with a normal pack of four rigs, five maximum), then such a restriction might impact on hull and fin design, sending the class down a blind alley. Anyway, if you want that sort of boat, true of your other production boats. Is this because you’re lucky or brilliant, or perhaps somew here even in between? Do you design you can sail a One Metre. It has also been suggested that the rigs etc. so the Centre of Effort is in the right place, or do you someone might build a RM with a three foot keel and then protest for redress at prove it in prototype boat? an event where they were unable to We in fact utilise a keel box similar to the RM version which gives a facility to rake the rig, in a position that I have found to work on the One Metre. What sail it. This one’s lost on me as Iam firmly of the view that these problems only exist when one sets about legislating for them. At the ‘94 may not be apparent to most skipper s Nationals, the organisers stated that they could only guarantee (say) 24ins of water. If they hadn’t have said is that the One Metre rigs were designed to have their C of E further aft as the rigs reduce, so it isn’t really anything, would this have change d the boats? Well I don’t think so as the necessary to rake the rigs signific antly. As to why they were conceived like this, it may not be too obvious but current crop of fins are restrict ed by firstly their construction and secondl y by the types of venues at which the yachts are sailed. They don’t sail RM’s, R10R’s or even One Metres at lakes where there isn’t enough water, so these issues tend to resolve themselves. However if you go aground with a draft of 23 1/2ins where you have been guaranteed 24ins, a whole new bag of worms opens up, support ing something that I have argued before: legislating in a development class creates more problems than it solves! Anyway, if the above has wound you up, then you probably have about two weeks to get your copy of the survey and respond. I’ll be very interested to hear the results, which will hopefully be more constructive than the response to some other rule changes that I can think of. Making a reappearance, this shot gives an idea of the permanent forward set put into the rigs. This is taken out when the rig is installed in the yacht, by tighteni ng the backstay, counteracting and tightening the forestay. Graham Bantock, the continuing story… unless the C of E is moved further back in stronger winds there would be a tendency for the yacht to sail very free in it’s lower rigs. Are there any unique factors that affect the setting up of rigs on a 1M? Some have spoken to me about setting up the rig with forward mast bend and straightening it with the backsta y, Given that Graham is also Chairman of the MYRD Technical Committee, this would seem an appropriate juncture at which to continue last month’s interview and his comments on the One Metre class in particular. The concluding part next month will discuss the Six Metre class. As with last month, in order that the reader can understand the following more easily, my questions are emboldened, Graham’s answers are in normal type face and my own additions or observations are in italics. One Metre Rigs The 1M is a class that in part restricts costs and perhaps performance, by limiting the number of rigs to three strictly controlled one design sail plans. There are some fairly large tolerances on the sail measurements. Do you take advantage of these in the sails you make or are such variations unlikely to affect the performance of the yacht? The cutting tolerances are not large Three very different RM designs racing at last year’s Midland ranking race at Leicester MYC. With the rule now being reviewed , will there be any move by the owners to make any fundamental changes to the class? Does it need any to retain it’s position at the pinnacle of International competition? in comparison with the total area of the rig, so working the tolerances is unlikely to be very beneficial. As the No 1 rig is probably under-canvasse d in the majority of sailing conditions it is important to have close to the maximum size. The smaller No 2 & No 3 rigs are as often over-canvassed as they are under, so there isn’t any logic in cutting the sails for either extreme , unless of course you are building for a specific condition. Everyone has their own way of doing things but to illustrate a different approach to Graham’s I have include d some shots of my own One Metre. I started from the principle that I was Soing to set the boat up with a Sairly straight mast and that I was going to use the ball-raced gooseneck purchased from PJ Sails sometime ago. This meant that the sail rotates around the centre of the mast tube, needing a different Sitting for the head of the sail (see the next photograph). You can also see the mast ram which in this case pulls on the-mast tube. Above the boom one can just make out the thread of the mast jack which P] Sails made to order. This allowed me to save a lot of money by simply using over centre hooks for the shrouds and tightening the rig with the jack. The arrangement is not without it’s problems but does work. However I now question whether I really need the jack as it is possible to get quite a lot of tension just with the hooks. MODEL BOATS JUNE 95 43 necessity. They should be positioned equidistant between the deck level and hounds position and be 75% as long as the _ the shroud base. Positioning the hounds below the forestay is the obvious place as it applies the bend in the direction we want reducing the effect of the forestay and backstay rather than enhancing it. So we drop our rig in the boat. How do we decide on the tension The P] Sails mast head fitting which allows the headboard to rotate with the gooseneck, around the tube. in the shrouds? The shroud tension should be tight enough to stop the mast falling sideways when on a reach and in light airs this can be quite slack. (When