Model Boats: Volume 46, Issue 537 – November 1995

5 BOAT et or xbibitior = REPORTS an easy-to-build typical Round-the-Bay Pleasure Boat jANUARY. 499 11> ~~ 9 “770144”291053 NEXUS It’s almost all about racing this time – says Above: At the MYA One Metre Nats. Peter Stollery and ‘Think Bubbles’ (44) leads the field on an offwind leg in Monday’s sun. It’s hard to imagine they are all travelling between the same two marks! I t seems a good time to remind readers that what I write here is from entirely my own personal thoughts and opinions, unless clearly marked as otherwise. Observing ‘They’ say that if you wait long enough it will all come around again! It seems we HAVE waited long enough: someone has raised the proposal to introduce Passive Observing again. Not even had my words regarding twentieth. is at fault and should take some positive action. Because we are remote from our yachts we cannot behave exactly as our waterborne cousins do and protest because sure about by skippers they perceive to be higher up the sailing ‘ladder’ than themselves. No one is totally relaxed, into the sport with the One Metre class, dash When passive observing is in operation moment to dwell on the actual and psychological effects of such a system. It was tried a few years ago and proceeded on its quite natural and justified passage into the annals of model yachting along with swinging keels, twin keeled 10 Raters, tuned reed radio controls and all those other things which didn’t quite work. It can, indeed I am sure it will be, argued that we are all subject to the IYRR and it is our responsibility to take note of when we transgress those rules and exonerate is very constructive for our learning process can take corrective action. those honest and observant skippers still behave in their usual way although there is the additional pressure of worrying that an observer considers an infringement took place when the skipper knows that it didn’t. This is the key to its undoing – the conflict, in silence, between the skipper and the observer. All the reassurance in the whole world that observers are briefed to give skippers the benefit of doubt does not take away that nagging fear that someone will claim that a false infringement has taken place. During the early years of my experience at this game we were sailing in ‘schedule’ racing systems which, because of their structure, gave skippers very little indication of how they were doing in the overall scheme of a regatta. There was much types and not at all the volatile demons that occupied the lakeside. I am convinced that much of this was caused by a fundamental =… WO lack of something that the human being craves – often unconsciously – feed-back on results. With the coming of fleet and heat racing systems it became easier to keep track of how one was performing relative to all the other skippers and much of the aggravation went away. Passive observing takes us back to the days when skippers are denied their instant feedback; the inevitable result – more aggravation; not necessarily because there are more infringements but becatise 22 being caught out in situations they are not are many stories of the people managemen we not only saw the infringement we aggravation at many of those regattas, often involving people who were normally quiet —— less competent than themselves. Less – and we are all continually learning – to have our misdemeanour pointed out so that we off in raptures at the prospect of race meetings bereft of the cries of “Contact Numbers XX and YY” they should take a Robert finished in twelfth and Mike in experienced skippers are frightened stiff of Model Yachting Association appeared with an epistle in favour of trying it again! Before all those beginners, many of whom have come (121) up to windward of Robert Brown and his ‘Single Malt’ (26). the rules say that one or more of the yachts comfortable and content to just get on and their level best to sail throughout the regat the streets but when an acquaint from the tries to keep his Bubbles 2 named ‘Bubbleit’ everyone is on edge for what they might be accused of. Good skippers are thinking up their defence against the claims of others who, subconsciously at least, they believe a probably felt it as well. On these occasions it experiences of a form of passive observing hit Below: Mike Harris accordingly. In some circles that is exactly what happens: unfortunately there are many occasions when for one reason or another something gets missed when two or more yachts come together. When this happens without deliberate incident. In my ‘professional’ world of training the styles that fail their advocates and victims alike. The ‘leave alone – zap’ way where no feed back is offered until some misdemeanour is spotted and then, maybe a convenient but not necessarily adjacent time, the subordinate is ‘zapped’ with a reprimand. The,poor unfortunate is left wondering what they did to deserve such treatment. In another system negative feedback is stored up in the ‘sack’, again wi some suitable time – typically the annual appraisal – usually so long after the inciden that it has been forgotten, and ‘dumped’ on the poor unfortunate all at once: this ‘NIGYSOB’ (Now I’ve got you – son of a b***h) system is every bit as de-motivatins as ‘passive observing’. Without doubt the best style revolves around instant feedbacl of both the good and bad kind: similarly th best form of training for better sailing revolves around instant feed-back on incidents. It would perhaps be asking too much for there to be positive, congratulato feedback for the execution of good sailing moves but a variation on the technique wh says “you don’t reprimand anyone for an action until they have demonstrated that tl are fully competent” should be practised. After all we are all still practising the skills racing model yachts: there are very few only a handful – that can be truly describec as ‘fully competent’. Active observing is th only way to ensure that we all improve – lo may it continue. There is talk of IYRR 33 being discardec which would be expected to influence the MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER League to develop some way of preventing such delays. Whatever evolves I am convinced that none of them will directly reduce the delays brought about by a need to ‘hear’ protests between heats. The only way to significantly cut down the time spent on protests is to reduce the number of protests filed. In most of the cases the incident can, and should, be sorted out on the water by responsible and knowledgeable skippers. There are surely very few reasons and occasions when they should need to fill in that form. Firstly when the incident is such that it is not immediately obvious to them which of them was the ‘burdened yacht’: with a moderate knowledge of the rules such occasions should be rare. Even in these cases there is a ‘gentleman’s’ way out where one or both yachts do a turn ‘in case’. This must surely be a much more viable option than the 50/50 chance of taking such an incident to protest. After all, if one is not clear who was at fault how can one be sure of winning the protest hearing. Although not proclaiming to be the perfect example my approach is to try never to take anything to a protest meeting unless I am confident that I am going to win my case. If I feel there is any doubt I have resolved to ‘rotate’ on the water. Another unfortunate, but justifiable, reason to fill in that form is when the situation is way in which passive observing would work. If this were to happen a lot more then passive observing would be affected. To remind you all: Rule 33 tells us that “Where there is contact between yachts racing that is not both minor and unavoidable, the yachts shall be penalised unless:” The rule goes on to tell of the two reasons why both yachts should not be penalised. The first is when one of them lodges a protest. The second is when one or more yachts retires or takes a penalty in exoneration of the incident. Removing this rule is not likely to eliminate the obligation for one yacht or another involved in an incident to take some action when.a rule has been infringed. What is likely to be the result is that if the two skippers agree*that they consider no infringement took place they do not need to take any action. It does not mean that an incident like the one at the 6 Metre Match Championship where two yachts agreed to ‘trade off’ one infringement for another would be allowed. The prospect of such rule changes were brought sharply into focus at the 1995 One Metre Nationals where protesting, both serious and devilishly perverse, appeared to many to be drastically curtailing sailing. There was much lakeside discussion and generation of potential solutions in an effort MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER 95 clear cut and obvious but ‘the other yacht’ refuses to accept that it was in the wrong and exonerate. Although not called for by the rules one addition to the call of ‘protest’ that might help to resolve the issue is to remind ‘the other yacht’ of which rule you feel has been infringed: not by number but by “you were on Port” or “you were Windward” or what ever. This often seems to have the desired effect of reminding the other party of what your case will be: if you have got it correct they will peel off and do the necessary. Of course if everyone behaved in the same way this would cease to be a reason