beating, over-tightened shrouds can force, thus increasing rig tension. Do you do this? Is this unique to the 1M? via the spreaders, the centre mast section off to leeward pushing the top section to windward. This is not quick. Check that section and minimum 10.9 mm measuring from the mast top to each corner of the stern. Ifyou want to record your rig settings, rake can be checked by The One Metre rule only allows aluminium or wood masts of constant diameter. This means that we are dealing with rigs that are very flexible in comparison with those used on Marbleheads. I opt for the lightest and smallest diameter GROOVY tube available within the rules to reduce both weight and drag. Then I put forward permanent set (permanent forward pre- bend) in each of the masts. This is then straightened out with the backstay ensuring sufficient forestay tension with minimal mast bend. (Once again it is worth bringing to the attention of the reader the need to consider the boat and rigs as one complete package. I use a larger diameter tube on my One Metre which is stiffer but probably induces more drag. I have also pre-bent my rigs but not to the extent GB does because the rig and set up is different. Where we have adopted the same approach is at deck level. We both use masts that are stepped at the keel with an adjustable strut at the deck. This restrains the mast whilst controlling the bend of the lower sections and dealing with some of the problems caused by compression referred to in the previous article. It is unlikely that this pre-bent approach would be as easy to control on a deck stepped rig. To do so would necessitate lower shrouds, or checkstays as they are referred to in the « rule, plus a mast strut. All of these would add weight and drag.) Whilst deliberately bending a mast the mast is in the middle of the boat by measuring from the same position to the centre of the transom but ensure that the Soot ofyour mast in a fixed position otherwise your results will become a nonsense. As a post script I would add that I have found that because of the size of the boat, these measurements cannot be relied on. Marking forestay and backstay in conjunction with a known position for the mast stub, or step, is probably much more reliable, something that requires a lot of trial and error) It is very easy to overdo rig tension which may deform the hull. (Jt will be easy to confuse the reader with expressions such as pre-bend so to clarify, perhaps we should refer to the One Metre rig as pre-bent or having permanent set to borrow Graham’s preferred description. Full-sized skippers are used to the idea of pre-bending the rigs using considerable rig tension in order to match the mast to the mainsail. This is because in most yachts, the mast section is over-engineered to ensure that it stands up in the wide range of conditions that a yacht can be exposed to. Racing boat designers aim at the same criteria as those designing model yachts, reducing weight and drag at every opportunity. There are considerable savings to be made in masts which, just like their model counterparts, affect the stability and pitching of the boat. As the mast sections are reduced, the problem is one of holding the mast up, as well as controlling the shape. We can think of the pre-bent rig as similar in concept. Shroud tension is only needed to hold the rig up and act against the spreaders in A shot of the bow of GB’s old boat (it was sold in Australia last January), showing the recessed track at the bow and the eyelet’s ready to receive the jib boom swivel of each rig. Note the line protruding in front of the No. 2 rig jib. This stretches from the bottom of the hull, through the deck and is connected to the No. 1 rig. As most of us know, all chord takes up a certain amount of twist during it’s manufacture and this often manifests itself by giving a strong bias in one direction under load. With a longer length of line, this problem is reduced, which means that the jib will rotate more easily in light winds. All clever stuff! Below: Take one bent rig and install in your yacht. Note that although the backstay arm is fixed there are no pins protruding from the mast, meaning it lies flat in the bag. I have seen a number ofyachts rigged with the pin in the mast, onto which the spreaders are pushed. The pin should be glued in one of the spreaders and inserted through the mast into the other, controlling sideways bend. The tension and compression comes from the fore and backstays where our objective is to hold the jib up and bring the mast fairly straight. To complete this package, the sail maker will have to cut the main with luff curve suited to the anticipated mast bend. Another tip for quick rig changing is to fix the bottle screw end of the shroud adjusters to the hull. Using double nuts on the screw attached to the shroud, once the correct settings have been determined, just counter wind the nuts, undo the bottle screw and your shroud lengths are fixed and repeatable.) Can you describe the process of setting up the rig as you would go through it stage by stage to achieve the initial tune. Well we set the rig up much as we have discussed for the RM, however the intention is to achieve a tight forestay and a “straight mast”. This is done with the forestay and then backstay. Having already determined and fixed the shroud lengths, the shrouds are finally tensioned by fitting the spreaders, much like a bow and arrow, to the mast. (Once more we are dealing with a package that is easy to transport, rig and sail. Conventional rigs store flat unless you fix both spreaders and backstay. If the spreaders are not permanently fixed to the mast, they can be detached for storage. The added benefit is that when fitted they tension the rig without the need to wind it up using the bottle screws). The beauty of the One Metre rig, is that whatever system you use, when you detach the rig the tension is off all the sails, other than the luff of the main. Let the cunningham off and all your previously successful settings are kept until the next time you drop in the rig, attach the jib and tighten the backstay. To set the rig up initially tighten the fore and backstays to achieve the correct forestay tension, plus a mast bend that matches the mainsail luff. Then tighten the jib luff (luff not the forestay) to remove any sagging cloth (be careful to ensure that you do not over-tighten as it is easy to do this taking the whole tension on the sail luff rather than on the forestay!). may seem a little complicated, the benefits are quite large. With aluminium tube there is no problem putting the bend in although practice does make it easier!. Carbon mast tube, like so many other products, is manufactured to certain tolerances and few tubes are actually perfectly straight. I try to select the best tubes for use in our kits so that their forward bend straightens under tension increasing the control over forestay tension. Tuning Let’s assume that we have our conventional rig. Do we need spreaders & if so, what about position and length? What about shroud position (hounds height) and length? Spreaders are a means of adding apparent stiffness and control to a mast. (The need for them must be a function of mast stiffness and hence a function of the tubes diameter and wall thickness but they will always add sideways stiffness in addition to control over fore and aft mast bend.). As I opt for the lightest and smallest mast sections, spreaders are an absolute 44 The jib is hooked onto it’s position. You can still see the permanent set in the mast. MODEL BOATS JUNE 95 The backstay is hooked on and voila, the mast is now straight and the forestay is tensioned. Obviously the various bowsie positions have been left in the correct positions, which are marked for repetition. The jib sheet is threaded through it’s sheeting eye and lead back to the winch line. Note the simple arrangement for fine tuning the sheet length to adjust the slot. should also be set slightly wider. The first mark. is to allow the undisturbed passage of air over the sails, the second to create forward drive. We are talking about very means reducing the angle of heel as well light airs where the boat will hardly heel, so we aim to get it moving rather than pointing to windward. The sail camber can also be flattened, not too much, as this allows the air to flow over the sails more quickly. In these conditions we would not expect any waves and this is one of the So now we aim for speed and this as driving the boat forward. These are the attributes of our twist sail settings so we allow the head of the sail to fall off, adjust the jib to match and away we go. We might also consider increasing the camber in the sails and opening the slot, all of which will make the boat sail free and fast reducing the affect of the waves.) major factors to be considered in setting up any boat. When we start getting more wind but are still well within the limits of our top suit, we then look at the sailing conditions once again. It is unlikely there will be any big waves, so these are the conditions in which we aim to achieve the highest pointing angle combined with power. Reduce the twist in the main by tightening the kicker and Shrouds are now connected and the spreaders put in position. Note that the shroud adjusters are fixed to the hull. A set of threaded ends are fixed to each shroud. Two counter turned nuts are used to fix the shroud length once the right positions have been determined. This way, each rig is just dropped straight onto the boat with confidence. adjust the jib leech to match. Close the jib slot slightly and bring the boom closer to the centre line. Have a trial sail. If you know that the rig is in the right position but the boat keeps turning into the wind, either the boom is in too tight, or there is too little mainsail kicker to control the twist of this one can add the camber or fullness twist. Tell- tales will help you decide which. One on the upper head of the main will indicate if there is stalling, which means too little twist. Tell tales the sail (you will see most racing of the sail. If you sail a boat with a will also assist in setting the jib. If the skippers do this by trimming the boat in closed or tight leech, then it will be able boat is sailing to windward and is the wind, either on a stand or by lifting the hull by the stern whilst the bow and keel rest on the ground.) so that the to point well travelling to windward. balanced, i.e. neither luffing or bearing away, check the tell tales to see if both are streaming. If the windward one lifts leech is approximately 35 mm off the backstay, towards the head of the sail when the main boom is on the back behind the centre of lateral Next adjust the leach line to adjust the initial jib twist. Now tighten the centreline. Tighten the downhaul just enough to remove the sagging cloth or creases from the luff of the main, then adjust the camber (foot) of both sails. The twist of the jib leech can now be There are two main considerations, twist or leech tension and angle of attack. To This is because the pressure on the back edge of the sail keeps the Centre of Effort resistance of the keel. However the boat will also heel and the driving force of the sail is directed more sideways than forwards. The keel prevents the yachts going that way, it’s lateral resistance. It’s already getting complicated! the jib is too far out and visa versa. We now put a little more camber back in the sails and there we are. I would say that these are the settings around which everything else is measured as we are now trying to tune the rig to it’s Do you believe that the 1M rule has been successful in achieving it’s intentions? The objective was to create a class where competitive boats could be built inexpensively by non-expert builders and provide close competition for both competent skippers