The One Metre National Championship had a very significant effect on the Radio League last year: so overwhelming in fact that plans were put in place to alter the way in which league points are awarded. The revised system appears to have worked for, as the top ten shows, although the seventy three entries and the associated points have benefited some individuals and club group entries have improved the fortunes of some clubs the overall league championship has not been firmly settled as a result. In fact the first places have successfully defended their current position at the time of writing but below them all sorts of things are happening. The combined success of the ‘full-sized’ sailors from the Solent Club has propelled their club well into the top ten while the combined success of the Dicks and Vice families have lifted the Clapham club into tenth spot. Although Birkenhead have climbed four places to get ahead of Chelmsford the Guildford club remain almost two hundred points out in front. On the individual front Anthony Corbett sits on top – but only by nought point one of a point! Martin Roberts has been out and about clocking up the points towards the end of the season and his third place in the One Metre Nationals did him no harm at all! The second biggest beneficiary of the One Metre Nationals was Keith Skipper who has leapt up from tenth place to third as a result of scoring the same number of points as the winner of the event – a long standing custom in the League competition. Dad has followed son into the top ten as Mike Harris ‘slips in Left: Father and son yachts line up for the last race of the regatta. This shot shows the similarity and the differences between the Metrick Magick (33) and Crossbow (66). Below left: Just to prove it’s the skipper that counts. Graham Bantock sailed this Rhythm into fifth place at the South West Ranking Race a few weeks earlier, Peter Livermore only managed to get into the bottom half of the field in the One Metre Nationals. at number ten with a bullet?’ As the season draws to a close watch out for more movement – I’m not making any predictions this year! Match Racing latest Round number 5 of the Marine Modelling Match Racing Series saw the ‘circus’ move back to the Cotswold Club water just outside Cirencester on Sunday August 6th. With several notable absentees the entry was one of the smallest so far this season with only eleven yachts coming to the start. Charles Chambers was off duty sailing on a big yacht somewhere between Cowes and Fastnet; Nigel Gilson was unable to make the trip from Suffolk which meant that Dave Cousins also did not appear and Tony Riley was also notable in his absence. Putting in an appearance for the first time this season was 6 mOA chairman, Bill Green; now the proud owner of the Bill Sykes yacht ‘Caprice’ which proved that it is not just a heavy airs yacht. « Another notable absentee was a familiar yacht, ‘No Name’ – Jim Macdonald’s Petrel, which was being rested while Jim sailed the Cotswold ‘Club’ yacht ‘Excalibur’. This yacht The yacht with the longest name in the championship. Martin Roberts took this Bubble 2 named ‘Supercalifragilisticexpi alidocious’ into third place overall. Seen here making a close rounding of the leeward mark. . > « 2 for filing the protest. In full sized sailing there is the natural instinct and respect for life that prevents skippers ploughing into other yachts to ask ‘questions’ afterwards. Unfortunately there are those in the Radio Yachting world that have no compunction about sailing straight on regardless, even under the current rules. Removing Rule 33 could be seen as almost like handing out blank cheques for more and more broken boats: there are probably those who would cheer at the following, but I am not sure that I would continue Radio Yacht Racing under the sort of circumstances that I believe will prevail if Rule 33 disappears and Passive Observing re-appears. I do not believe that we should follow this line of development in the management of our racing. 23 Above: One man and his boat. Paul Jones sailed his Parasite named ‘Ausfire’ into seventh place to claim the Vulturesoft Trophy for the highest placed novice – by 0.4 points. was previously owned and sailed by the late Roger Neeve: to preserve it and make a contribution to beginners in Radio Yachting the yacht was taken over by the Cotswold club for use by newcomers to the club. It demonstrated that, in Jim’s hands, it is still very competitive and claimed a few victories which were a surprise. Pete Jessop took on the role of Race Officer although the familiar face of Brian Decker did appear later on during the day for a last look before he finally departs for his overseas posting. Pete did a wonderful job of keeping things rolling along beautifully all day long at a brisk but relaxed pace. The weather helped by providing sunlight all day long although the wind could have been a little more co-operative – but then, when couldn’t it? The first upset of the day was caused by Jim Macdonald in the last race of the first board when we met. After some close circling at the start I managed to get a Below: One man and his boat. Profile of a newcomer. Gordon Maguire took a break from big boat sailing to have a go with small yachts – with considerable success. His good looking Stilleto ended in eighth place with replicas also in twenty third and twenty seventh. queue to give me a thrashing. We managed to get a penalty out of each other during the pre-start period and, despite some frantic manoeuvring by Anthony I got around the windward mark first. Then followed a long session of tactical sailing during which the lead changed hands several times with bouts of luffing and overlapping in between. Unfortunately, from my point of view, Anthony was ahead as we made our way up the last leg to the finish so that was another that I lost. We both needed a rest at the end of that match; the nervous energy expended during that ten minutes, or so would keep most people going all day in some fleet race bit of a lead; one that I would normally have regattas. Roger’s old Renaissance all the way to the losing I managed to get my act together and do what I suppose many would expect and considered enough to allow me to cover finish. Not so, Jim used the speed of ‘Excalibur’ and/or his local knowledge coupled with his undoubted skill to simply sail past me and take the match by a sizeable margin. That set the bankside tongues wagging! My next match was with clubmate John Daines: this would normally be quite a battle as our two yachts are pretty evenly matched but it was not to be. John got away and disappeared! The most exciting match of my day came when Anthony Corbett joined the Feeling better about my sailing despite put together a few wins until Race no. 51 when I met the current 6mOA chairman, Bill Green, and his Bill Sykes designed heavy airs yacht ‘Caprice’. Bill had been ruffling a few feathers during the day by taking some victories and proceeded to deal a resounding blow to my confidence by taking one off me. The last close battle we had was several seasons ago at Bournville when Bill had just treated ‘Night Vision’ to a new suit of Bantock sails so Bill was just a little elated at his victory. Enough of my exploits during this regatta what of the others? Anthony Corbett had a great day with a complete set of wins while Jim Macdonald only lost two, one to Anthony and the other to Bill Green. Jim took the tie between John Daines and himself by virtue of his win and Bill Green took the tie between us two by virtue of his defeat of Red Dwarf. Denis Bre was sailing his new acquisition, Lady Luck for the first time and took his first win with i over John Austin who went home with a complete set of losses – but at least he took part and had a good day’s sailing in the sun. It’s Gipping Valley next at the beginning of October; it will probably be colder then but not as dark as the final round in Birminghar early in November. Eastern District 6 Metre Championships Sunday August 13th was the allotted date for the 1995 Eastern District Championship for Radio 6 metres to be sorted out. After a couple of years in the middle of the grass in Lee Valley the venue was switched to Filby i Broadland, Norfolk. Although ‘beyond Norwich’ for most of us and therefore apparently a long way out; only a few miles short of the coastal resort of Great Yarmout the journey to the home of the Broads club was not as onerous as might be imagined. The roads into the region have improved ov the years and continue to do so making the hundred odd miles from my home quite a reasonable Sunday morning run. Fifteen yachts came under the orders of Race Officer Walter Grint for a two heat EORS based regatta where we were to have the chance to sail in ten races before proceedings were brought to a halt at about 4.15pm. giving us all time to wrap up, attenc the presentations and join the queue behinc the inevitable tractor on the way back to the dual carriageway home. I was the only ‘out district’ skipper taking part this year, all the others finding some reason or other not to brave the East Anglian road system. Gippin Valley were well represented with five yach Lee Valley mustered four, as did the home Marine Modelling Match Race Series No 6 – Top Five Place 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 24 Skipper Anthony Corbett Jim Macdonald John Daines Bill Green Mike Kemp Club Guildford