and beginners. I think that it is measuring up to this intention. Continuing this thought, do you feel that the rule has produced designs of reasonably comparable performance? Has this changed with the advent of the narrow designs or is the class only now attracting the attention of the designers that will push the speed potential of the rule? The good designs are comparable but there are a lot of bad ones. This is true of any class. Development has occurred in conjunction with the maturing of the class. As more people have designed hulls to the rule, the class has developed. The narrow beam boats are just a part of that process Your latest design for this class has followed the RM trends towards a narrow beam. This is the air is able to move more quickly over maximum efficiency, without having to consider factors, like waves, that might affect our boat. Once you start sailing in waves, you the sails and the heeling force is reduced. change gear. It is fair to say that in most The forward drive now increases but the cases, you will experience waves in boat and the jib between 10 and 15 degrees. What checks would you make before putting the boat in the water for a race? ability to point is reduced. It may occur to the reader that one can simply bring the boom closer to the centre line of the boat but what happens then is one effectively hooks the lower sections of the strong wind conditions. It also depends on how exposed the sailing water is but let’s assume there is a chop. Why ts this a factor? Well, not only do waves slow or appears to me that the designs rely on hull form stability i.e. beam, for a lot of stability. Do you agree? Obviously the 1M has a longer keel and is intrinsically better balanced than the R36R, however Put the bung in! I firstly check that nothing has come adrift, ensuring that the sheets are not fouled around the pot lid or any other fitting. leech to windward, causing turbulence stop a yacht in the same way as mud would affect a car but they also cause the boat to pitch and rock, reducing the efficiency of the rig. To counteract this do you not feel that beam makes a bigger contribution to this class’ stability than in the RM? Of course the flaw in this idea is that the narrow designs, as is the complicated to be dealt with here. The jib we need to get over these waves as quickly as possible, whilst reducing the pitching of the boat. The waves generally come from the same direction as the wind, so that is the last place to head directly for, therefore the ability to point is not what we are looking for, although slot and angle of attack of the boom we still have to get to that windward If you introduce more twist, then the C checked to ensure that it is ‘parallel’ to the curve of the main. I set the mainsail at between 2.5 and 7.5 degrees to the centre line of the of E moves forward and down, however Check that the rudder is on the centre line and that the sheeting angle suits the conditions expected for the race. (We are now entering different territory as tuning is a book in it’s self. MODEL BOATS JUNE 95 and loss of efficiency. Like all things to do with sailing, it is a matter of compromise. Trying to get back to basics, in light winds or drifting conditions you need twist in the sails to ensure that there is no turbulence at the leech. There are a lot of other considerations which are too also true of the Dicks’ designs and several new boats planned by others. In boats such as the R36R where depth is restricted, it case in the RM, performed very well and perhaps arguably better than the wider boats in the strong winds experienced in last year’s Championship. Do you feel that narrow designs just have a wider performance envelope or are there 45 Sail trim was dealt with in some depth last month, so this photograph is just to give the reader an idea of how one can use visual references like the distance between leech and backstay. In this particular shot, the main is trimmed with a lot of twist which is controlled by the kicker, or vang. sailing well with the standard 80 mm x 10 mm section. High thickness/chord ratio fins have high drag at low speeds than small. A good way of viewing your boat when adjusting the fine tune. Positioned something and narrow fins will stall out when the where beginners fly aircraft with bigger like 50 degrees to the wind, lift the stern whilst the keel and bow rest on the ground. In boat is moving slowly after a tack and wings which have lower stalling speeds light winds, this method also “sets” the sails by their own weight. when overpressed in the lower rigs. A chord width of about 100 mm is a good making them more difficult to crash. other factors (like they spill water compromise, larger for better is the all important factor. Is it performance in a blow and smaller for more important than in the unrestricted classes such as the RM and 10R? Skill is the most important factor in Hull form stability appears to be and can recover more quickly from more important in the 36R, 6M and A a broach) that give them an classes because of their restricted draft, light airs. This width is a function of the advantage? however the fact that the narrow RM’s overall area which is calculated by Form stability is an important part of is best to keep fin area-large rather The same logic applies to aeroplanes As with the RM the skippers skill have performed well in strong winds considering the speed of the boat and any yacht design. With a beam to depth has caused me to question whether the load on the rig. As you know, there any competition. Having said that, in ratio of 2:1 (like a semi circle) the hull form stability is so important. It would is a simple formula for calculating the competitive classes like the RM and form itself provides no contribution to be interesting to experiment with a approximate maximum speed of a One Metre, no one is going to win with stability which come purely from the centre of gravity being below the centre of buoyancy. Stability increases narrow 36R although I think it would displacement boat sailing to windward, a bad boat. choose to utilise conventional rigs. dramatically as beam to depth ration increases and there seemed little benefit in reducing beam to depth in (1.2 x sq. root L where L is the Are the narrow boats going to waterline length in feet). If we assume dominate the 1M competitions in the design and construction of an that the boat slows to 75% of it’s the same way they currently 1M? maximum speed after a tack time we dominate the RM’s? If so, why can choose the fin area to produce a haven’t the R1OR’s gone this way? the One Metre class to the proportions The successful hull forms have all been fair and smooth, i.e. they are seen in the Marblehead class. reasonably symmetrical fore and aft. RM’s can maintain stability even at reduced beam by making the fin much longer subject to the problem of fin stiffness. I wasn’t very optimistic that the same solution would work with a One Metre but it does. Why? I suspect that the drag increase when a hull sails This is probably true of all classes. through waves is more than we think it is and, as narrower hulls have much reduced increased drag in choppy conditions, they benefit even though their lack of stability indicates they should be slower. What are the keys to success in extent, limits concentration of weight side force at that speed which balances the side force on the rig and gives minimum drag. Clearly in the lower rigs the boat’s speed to windward will not be towards the middle of the boat. As for the significantly higher than in the No 1 rig National and the Australian National in RM, choice of fin stiffness is important as but the side force on the rig will be January 95, using an RM measured to is the chord width of the fin. higher leading to larger ‘optimum’ fin the 10R rule with a large shroudless Hulls should be stiff which, to an There has been a lot of debate about Yes, I think they are. As for the 10R, they may well follow this design path given how well an RM can do in 10R competition. ( In case the reader is unaware, Graham won the 94 R10R areas. Designing for best straight line conventional rig. Paul Tickner also One Metre fins recently and like other speed would indicate a smaller keel but competed in the UK event using a Roar classes, a narrow but thick fin will not be very competitive. A 12% thickness/chord ratio seems to be the absolute upper limit for a well designed fin. The prototype RHYTHMis still then there could be problems with the keel stalling out after a tack unless sails are sheeted in progressively to avoid overloading the keel. For a straightforward and easy to sail yacht it Edge RM rigged with a similar sized swing rig. Both dominated the first day’s racing in light airs, however when the wind got up the more conventional yachts were quicker. GB was able to achieve consistent results because his conventional rig was easier to control in the strong winds, whilst the swing rig equipped RM had trouble matching up to the other boats.) The main difference between R10R’s and M/1M’s is that they are able to sail down wind over-canvassed due to the reserve buoyancy in their long overhangs. I got the impression at the UK RIOR National that there is scope for quite a lot of improvement of most designs. Thinking back, in the mid 80s Chris Dicks used a Swedish designed Very straight forward stuff here. The mainsheet is connected to A tip for those with home built boats and fittings. Where sail the boom using a simple hook lead through an eye. Note the wide makers fit tabs to the luff of the jibs, I have found it preferable spacing of the holes in the boom. Whilst some carefully drill holes to remove them at the jib tack. Apart from all the other bits one at 5 mm centres, it ts easy to forget that the combination of may be using on the forestay here, I have found that this tab transmitter trim and jib sheet adjustment is enough in itself. Of hardens the entry of the jib, removing the camber built in by the course one does have to get the number of turns on the winch sail maker. By cutting off the tab and just tying it to the drum set about right but you all knew that. Sorestay, the sail sets a lot better, even in the lightest ofbreezes. 46 and built R10R which was relatively narrow and light in comparison with other yachts of the time and it was very competitive winning several Nationals. However it’s example does not seem to have had any significant long term effect on the R1OR fleet.. Where do you see future developments of the 1M occurring? Firstly in matching sails to the spars and cutting better section sails. There may also be some opportunity to refine the fin and ballast. I think these refinements will take place when the skippers are better matched. MODEL BOATS JUNE 95 Sram e…..—— ~ MIKE KEMP. ~ finaliy=sets=a boat-on the“weter and.demonstrates that 4ane-hasn’t quite forgetten-howte-do-it;,but do it well? rty shot. Low level Spring sun did little to warm up conditions during the Northern District One Metre Ranking Race at Doncaster, It didn’t help visibility either! YACHTING Northern One Metre Ranking The 1995 One Metre ranking season got under way with a wet and windy small YACHTS when something a little larger was desirable. Although the sun emerged for some of the day the overall leading up to March 5th had seen the temperature could at best be described as cool; there were times when b****y cold was a better description! All the while the conditions under foot were area suffering a surfeit of water, wet, muddy, and got worse with the race for thirty four skippers on the outskirts of Doncaster. The weeks making the car park and surrounding areas extremely soggy and leading to a restriction on the section of the lake that could be used for a course. The passage of skippers up and down the lakeside. The fleet split into two heats for westerly