Cotswold Two Islands Bournville _ Two Islands Design Renaissance Name Mr Plod Total S 20 Vie 18 Renaissance Excalibur Caprice Renaissance Caprice Red Dwarf Renaissance 18 16 16 MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER | One man and his boat. club while there was a lone representative from Southend. There were several borrowed boat combinations the leading of An unusual attitude for Chris Dicks’ Metrick which was Keith Skipper who, having caught Magick as it rounds the the 6 metre bug again, had got his hands on Graham Bantock’s own- the original ‘Renaissance’. David Cousins had left his leeward mark on the way to retaining the One Metre Dann-4 at home and was sailing ‘J-Sann 3’, Nigel Gilson’s Force Six: meanwhile Nigel had brought along his own Dann-4, ‘J-Sann 6’, in its latest guise. Peter Holt of the home club had borrowed one of the local moulded Carbon Fibre yachts to Graham Welsh’s ‘Sylph’ design: as the yacht was not yet registered Peter would be unable to claim a position but was doing some ‘development familiarisation’. Another yacht not currently in a registered state was Southend member Hugh Wright’s ‘Quest’ to his own ‘Basic’ design. This yacht showed itself to be very competitive with Hugh putting it ‘right in there’ with the front of the fleet on many occasions. Among the other interesting yachts entered was Cliff Daniels’ own design ‘Prismatic’; fabricated mainly from two sheets of ply and drawing unkind comparisons with an old Naval cocked hat. This yacht has now been measured and proved that it is not totally outclassed in the wind and waves of open water although I suspect that Cliff was secretly hoping the wind would drop and the water would adopt a glassy smoothness; whereupon he would leave us all in whatever wake this oddly shaped 6 would make. Despite the proliferation of designs at this meeting there were still a total of six from the board of Graham Bantock, three Revivals and three Renaissances. Once again the Bantock boats dominated with only one first place being taken by a boat from another source: this was in the first seeding race where Dave Cousins put the Adrian Brewer Force Six design across the line first. The G.B. yachts dominated second places also with only Nigel Gilson’s yacht taking one in race 4 and Clive Burrell taking second place in the second of the two seeding races with his John Lewis designed Petrel ‘Galaxy’. Third places sawa little more representation although not much: Nigel Gilson in seeding race A, Hugh Wright in Race 2, and Dave Cousins in Races 4, 7 and 10. Although the results suggest a whitewash job by the new Eastern District Champion, they do not tell the whole story which really saw some quite close racing with places changing during the races and the leader having to defend hard once he got ahead, which in a couple of cases was not until just before or at the final mark on the way to the short beat to the finish. The wind started in the North West which Top Ten Radio Clubs Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Club Guildford Birkenhead Chelmsford Woodspring Bournville Fleetwood Solent Sedgemoor Leicestershire Clapham Score 1,213.3 1,037.5 1,012.6 1,005.9 904.9 740.9 676.8 602.6 581.6 518.2 Top Ten Radio Individuals Skipper 1st Score Anthony Corbett 2nd Martin Roberts 272.2 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Keith Skipper Graham Bantock Robert Brown Gordon Sears Chris Harris Mark Dennis Peter Moore Mike Harris MODEL BOATS 2121 243.8 238.3 227.9 223.9 Zio 212,77 192.9 173 NOVEMBER 95 Championship, seen receiving his trophy trom Chairman of Mid- Suffolk District Council, Councillor Jones. gave two distinct wind streams in which to sail on different parts of the course. During the morning the wind slowly shifted around to the North which meant that the course was shifted around to match but still left us with a starboard rounding pattern of basically a rhomboid shape followed by a triangle. There were fewer first mark incidents than might have been expected with such an arrangement and a closely matched fleet although some did fall foul of the problem of tacking to round the mark while being closely followed by another yacht, still on Starboard tack. Penalties were almost all sorted out on the water and sailing was generally of the gentlemanly kind. With the wind arriving from across quite an expanse of water we were treated to some onshore wave patterns which would have made anyone on board our yachts feel a little uncomfortable – if not down right sick! There were times when the wind forced some of the entry to reduce sail although the Renaissance trio sailed on through it all: this is the secret of this design – its all-round ability. Peter Holt was having an up and down day with the Sylph: at times it seemed to be coping with the conditions very well, at others he appeared to be having a great deal of trouble getting the thing to move at all! I found this very interesting as I contemplate how I am going to put mine together now that my friend Jack has presented me with a hull to fit out. Another skipper who was having an up and a down day was Chris Isham: if there had been a ‘Tigger’ award he would surely have won it. Chris steadfastly avoided observer duty by sailing in all but one of the twenty heats run during the day. In all but one of the B heats he was in the first four and in all but one of the A heats, he missed one, he was in one of the last four places. Hence Chris oscillated between heats and got dangerously close to running out of battery life; still – he had his money’s worth of sailing. Chris and Henry Farley seemed to be having their own separate race during most of the regatta although towards the end of the day Henry was seen adopting a most un-natural position at the head of the fleet on the water – something which gave rise to a little uncalled-for barracking from the assembled mass. As we gathered for the announcements and presentations it became clear that somethinga little odd was being brewed: what was that owl doing on the table next to the championship trophy? When the winner was announced all became clear; the owl (actually a blow moulded and painted replica) was to accompany the trophy for the new champion. There were thoughts that perhaps Nigel Gilson had done the right thing by not mounting a successful defence of the championship: never-the-less it was a clear fact – the winner was being given the bird for defeating the UK Top Six Metre (evenif it was in surrogate hands). With a total, after two discards, of 1.7 points ‘Red Dwarf’ had come out on top of ‘Renaissance’ with 8.5 points. In third place was Dave Cousins with ‘J-Sann 3’ and Mark Holt brought ‘Riot! his Revival into fourth. As the skippers and organisation team who had given us alla grand day’s sailing began to go our separate ways there was a cry of; “shall we do it again next year?” The general answer seenied to be in the affirmative so perhaps Filby will be the battle-ground for this friendly championship in 1996. MYA One Metre National Championships Three days of sailing on the home water of the Gipping Valley MYC – venue for the 1994 Radio 6 Metre Nationals – with no fewer than seventy three One Metres taking up residence on their own little patch of the grassy bank. If Keith Skipper and his merry bunch of club mates thought they had a busy time with the 6 metres, they could not have dreamed of the time they were going to have with the One Metres. The car park was transmuted into a giant sized version of one of those puzzles where every space but one is filled with a part of a.picture: in order to see what the picture is you have to move the puzzle pieces around and around until the picture appears. The usual car park had been reserved for the sole use of competitors although some ‘ordinary’ visitors to the nature trail did find their way in. Although the weather had moderated its temperatures from those endured during the previous couple of weeks it was still quite warm for most of the first day and the forecast light 25 rhythin Above: One man and his boat. Mark Dennis took over the original Rhythm several years ago. This year he sailed the oldest One Metre in the championship into eleventh place – low tech wood. Plans were in Model Boats a little while ago. showers did not make an appearance on Sunday: even then they held off all but a few token spots until Monday. The fleet was divided into four fleets under EORS ‘94 which meant that after the relative calm of the eighteen boat seeding races we Day One High Spots boats in each of the heats of the main races: the first D heat actually contained twenty five!. Fortunately the Gipping Valley lake is quite large although it does have the aerating, rotating, ‘yacht trap’ in the middle. With such a large heat size Keith wisely set a large course giving quality, if not quantity of races; although the early start lines were ‘cosy’ – some would say they were too short and too close to the bank. Seeding was completed at about 11.45am and the four heats were sorted out quite quickly with ‘D’ heat going on first. It was not long before One of the first took place during the first triangle of the first seeding heat when John Cleave was showing everyone the way around the course with his Red Wine ‘One Over the Eight’. While clearly in the lead John mistook the Port end start mark as the leeward mark instead of the Starboard end. He took off up the beat while his close rivals fought to avoid the apparent luff as they thought they should have been reaching across the bottom of the lake. By the time John woke up to the situation he had lost several places and only managed to pull back hold and Nick Weall, that well known nonOne Metre skipper imported for Protest Committee Chairman duty, had to start work. Brian Wiles seemed desperately keen to get into ‘D’ heat and succeeded for Race 3. were faced with twenty one or twenty two that bane of the National Championship took Nick was kept fairly busy for the rest of the afternoon; so much so that it seemed as if we spent more time awaiting the start of the next heat than actually taking part in it. All that which had been predicted and written about seemed to be coming true – the regatta was being strangled by drawn out protests. The 6 Metre looks different when you can see the bottom bits as well. Anthony Corbett’s Renaissance ‘Mr Plod’ reveals all at the Cotswold Club Match Race meeting. Much debate was fostered about proposals likely to be made for the MYA AGM that events such as this should have a limited entry; perhaps by way of qualification. I am not sure that restricting the entry to fifty or sixty would avoid the sort of protest and delay we were experiencing during this first day. Better observance of the basic rules under which are supposed to be sailing the competition would go much further, coupled with acceptance that perhaps one did make that mistake and contact another yacht or a mark. Thirty two recorded protests in three days would seem to some to be excessive but when one considers that twelve were followed by retirement of one or both of the parties, three were dismissed or withdrawn, two were resolved on the water(?) and another nine were for redress of some kind or another it doesn’t leave many that had to result in a disqualification. It makes one wonder what all the fuss was about. one or two of them. He then set about fighting his way up the fleet by getting into the first four in ‘D’; into the first five, from which there was almost certainly going to be a disqualification, in ‘C’. His progress was stalled on Saturday by the extreme delay brought about by said protest which took proceedings beyond the 5.30pm deadline for starting ‘another heat’. As the announcement was made that there would be no more sailing until Sunday morning there was a ‘skipper’s revolt’ and what seemed like half the fleet took to the water for their own two or three races. The countdown machine was commandeered and a good natured and slightly down-level rule observance prevailed although there were no major incidents with the exception of one considerable entanglement which looked as if it might end with one of the yachts sinking, but it didn’t! As the sun began to get towards the horizon and the wind began to die boats and control tent were packed away until 9.30am tomorrow but some were still sailing almost an hour after ‘closing’ time. Day Two Sunday started with a short briefing from Race Officer Keith Skipper who informed us that much was the same as the previous day as the wind was from roughly the same direction. We were also addressed by the Chairman, indeed the only member, of the jury; Nick Weall who gave us a bit of a teling-atttar the general s@adadaad volume of protesting during the day before. This included a not-so-subtle reference to an over heard conversation relating to a protest late on Saturday which was said to have been deliberately aimed at slowing down the whole set of proceedings. We were warned that if there was any more of this sort of thing detected the perpetrators would not only get a disqualification, it would be made one of the non-discardable variety. It didn’t take long for those involved in the early races to realise that they had made something of an error in rigging the number one suits. This became very apparent during the countdown for the first of the B heats when the gusts swept across the start area and caused considerable mayhem. There were a number of collisions and so many yachts over the line that a general recall was announced. Just as the call was made my yacht and that of Nigel Gilson met on opposite tacks with the result that my jib downhaul parted leaving some unsightly looking ruffles up my forestay. As I had been the right-of-way yacht I asked the Race Officer for time to repair – which meant changing to my next serviceable rig, number 2. The five minutes delay announced gave many others the opportunity to do likewise while I made the adjustments to my craft; how fortunate! Number Two suit was to be the rig that most skippers used for the rest of the regatta although one or two did go down even further, with little success. At the end of Race Four the ‘overnight’ scores showed that Martin Roberts had slid into first place with a total of 4.7 points after discarding a whole fifteen point score. Chris Dicks was half a point behind, discarding only a seven, and Peter Stollery was another 1.5 points further back. Graham Bantock was in fourth place with nine points and Norman Hatfield’s Jazz while Mark Dicks held fifth with ten points. Five whole races later proceedings were brought to a halt again halfway through race nine, leaving the B heat in suspense again and faced with yet another early rise. In between Peter Stollery and Chris Dicks had finished first overall twice each with the fourth race going to Derek Priestley, proving that years of early rising have their benefits when it comes to being awake and active for early races. The protest tate slowedsomewhat though it may have been that what they lacked in quantity was made up in complexity. There also appeared to be some devilment about on Top Five Radio 6 Metres in the Eastern District Place Ist Keith Skipper David Cousins Mark Holt George Beacroft Club Two Islands Gipping Valley Gipping Valley Broads Lee Valley Yacht Red Dwarf Renaissance Design Renaissance Renaissance Riot! Revival J-Sann 4 Brilliance Force 6 (Mod) Renaissance Total Si 17 8.5 27 30.4 34 4 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Skipper Mike Kemp 26 MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER 95 Sag Om, a ee be he, uy rr “hig this day judging by the expressions of one or two as they emerged from the tent after the hearings. Perhaps Nick got less perceptive at spotting the frivolous protests, or the perpetrators got more cunning! By the time the last race started on Sunday was completed the top five spots were still occupied by the same skippers. However Martin Roberts had slipped to fourth place allowing the Dicks, Stollery, Bantock trio to slide upwards by one place although the score remained fairly close with Chris on 23.3 (still on one discard), Peter on 25.7, and Graham on 34 points just 0.4 of a point ahead of Martin. Mark Dicks had slipped further away with 41.4 points but with a twenty point cushion between himself and sixth place skipper, Anthony Corbett. Anthony however was facing a serious challenge from Paul Jones who was only four points behind and Gordon Maguire a further 1.5 points back in eighth place. The evening of the second day saw a social gathering at a nearby pub for a fairly informal evening meal and natter: the timing of this and the general blow that had been endured during the day overcame any inclination for the skippers to take to the water for any informal racing ‘after hours’. The second day also saw some unfortunate withdrawals from the event: during the early part of the morning the slow progress and disappointing feelings which still pervaded the proceedings took Brian Wiles down to such a low level that he put his Stiletto hull up for sale, successfully, and set off home to Somerset. Something similar seemed to have affected local skipper Nigel Gilson who similarly offered his own-designed yacht for sale-and didn’t reappear for sailing on Monday. Let us hope that the ‘down’ affecting these and possibly other skippers is short lived and they return to continue sailing: they have both contributed much to our sport over the last two or three years and it will be the poorer without them. Day Three – Bank Holiday Monday Once again we started with a briefing, it was even briefer than Sunday’s. Again there was little change in the course because the wind had changed very little though it had gone just a little further round to the North but the left hand side of the course and Port tack were still favoured from the start and up the first beat. During the early morning we were joined by a BBC cameraman who set about filming proceedings in readiness for a sports report.to be broadcast on Tuesday evening. The previous evening had seen a short report on the Anglia TV news programme. Later in the morning a reporter from BBC Radio Suffolk also appeared to put ‘words & music’ to the filmed report which included an interview with the current world champion – Graham Bantock who was undoubtedly edited considerably but uttered the magic words to the eastern part of the country “any fool can sail a model yacht around in circles but it is actually very difficult to do it very well at a high level”. “If people think it looks very easy, they MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER 95 should come and try it”. Indeed Graham! Sunday was going to be a short day but as a result of the still brisk wind remained lively though three and half whole races was to be our lot before proceedings were wound up in