wind that bounces off the EORS and, in general, the racing was what one might expect from One Metres – close and competitive. At times there were those who felt that it adjacent power station cooling towers was too close and there were others, I and totally changes its flow. Second suit was the order of the day, although am sure, that came away from the meeting feeling that many skippers there were parts of the lake (and day) needed to brush up on their rule observance after the winter lay-off. Bob delegated the protest hearing system to wind direction was one that Race Officer Bob Willenbrook must dread, a a Derek Priestley’s (02) sail is just visible in the foreground – he caught the whole fleet napping at the wrong end of the line when the wind dropped. a triumvirate drawn from the sailing quicker sinkings most had witnessed skippers. They were called into session and suggested that it was one or maybe for several hearings which were even two largish holes in the deck that processed with admirable speed allowed in the wet stuff. This looks like considering the conditions: the a tradition in the making: a high provision of a lakeside frame tent was a performing member of the South Western District has to sink in the first great boon for this and the organising committee. It was also a welcome One Metre ranking meeting of the year respite for chilled skippers, although – Brian Wiles in 1994, Mike Hounsell in the ‘official’ occupants kept shooing us 1995, who’s turn will it be in 1996? away as it got a bit crowded in there. Among the new yachts appearing for one that is sometimes difficult to keep track of when one person builds a yacht that proves popular and others want a copy. D. Wallinger, now a member of Market Bosworth club, has produced an apparently excellent version which was Sailing in the hands of himself and Gordon Sears. Another new yacht, for English meetings anyway, was an example of ‘Single Malt’ the Bantock designed One Metre produced in Scotland by Robert Brown. Did these Last year the season opened with the Eastern District event at Chelmsford and saw one poor unfortunate travel the first time was a rash of moulded ‘Metrick Magicks’ following the completion last year of Fred Ivory’s across the country only to have a brief translation onto paper of Chris Dicks’ again that the class continues to be one experience on the water before original form. Whether the number of disappearing beneath the waves. This yachts appearing directly relates to the where the skipper is the key and that a deep pocket is not the route to the top. yachts outshine their more familiar competitors? I think not, proving yet year someone else managed to repeat number of plans sold appears to be the performance, although Mike under question: there have been that I have reported in the past there Hounsell travelled just a bit further mutterings of ‘piracy’ in some quarters. from Woodspring to Doncaster than Brian Wiles did from Sedgemoor to was not one skipper that could be said I guess this is a problem often met by to have dominated the proceedings. designers and purveyors of plans and is There were several who managed to Unlike some of the ranking meetings Chelmsford. Just as in Brian’s case Mike had to go home without his yacht Doncaster was where Derek Priestley found that although water could find its way into his Parasite, he had no way of letting it out. This was rectified at lunchtime! which could not be dredged from the One Metre Northern Ranking Top Five murky depths during the breaks in Place Skipper Club Design Total Score Ist Derek Priestley Fleetwood Birkenhead Bournville Fleetwood Leeds & Bradford Parasite 26.1 Squiggle? 29.7 racing. In Race 2 Mike was seen to have a series of collisions while on Port approaching the windward mark. It matters not whether Mike was or was not in the right of way position; his yacht’s disappearance was one of the 2nd Martin Roberts 3rd P Moore 4th John Taylor 5th Nigel Sharp 38.4 Parasite Bubbles 44 62 MODEL BOATS JUNE 95 gain a win, indeed the eventual winner only finished first in one race. However Derek Priestley did get second place three times and discarded his one finish outside the top ten. Second place skipper Martin Roberts managed two wins and was never outside the top ten but still managed to amass a whole 1.6 points more than Derek before discards. As Derek discarded a bigger score than Martin the eventual margin was 3.6 points and they both sunk into the upper twenties. A clear case of consistency being the most successful route to the top. Third place skipper P. Moore from Bournville followed in the same vein with a string of top ten places and two ‘teens’ one of which was discarded to make him the only one to finish with a total in the thirties. After nine races and about five hours of sailing the last race was forced under way just minutes before the 4 o’clock deadline. I have a feeling that I was not alone in thinking that maybe it would have been better not to have bothered, for the wind was starting to drop at such a rate that many gave serious thought to changing up to the number one suit – had there been time. Once the race was over we all packed away, shed some of our water and chill proof clothing to await the announcements in the Club house. Eventually the ‘smoke’ emerged from the control tent and trophy winners announced. All entries received a special memento of their trip to Doncaster, a replica Rolo Easter Egg. As we said our good-byes I reflected that it’s been some time since I had raced at this lake, I always used to like sailing there with a Marblehead – despite the influence of those dreaded cooling towers; I shall have to try and go back again. Six Metre Match Season Starts Sunday March 12th; Cotswold Sailing Club, weather sunny with a light and slightly variable North West wind. What a change from 1994 when the opening meeting of the Marine Modelling Match Racing Series was ‘blown out’ by a gusty South-westerly, yachts were damaged and we were nearly all home in time for lunch. Fourteen skippers lined up for the start at 10.00am using the new Match Racing Rules. Many of the faces were regulars but there were some newcomers to the pleasures of patrolling the bank in pairs guiding a Six. Number 888 – formally known as JSann 4 – appeared in the hands of its new owner Dennis Brettle from Bournville. Nigel Gilson was absent, presumably still completing his new yacht but he was oft remembered every time that yellow yacht hit the water. There was yet another Renaissance joining in the fray: this time it was white, carried the number of 877, and rejoiced in the name of ‘Mr Plod’. In the hands of newcomer to the six metre scene, Anthony Corbett, it quickly made its mark and began totting up the first places. Race Officer, Pete Jessop, kept the proceedings rolling along in much the end of the day most had got used to the procedure and some were even making complimentary comments about the way it had tidied up and formalised the pre-start session. One or two complained that the wind conditions were different at each side of the ‘H’ and restricted their freedom to ‘get in’ across the line within the time. I am not sure that those comments were Dramatic sailing with 6 Metres! particularly justified although it was Nigel Gilson’s J- obvious that, should the start line be laid some way out into the lake each Sann 6 tohis to get a Milton Keynes gust. three minute period. However that is purely an administrative procedure and should not be a major problem to tackle. What ever the various participants thought about it many got stuck into the pre-start twists and turns with a vengeance although the vagaries of the wind upset some of the best laid plans to get opponents into a trapped position. It was not only the start that saw skippers being trapped into a disadvantaged position: one of several close finishes involving Charles Chambers saw him being squeezed out to windward at the very last seconds of his extremely close race with Roy Whale. In one of the first matches of the day Charles’ black ‘Clementine’ Renaissance beat Brian Decker’s red Tern ‘Red Star’ literally by the diameter of its bright red bumper ‘nose’. In * general throughout the day the finishes were either very close or completed with a gap of at least of half of the finish leg. Chris Isham had brought along what appears to be the only ‘known’ competitive example of the ‘new generation’ of Dolphins and started the day with a flourish although he did suffer one early defeat during his battle with Paddy Chambers. In fact Chris found himself facing defeat whenever he was matched with a Renaissance and also lost to Mike Robinson with Rival (Revival) as to the John Lewis Tern ‘Aquarius’ in the hands of Roy Whale. The top slot for the day was fought out by Mike Wareham and John Daines: both skippers only dropped one race but Mike won the match where they met so came out on top. Mike Robinson, starting his second season with the ex-Brian Corley, exAlan Bright Revival named ‘Rival’ looks as if he is finally getting to grips with this lively machine and blew the hopes of many to take third overall position with a total of eleven wins including his match with overall top man Mike Wareham. That white Renaissance ‘Mr Plod’ proved to be a competitive The boat accelerates in the gust… … and gets a little out of shape… Below: .. then almost out of control. version in the hands of Anthony Corbett who came along to have a first ‘go’ and took fourth place: I guess that Anthony now has ‘the bug’ and will be back to play again. My own performance left a bit to be desired as I tried to get to grips again with a yacht which was last used in September ‘94: fortunately I began to settle in during the day but not after having dropped a few races. I suspect that I was not alone in feeling a little rusty after the winter season. same way we did at the Champion’s Cup – now I could see what it was like from the other side; hardly a minute to call your own; the day simply flew by. One or two skippers tooka little time to settle to the routine of getting into position outside the ‘H’ between the three minute and two minute signals ready to dive in across the line and start manoeuvring for the start. By the MODEL BOATS JUNE 95 | own design about pair would have to be called up and on the water well before the start of the Marine Modelling Match Race Series – Cotswolds Top Five Place Skipper Ist Mike Wareham Design 2nd Club Cotswold John Daines Renaissance Black Adder 3rd 4th Two Islands Mike Robinson Anthony Corbett Renaissance Vie Cotswold 5th Mike Kemp Guildford Revival Renaissance Two Islands Renaissance Name Rival Mr Plod Red Dwarf serious racing? This chap apparently bought old ‘45’ from Graham Bantock and learned how to sail it, then thought that maybe he could go one better and design his own. It seems that Gordon McGuire took his newly designed, built and unregistered yacht along to the ‘Wessex Trophy’ league meeting at Sedgemoor and wiped the floor with the best of the South West. He didn’t get any league points for his performance; but he did pick up one or two orders for this rolled deck ‘Mean Machine’. Look out for this week’s new The new Match Racing rules say yachts One Metre at future events – pictures in due course. should cross the start line from outside I Learned From That! the ‘H’ during the second minute of the AmI overlapped or not? Are you overlapped or not? Two questions that must surely be asked, quietly, many times during a day’s racing. This is one area of the racing rules where the outcome of any dispute can go one way or the other depending upon who claims what first. To be a little more specific a lot depends on who claims three minute countdown. Jim MacDonald (02) entering from the starboard end is about to try and stop John Daines (66) getting in from the port end. What a difference the