readiness for prize-giving at around 4.00pm. As the last races drew close the scoring team anchored by Anne Skipper and Lorna Bantock who had been nursemaiding a notebook personal computer for three days tried their hardest to produce results in time to display before the main protagonists took to the water. Feedback helps performance remember! By the time Race 12 was ready to take to the water Chris Dicks was fairly securely in the lead with a score that was mysteriously diminishing with each race as the result of having been awarded an average score early in the series. Peter Stollery was also securely in second place but with a score that was slowly increasing as he clocked up a fourth and a second place in eleven and twelve. Martin Roberts looked pretty secure in third place but Mark Dicks and Graham Bantock looked as if they might get involved in a bit of a scrap in the last race. The really close racing was going on for places from six to nine inclusive and involved Gordon Maguire, Anthony Corbett, Paul Jones and John Cleave who were covered by only twelve points at the end of race eleven and five points after race twelve! Peter Stollery came home first in the last race of the regatta ahead of defending Champion Chris Dicks whose son Mark made sure of his fourth overall by taking third in race 13. One of the surprises of the last race was Mark Dennis who really got into the rhythm with the yacht of the same name, surely the oldest yacht in the meeting, taking fourth in the race to lift his overall position to eleventh. John Cleave won the four way battle previously mentioned to take sixth overall while Paul Jones finished four places ahead of Gordon Maguire to become the highest placed ‘novice’ by 0.4 of a point. Meanwhile Anthony Corbett finished the last race some four places behind Gordon to complete the championship in ninth place. When the time came for the prize-giving the sun shone and all indications of the extremely wetting rain of earlier in the day had gone away. David Cousins got things under way by introducing Councillor Jones, Chairman of the Mid-Suffolk district council who run the lake and have been extremely helpful to the Gipping Valley club, our hosts for the weekend. Councillor Jones said some nice things about the yachts and their skippers and told us all that he and his wife found watching the sailing fascinating and that he would be back again. Prizes were presented in reverse order starting with Mark Dennis in eleventh place. All down to this position received a rather nice picture depicting local sailing craft plus prizes of increasing value. Paul Jones, in seventh place also won the Vulturesoft Trophy for the highest placed novice; he won it by 0.4 points from Gordon Maguire. Unfortunately we were unable to see this trophy being presented, instead Paul was referred to Rob Vice for information on its whereabouts – a referral which was met with considerable amusement by the assemble crowd anda little embarrassment from Rob who won it last year. Apart from Councillor Jones and Chris Dicks with his ‘thank you’ speech there were very few speeches: Peter Stollery ducked the issue by saying thank you to all and passing the main speech responsibility to Chris who dutifully thanked all, not by name but the organising team in general. Throughout the presentation to Chris and his speech there was a camera rolling barely feet from his face – which must have been a bit off-putting; he needn’t have worried, it didn’t make the Skipper Chris Dicks Peter Stollery Martin Roberts Mark Dicks Graham Bantock John Cleave Paul Jones Gordon Maguire Anthony Corbett Peter Moore Club Clapham Guildford Birkenhead Clapham Chelmsford Ryde Doncaster Solent Guildford Bournville ‘clean’ as this shot revealing ‘Aquarius’ underwater appendages shows. Roy Whales is not used to revealing his ‘bottom’ like this! programme. During the three days we all managed thirteen races, although due to the ‘tigger’ factor many achieved a few more than that John Bush and Mike Harris got the most onthe-water time for their money with a total of eighteen starts while Peter Stollery, Graham Bantock and Martin Roberts made do with their minimum of thirteen. That’s what you get for staying in the A heat all the time! Only two skippers managed what must be the Gipping Valley version of the ‘hat trick’ by going through all four heats in one race. Derek Priestley managed it in race two after coming out of the seeding rounds in D heat while Vic Bellerson managed it later in the regatta with his moulded version of Mark Dicks’ Crossbow in a ‘delightful’ shade of green: someone suggested that Armitage Shanks had something to do with the colour scheme! Next time – Christmas is coming! MYA National Championship – One Metres – Top Ten Place 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th The Cotswold lake is Yacht Metric Magick Bubbles 2 Bubbles 2 Crossbow Jazz Red Wine Parasite Stiletto Single Malt Bubbles Designer C. Dicks A Austin A Austin M Dicks G Bantock G Bantock J Taylor G Maguire G Bantock A Austin A carbon fibre manifestation of Graham Welsh’s Sylph 6 Metre design with a slightly non-standard set of ‘Appendages’. Total Score 20.1 26.4 47.4 50.1 60 83.8 85 85.4 93 119.7 27 MICHAEL WATTS builds REVIEW Tony Abel’s One-Metre considered as a kit review it is more a set of building instruction which will, I hope, complement the recent reviews of small yachts by Anthony Corbett in Model Boats, Ref 3, and provide some detail for the less experienced like myself. What do you get? I n April 1994 I completed building my first yacht for about thirty years. It was a 590 which had been recommended as a suitable kit for re-entry to the world of model yachts. The new materials and the relatively low cost of the kit and radio gear were a shock to me. I learned new techniques as well as refreshing popular for competition – the One Metre seemed to fill this role. Model Boats had just published the plans for Rhythm, Ref 2, so I ordered back copies and studied the constructional detail taking special note of the method of hanging everything on the deck whilst this was secured only to the top edge of the hull shell. The telephone. With two or three notable exceptions this was a With the help of recent articles in the model boating pressI first reviewed the Graham Bantock glass and its resin. I had decided to use a fibre-glass moulded hull information, and members of the exception to this was, of course, the fin-box. and reassuring. The 590 was good fun and you may have read my review earlier this year in Model designs and then the kit suppliers my memory with some basic local club were very supportive Boats, Ref 1. and was surprised at how few At that time I was already looking ahead towards the more graceful behaviour of a larger boat and a class that might be more found that catalogues were free, they arrived by return of post, and help was readily available by 36 suppliers there were. On enquiry I refreshing change from my usual experience of service from the retail trade! However, Tony Abel in Salisbury could supply my needs and with a service which was flexible and competitively priced. Salisbury is a pleasant journey from Oxford so I was able to talk through the use of yet further new materials to me, fibre- Well, you get whatever you want together with Tony’s valuable advice. However, the standard kit comprises all you need to build the boat with a working set of mast, booms and panelled sails. The plan is included together with three supplementary drawings by Tony for rigging, winch/sheets for simplicity and speed of arrangement, and finbox and mast-box details. There is a choice between carbon-fibre or laminated wood for fin and rudder, plain or groovy mast, and the hull is available in a range of five colou this matched my needs. Whilst this article may be high quality and include Pekabe construction rather than build a hard-chine hull from ply-wood. Tony had recently announced the availability of Ragtime as a kit and Tony had just had discussions with a new sail maker and I was provided with his first suite from RIG, Ref 4, with which he was very pleased. The fittings are of MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER FIG.5 INTEGRAL FIN/MAST – BOX POSITION OF MAST a ‘ 8 | MAST-BOX ee ee gl ne eee = – DECK POSITION HULL = POSITION v ‘ ons bs \ L aS LARA pe ae – S a 2S a SSS Se PSST ES Oe as a i ee:| TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION A-A Fig 5 excellent dock for the parts during building. You can see this standard kit in Fig. 1. Collect the kit personally from Tony in Salisbury, or he will arrange delivery. Not included in this standard kit are fibre-glass resin and adhesives, sail winch, rudder servo, and radio gear, although Designer Tony Abel, Bobo, and kit parts. through-deck pulley and rigging screws with over-centre hooks. In place of the more traditional mainsheet post Tony provides a plastic ring (PTFE?) and two deck eyes from which to rig it. All this comes in a substantial, large cardboard box which serves as an Tony has stock of all these together with a wide range of fine fittings, sails and accessories. At the other end of the scale you can buy just the hull and plan. Tony’s address and the current prices are given at the end of this article. I wanted to make some of the fittings myself, and to spread the cost over the construction period, so I chose initially to buy the hull, deck, timbering, carbon-fibre fin and rudder, cast ballast and aluminium tube for masts and booms for both the top and working sets of rigs. I included a few special fittings like the through-deck pulley to incorporate into the construction of the hull/deck structure. I also bought some resin and hardener. I deferred buying the winch and sails to ease the cash-flow, but I did choose a carbon-fibre fin and rudder because of their obvious benefits. I already had the rudder servo and radio gear, 27MHz, from the 590 so that was an economy for me. Tony recommends, and can supply, the new Futaba sail arm-winch 3801. This is fast and provides sufficient torque with the six volts supplied from five receiver NiCads. Rather like model railway track which determines the ultimate Fig 3 MODEL BOATS Fig 4 NOVEMBER 95 quality of the train performance, the hull must be treated with care and appropriate skills for the best performance. It is built to Graham 37 tension between the deck and hull. These timbers, the inwale and joints to the hull were reinforced and water-proofed with two or three coats of resin when it was spare from other tasks at various times. By then I had realised my error and had protected the outer surface of the hull, so preventing drips of resin sticking to the fine outer finish. At this stage, unlike me, you should mark the fin profile between the two dimples with a felt pen using the end of the fin as a template. You should note that whilst the carbon-fibre fin chord is less than that of the laminated wood fin, the position of their leading edges are the same, i.e. at the front dimple. A series of small holes should then be drilled within the line to aid cutting the hull with, say, a 6in Eclipse Junior saw blade out of its frame. This Fig 15 FIG.16 BEARINGS FOR RUDDER STOCK 1/8″ 1.D. TUBE Pla REINFORCEMENT SPACE FOR RUDDER ARM BRASS WASHER TRANSOM TOUGH BOND GS LITEPLY — G TSS DECK = LITEPLY nex REINFORCEMENT STSSSTSSSTT Ty SILVER SOLDER some course emery paper BRASS WASHER mY ‘. POSITION OF RUDDER \ 1 | ‘ MH N\ \ x \ , | \ Fig 16 Bantock lines just before the current narrow hull trend. It is an attractive and fine moulded shell with canted transom, and is fitted with a timber inwale and spacers at the moulding stage to provide a blemish free outer surface and properly to maintain the correct beam spacings. Dimples moulded in for rudder post and fin locations are in precise agreement with the plan, and deep enough to be 38 to protect the beautiful finish of the outer hull with paper and self adhesive tape, see Fig 2; I did not heed this good advice and so suffered some minor scratches from the inevitable slips with a file when making the fin slot. However, I proceeded by making a really good, smooth finish to the top edge of the hull and wood inwale to create the best possible joint to the deck. To do this I used detectable beneath protective tape. With Tony’s advice I chose a red hull for good visibility on the water, and by coincidence this is my own house colour. White hull stripes come for free, but I had my own ideas about trim design and so declined this option; yet another example of Tony’ flexible service. The white bow-bumper comes ready cemented to the hull. My first task should have been wrapped around a piece of 2 x lin batten, long enough to reach across the full beam width to treat both port and starboard edges at the same time. This completed, I then use some of the plentiful supply of timbering to reinforce the hull at the rudder shaft, rear stay areas, and to provide support and fixing points to the servo frame, see later. I also completed the gap in the inwale at the bow. The inner hull surface was clean and good but to ensure a good bond I mechanically abraded the relevant areas and made the bond with Tough Bond, a two-part quick drying epoxy, Ref 5. By the same methodI also fitted a small frame in the hull bottom to correspond with about half-way along the jibtrack, see Fig 3. When tied to the deck beam with a strut this would share the considerable forestay was finished with a fine file until the fin was a close fit. A 2mm diameter pilot hole for the rudder tube was also drilled at the dimple mark. Fin The next task, surprisingly perhaps, is to do some work on the fin. This is because it dictates the size and shape of the finbox which must fit between the deck and hull bottom. Whether carbonfibre or laminated timber, the fin provided is too long. I suggest that you leave it that way for as long as possible so that you do not inadvertently cut it too short and thereby provide less than the near maximum leverage for the lead ballast. In one of his supplementary drawings Tony suggests a taper for the top of the fin which provides a wedge action for positive location within the finbox. You should note that the fore and aft edges of the fin are parallel at the point where it passes through the hull shell, and that there should be a few millimetres between the fin top and the inside top of the finbox. I used a hard sharp pencil to mark the taper on the fin and cut outside this line using a fine toothed saw. Carbonfibre is a strange material to work MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER 95 with at first, but use only very sharp tools and expect the fine black dust to go everywhere. Finally use a file or fine emery paper to finish the job to the marked line. The fin is a moulding of carbonfibre mat and resin around a water-resistant foam core, and because of this I was not happy with simply cementing the 4mm stainless steel retaining bolt into this core. Instead I adopted the method more commonly used for retaining timber fins, a large transverse hole through the fin with a circular plug retaining a nut. You can see this in Fig 4. Where the foam core was left Fig 17 exposed it was removed to a depth of about 5mm and the void filled with Milliput, Ref 6, to ensure no water penetration. together with Evo-Stik waterproof adhesive, Ref 7, and clamping them with office bulldog clips. I withdrew the fin before the glue finally set. The result was a box that would hold the fin snug Under the deck The under deck design suggestions using wood, that are provided on the plan, are classic Bantock. However Tony provides alternative suggestions via two of the supplementary drawings included with the kit. This moves away from the asymmetric when it had been waterproofed inside. I drilled a pilot hole in the top to match with the bolt hole of the fin; this was opened out later with a round file to provide precise alignment. It was a Bantock design to a more symmetrical layout better suited to the new arm-winch that he recommends. I choose to make three small further modifications: to create an integral fin/mast-box, which results in a strong and rigid structure and also ensures that the fin and mast are aligned; to bring the mast-box section up through the deck which further strengthens this part at a critical point; to provide a curved deck to increase the longitudinal rigidity of the hull/deck structure. The Bantock design houses the mast in an aluminium tube that is water- sealed at deck and hull and this results in a fixed mast position. I preferred to incorporate some adjustment within a rectangular section mast-box which would allow some variation in position for experiment appropriate to my inexperience. Integral fin/mast-box The sketches in Fig 5 and photographs, Figs 6 and 7, show the essential constructional details of the integral boxes, but the boxes must be sufficiently tall to allow for: the curved deck +8mm; —— Cc penetration of the deck +5mm; and the final trimming of the box for a close fit at the hull bottom, say +3mm. I first made the fin-box, just as Tony suggests, using lite ply and some of the 6mm x 6mm timber. I wrapped two layers of writing paper around the top of the fin and assembled the components of the box around the fin, gluing them convenient coincidence that the outer width of the fin-box was slightly greater than the diameter Fig 20 corner radii of 20mm- the template provided by a convenient of the mast. For this reason the mast-box could use the front edge of the fin-box as its back edge. Lite ply provided the sides and 6mm x 13mm timber the front edge and bottom. These sides and front edge extended about 5mm above the fin-box to pass though the deck. The inside of the mast-box was 26mm long to provide mast adjustment of 7mm forward and 6mm aft of the design position. The inside of each box was water proofed by filling with sanding sealer, leaving for about a minute and recovering the surplus. This was done three times with at least 24 hours to dry between each treatment. Deck A sheet of 3mm thick lite ply is provided for this and for the finbox and mast-box and, like the other materials, there is more than plenty. I used the hull as a template to mark an outline of the deck onto the ply and then a further line about 5mm outside this to provide some excess to be trimmed back later. This excess would also allow me some spare width towards the curved deck which I had planned. Using the plan I drafted out the apertures in the deck very similar to those suggested but with slight changes to provide more access around the fin-box anda little more support to the jib-track. I limited the apertures to be not closer to the hull edge than 25mm, not closer to each other than 40mm, and with bottle top! You can see the overall effect Figs 8 and 9. Whilst it is possible to