day was from last year. The sun shone just about all day, indeed my face showed the sort of signs familiar after a mid-summer meeting. The wind had been reasonably kind to us and jackets had been discarded at times; wouldn’t it be nice if all of the match race series could be sailed under such circumstances this year? Two Islands is next! Champion’s Cup – Post Script Somehow the gremlins got in among the silicon chips during the computation of the results of the Champion’s cup, reported last time. Although nothing could take away the outstanding success of Peter Stollery or even shake the second position of Nick Weall the next lower places have been subject to a bit of a shake-up. Realising how sensitive some are to these inaccuracies the following are the proper positions at the end of two days of serious stuff – well done Roger, you climbed closer to the top but couldn’t quite catch Nick. One Metres – More Odd-Bits It doesn’t take long from a new rule appearing until we hear of interpretations and thoughts about ‘loopholes’. One suggests that masts with joiners are not exactly legal because the joiner alters the cross- sectional shape of the mast and therefore contravenes that part of the rule. Mmmm… don’t know about that one – though it does suggest the measurer would need to be able to satisfy him/her self that the ‘joiner’ was not actually part of the mast material and could be removed. This would probably make it a less than satisfactory joiner and so discourage the use of multi-piece masts. All this rule changing makes the brains work, doesn’t it? Have you heard the one about the ‘Whitbread’ and ‘Admirals Cup’ sailor who has finally become involved in 68 what they think is not the case. Rule 42.1(c) tells us that an outside yacht that claims to have broken an overlap before coming within the bounds of the four boat length circle has the onus of satisfying any protest committee that she became clear ahead when she was more than four of her overall lengths from the mark or obstruction. Translated into everyday language and actions this means that should you find yourself with a yacht close to your transom and on a line which would give it an inside berth at the next mark you must make up your mind whether it is _overlapped as you come to that crucial four boat length position. Not only that, you have to be able to prove that you were clear ahead and that there was no overlap. Many believe, with some justification, that announcing their belief is a way of helping to establish their credibility. If nothing else the call draws attention to a developing situation and warns the inside yacht that it should consider taking an alternative route. On the other hand the potential inside yacht is bound by Rule 42.1(d) which tells that it has the onus of Moulded Metrick Magicks are getting prettier. This is John Daine’s latest addition to the Two Islands Club fleet. yacht to get around. When the ‘outside’ yacht is itself inside some others it may not be able to give the intruder the room it desires because those other outside yachts will all have to move – and there may not be time. These situations get even more delicate when the wind rises so that four boat lengths is barely enough space to carry out the manoeuvres necessary. Of course there are occasions when both parties think they are in the right; one thinking that they have established the overlap, the other considering that they were clear ahead. When the coming together happens they sometimes feel it necessary to take the argument into the protest room with the almost inevitable result that the outside yacht gains a disqualification. Under those circumstances it is probably a just decision that could have been avoided by the outside boat either accepting the inevitable and giving room or rapidly getting away and doing the ‘turn’. There is another situation that arises less often but was presented to us ‘on a plate’ at the Champions Cup all within a viewing distance of less then ten metres. An outside yacht announced that it did not consider the inside yacht had an overlap prior to the ‘circle’. As the Marbleheads were travelling rapidly the inside yacht seemed to conclude that it had to bail out and go around the outside before they travelled any further. As it did so, the bow of the inside yacht caught the inside of the stern of the outside yacht – which seemed to suggest that an overlap did exist. If you were the outside yacht what would you do bearing in mind what the rules say? Well, this one didn’t and decided to risk all in the ‘tent’! The protest committee awarded the disqualification to the outside yacht and proved that one should not risk holding on to your beliefs unless you can satisfy those wise heads that you are definitely ‘in the right’. Next Time The early season League round-up, the latest from the Match Racing Front and maybe some more on those up and coming wooden boats for 1995, satisfying the protest committee that it established the overlap in accordance with rule 42.3. Thus when the overlap is established ‘from astern’ as is often the case in this situation a call of ‘Overlap’ is usually the sound uttered. This call is not obligatory but, as above, draws attention to a situation that might develop and warns the outside yacht that it should be prepared to give the inside yacht some room, not only to round a mark but also to go round the outside of any other yachts that might be ahead. Of course the inside yacht is also bound by those words of 42.3 which say the overlap must be established before the leading yacht gets into that mythical circle. Also, and often forgotten, the outside yacht must be able to give room for the inside J-Sann 6 is probably the newest design to hit the 6 Metre scene – Nigel Gilson’s ‘95 od boat weighs in at about 8 kg, and takes some penalties to carry about 1000 sq. ins of sail. It is quick off the wind but needs development up wind. MODEL BOATS JUNE 95