cut straight lines in lite ply with a sharp knife, one of my new boating friends allowed me to use his power jig-saw. Alternatively, a traditional fret-saw is perfectly adequate providing it has a minimum throat depth of about 250mm. The position of my intended curved deck on the side elevation of the plan was made by joining the top of the stem to the top of the transom with a straight line. The height of the deck above the amidships inwale was found to be s 8mm. This resulted in three point through which it was possible to draw a circle, of 750mm radius, to provide the deck curve and hence to shape the deck beams. You might say this is a lot of trouble for little point, but in opinion it does add to the aesthetic appearance and more important it increases the hull/deck rigidity with virtually no increase in weight. However, the doubters and fast build fraternity can have a flat deck if they prefer. I discovered that two of the temporary cross bracing struts in the hull would be in the way of the fin/mast-box and obstructed access to the hull with my deck aperture plans. I installed some additional struts with Tough Bond and, when it had cured, I removed the offending ones. Deck beams end reinforcement Deck beams, curved or flat, were cut from lite ply to be a few millimetres clear of the hull sides, and with appropriate holes for clearance of sheet winch arm, under deck sheets, rudder/servo rod, aerial tube and jib-track tie. One beam was designed to be immediately under the shroud plates and its triangular shape distributed the shroud tension between the deck and fin/mastbox, see Fig 10. The jib-stay tension puts considerable stress onto the foredeck and to distribute this I builtin a 6mm x 6mm timber immediately under the full length of the jib-track and brought flush with the deck by the addition of a 3mm x 6mm timber. This in turn is tied to the small frame secured in the hull. Further pieces of lite ply and timber were added as reinforcement in the following under-deck areas; through deck pulley, sheet fairlead, shroud plates, receiver/battery pot, mainsheet rigging eyes, and top of rudder stock. All this can be seen in the Figs 11 and 12 after gluing in place with the Evode glue. A rectangular hole was cut in the deck to provide a tight and precise position for the extended top of the mast-box. The deck and boxes were joined using the Evode glue with repeated checks to ensure that they were at right angles in both fore and aft and port and starboard planes. At all stages of building the under deck items frequent checks were made for position and clearances, both by mock-ups, trial I fitting, and dead measurement, used the centre line of the fixed mast position on the plan as a datum. Care, caution and patience in this tricky work is well 39 MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER 95 SS had been cut just to allow freedom of movement for the rudder-arm and at a height to match the servo position, see Fig 16. The stock was cut to be flush with the deck and the rudder-arm screw retained the rudder in position. Painting the deck The hull was stuffed with newspaper and the deck sprayed with Custom Colour, Ref 9, which has a range of 27 acrylic colours. It was rubbed down with fine wet and dry and resprayed repeatedly until a fine finish resulted, see Fig 17. Because this fine paint was available only in a matt finish it was finally sprayed with automobile clear gloss, Ref 10, and left to dry for several days, when the protection for the hull was carefully removed to reveal the striking colour scheme. Then came the all important test; were the joints water tight? I pushed the hull down into the DMTF Fig 24 Fig 23 rewarded with success in good final alignment, and reduces the risk of remaking parts. The underside of the deck and timber parts to be within the hull were given two coats of resin as surface waterproofing and reinforcement of joins. Because I intended to paint the deck its topside was given repeated coats of sanding sealer, allowed to dry thoroughly, and sanded smooth between each coat until the open grain had been filled. This took about seven coats I think. Winch end servo mounting Using the arm-winch and rudder servo as suggested by Tony, I decided to mount these ~ immediately behind the receiver/battery pot ona removable frame screwed to timbers attached to the hull. I made a mock-up of the winch in expanded polystyrene from dimensions in the Futaba catalogue, and finalised its position a few millimetres above the hull bottom to be clear of any possible water. Using two pieces of card and paper clips I optimised the position and shape of the frame, and marked the inside of the hull accordingly; see Fig 13. The frame was fabricated from lite ply and some timber as reinforcement, see Fig 14. Only later did I buy the arm-winch; it fitted perfectly, and then I could finalise the more critical alignments which affected the positions of holes in the deck beams to ensure free runs for the sheets. Deck/hull join Now came the test; the deck/fin/mast-box assembly was finally offered up to the hull and 40 tacked in place with pieces of selfadhesive tape, see Fig 15. The following checks were made: finbox aligns with fin hole in hull both fore and aft and port and starboard planes; deck fits close all around hull edge; when viewed from fore and from aft with mast and fin in position the deck, hull, mast and fin were symmetrical and not distorted with the fin and mast aligned. All was satisfactory so the deck/hull join was then secured with a length of tape around the whole perimeter, and the mast removed. The fin was left in position to fix the hull/fin-box position. The hull/deck join was then made. About 20ml of resin was mixed and poured into the hull along one side of the hull/deck join near the bow; the hull was then tipped to encourage the resin to flow at the bow and all along the one side. When that resin had become tacky the operation was repeated for the other side and along the transom. A dentist’s mirror was used to check for any place with no resin. The next stage was to join the fin/mast-box to hull bottom. The fin was removed and a thin wedge of balsa wood replaced it to maintain the alignment. A piece of tape was used to cover the fin hole in the hull, and the hull set to be horizontal. About 30ml of resin was mixed and poured into the hull bottom around the joint. This was encouraged to flow and make a good filet around the joint using a stick of wood. Further reinforcement was provided with a generous fillet of resin thickened with glass spheres, Ref 8, and covered with a strip of glass-fibre mat and more resin. The whole assembly was then left for to cure for several days when the tape was removed, but the hull protection left in place. The joints looked good and the fin hole in the hull was drilled and filed to shape where resin had penetrated this join. The joints would be checked for water tightness later. The excess of deck beyond the hull was carefully removed with a small low angle (20 degrees) plane and fine emery paper; the hull was, of course, still protected with paper and tape. Installing the rudder A 2mm pilot hole had previously been drilled in the hull. A piece of thin but stiff wire was used to determine the hole position in the deck; it was put through the existing hole to contact the underside of the deck – the protruding end was then aligned in a transverse plane with the fin and made parallel to the leading edge of the fin by direct measurement. It was a simple matter to push the wire through the deck to mark a drill centre. Both holes were then gradually opened up with a file to produce holes of the correct diameter and positions. The carbon-fibre rudder was ready fitted with a 1/8in diameter stainless steel stock of generous length. I made-up two thinwall brass tubes that were a close fit to the stock, and hard soldered a small washer onto each. This provided a good flange to join the tubes to the inside of the hull and to the underside of the deck with Tough Bond. A small amount of each tube was left protruding to be trimmed flush. The two tubes (domestic marine testing facility or, bath of water) and looked for leaks – eureka, there were none. I then completed the hull decoration with paint and selfadhesive tape lining. In between coats of paint and awaiting the curing of resin I had not been idle, but worked on other items, the ballast, mast, boom and rudder fittings, deck aperture patches, and preparation of the rigging. Ballast This comes in two halves, see Fig 1, with a recess in each so that the fin can be sandwiched between them. I had delayed tackling this job because both individuals and articles had warned me about the difficulty of shaping the ballast castings. However, using the tools recommended, I found this quite easy and had completed the work in about two hours. I would add one word of caution; the castings do bend easily so don’t drop or hit them after you have completed the shaping! The tools I used were a flat-blade Surform and course file, with a Sandvic Planeplate and coarse emery paper for finishing. The Planeplate is especially good because it does not clog with soft metal swarf. The casting was either held between the partially open jaws of my Workmate or in one hand. I took the precaution of first weighing each half which allowed me to monitor their progress towards the finished weight whilst maintaining similarity for each half. I first trimmed off the flash with a sharp knife and used the Surform to make good the two flat surfaces. I then shaped each half bit by bit to create a streamlined section with an overall circular MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER 95 cross section. This sounds daunting but is quite easy if you monitor your progress both by eye and touch; put the halves together and rotate them between your fingers, the lack of circularity is readily apparent. I also monitored the position of the centre of mass ° of each half to ensure that it resulted in being close to that marked on the plan. I trimmed the recess in each so that the fin fitted comfortably between them in the correct position. I drilled two holes through each half and counter-bored these to take a pair of 4BA brass bolts and nuts. I used a hand brace with paraffin as the cutting fluid. The halves were joined with Tough Bond and bolted up tight, see Fig 18. The counter bores were filled with Milliput. With the fin in the hull and the hull marked with tape at the plan water-line, the fin was marked with the ballast position from the plan checking from both water-line and hull bottom as reference that the fittings that Tony supplies are of the highest quality. Deck aperture patches There was some choice here, but the strong advice was not to use Contact or Fablon type materials. I wanted the patches to follow the curved deck profile, and I came across some ply wood in my stock pile that looked ideal. It was 0.4mm thick and therefore very light. I made paper patterns from my earlier aperture drawings on the plan, and allowed an allround overlap of 10mm. They were cut out with a scalpel, Fig 21, the grain filled, and spray painted as for the deck. However, I used a contrasting colour and omitted the clear gloss to increase the contrast, see Fig 22. The patch just aft of the pot was given a transparent polystyrene window so I could visibly check the winch and servo operation, and possible tangles in the sheets. The patches were fixed to the deck with double-sided adhesive tape, but References 1. Model Boats pp 64-6 March 1995. 2. Model Boats pp 34-9 October, pp 32-5 November 1994. 3. Model Boats pp 60-2 June, pp 58-61 August, pp 27-31 December 1994, pp 62-5 January 1995. 4. RIG, 16 Trenchard Estate, Parcllyn, Cardigan, SA43 2DL. 01239 811203. 5. Loctite UK, Watchmead, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, AL7 1JB. 01707 331277. 6. The Milliput Co, Units 5 and 6, Marian Mawr Ind Est, Dolgellau, Gwynedd, LL40 1UU. 01341 422562. 7. Evode Ltd, Common Road, Stafford, ST16 3EH. 01785 57755. 8. Green Scene, 60 Holly Mount, Worcester, WR4 9SF. 01905 24298 and 616806. 9. Helger Racing Ltd, Unit 2, R/O 25 Horsecroft Road, The Pinnacles, Harlow, Essex, CM19 5BH. 01279 641097. 10. Auto K Spray-Set, from motor accessory retailers. 11. Carrs Modelling Products Ltd, 528 Kingston Road, Raynes Park, London, SW20 8DT. 0181 540 8808. 12. as for Ref 5. 13. Eileen’s Emporium, 55 Reedsdale Gardens, Gildersome, Leeds, LS27 7JD. 01132 537347. 14. Model Boats pp 58-69 May, pp 43-6 June, pp 26-8 July 1995. 15. MYA Year Book p 45 1994. 16. Radio Control Model Yachts, Trevor Reece, Argus Books 1989 ISBN 0 85242 972 x. the window-patch was secured points. The fin was removed and cut to be a few millimetres short. The bottom of the ballast slot was sealed with tape and then set up with the fin so the front edge of with four 8BA screws to provide easy access to the works. Radio gear, pot and aerial I used the ACOMS 27MHz kit borrowed from my 590, but I distance from the centre of mass, and the centre line of the ballast receiver/winch/servo NiCads from four to five. The hole in the deck for the pot had been made very carefully and reinforced with a doubler. The diameter was a The standing rigging was built up from some fine stranded stainless steel wire coated with plastic; as a newcomer I was amazed how effective the crimps were in providing a simple, neat and strong end loop with this material. You will need some good quality pliers though; bending stainless steel wire to tight fit, and this provided a leakproof seal even after a good wetting. The aerial was pushed tools fail or at best give poor results. You certainly need a pair the fin was vertical and the correct horizontal. Resin was then poured into the remaining space, until it was just overflowing, and then left to cure. A fillet of Milliput was created between fin and ballast, and then the ballast was wrapped in a fine nylon net and given two coats of resin which was subsequently rubbed down with wet and dry to a fine finish, see Fig 19. The aft end was left blunt and was finally trimmed to be within the 2.5kg upper limit for the fin/ballast/fastening weight as given in the One metre rules. The ballast was finally sprayed with several coats of automobile gloss white paint, Ref 10. Fittings Several of these I made myself from brass stock, silver soldering the parts together, for example the shroud screws, see Fig 20. This certainly saves money, but I chose to do this for two reasons; firstly because I enjoy the challenge of designing the fittings to be made with very simple tools, and secondly because I just can’t bring myself to. drill a line of holes in the aluminium spars even though it is common practice. So I made mast and boom bands from very thin wall brass tube and added wire rings for attachment points; they are very light. I blackened them using Metal Black for brass, Ref 11, and fixed them in position with Sureloc bonding 4420 cyanoacrylate, Ref 12; this can be softened with heat from a small burner to removea fitting when necessary. However, I freely admit MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER 95 increased the little too small so the pot was a into a nylon tube held in a horizontal plane by a hole in each of the deck beams. My limited experience with 27MHz radio told me that there was sometimes limited movement in the winch deflection. As a precaution I had bolted a single pulley block to the end of the winch arm, Fig 23, to provide a double deflection option. This does halve the maximum sheet tension, but I have had no problems as a result. Everything worked very well, and with the winch-arm pulley in use there was about 10% more movement than necessary in the sheets. Rig The standard kit includes all you need, and Tony’s supplementary drawing provides the dimensions. Remember to secure the knots in the Dacron cord running rigging with Sureloc, but you only need a small drop which is best applied with, say, a cocktail stick rather than a piece of wire because metal tends to cure it prematurely. I provided more bowsie adjustments than necessary to allow me scope for experiment, but it will be simplified as my experience grows. make hooks makes considerable demands, and I have had poor of high quality round nose pliers, preferably with a box joint, and a good pair of wire cutters. The mast stub was fixed in its box by packing various thicknesses of timber, 13mm wide, both fore and aft of the mast to bring it to the Fig 25, and achieved the shortest route through the GO to JACKPOT flow chart, Refs 15, 16. By the way, how many of you really put a 4kg tension in the jib-stay? I could only manage 2.5kg; obviously there is much to learn. Even in this long article much detail has been omitted; for example, marking-out the spars to conform to the One Metre rules. However, this does provide opportunities for future authors in Model Boats. Now I need to get the boat measured and registered so I can join in the competition. Oh! I didn’t mention the important ceremony, well, the boat was christened Bobo. design position. Finish The completed hull/deck/fin/rudder/sheets are shown in Fig 24. The sails were bought last of all, cash flow again, and they were easily attached to the spars. I made my own mast rings with 0.8mm diameter hard drawn brass wire, Ref 13, wound on a dowel former 18mm diameter. Soft solder secured them in position with the luff 1/10in from the mast; Tony’s suggested position. Test sail Yes, I have read all the recent interviews by Anthony Corbett with Graham Bantock, Ref 14, and have tried to prepare my boat with this advice in mind. I must have been reasonably successful because the boat sailed away first time with the top suite in a moderate breeze, Acknowledgements My thanks are due to Tony Abel and my new friends with boats who have been so supportive. It has also been my pleasure to be encouraged to write about boats by your Editor. Supplier and Current Prices Tony Abel Model Racing Yachts, Highnoon, Petersfinger Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP5 3BY. Telephone/facsimile 01772 324677. Standard kit as described £165.00 laminated wood fin and rudder; £200.00 carbon-fibre fin and rudder. Box and carriage £16.90. Hull and set of plans £39.00. Delivery £ 8.50. Futaba sail arm-winch 3801 £59.99. Delivery £2.00. 41 Yaelit Lites ANTHONY CORBETT concludes his thoughts on the Marblehead class and analyses the rig options be stabilising but I believe it reinforces my argument that there is little difference between the two classes. In reality development is fuelled by competition. What a lot of people seem to have missed is that apart from the narrowi ng of hulls, the major performance advantage has been gained in the design and construction of fins. Having taken these appendages to the limits of currently available materials, the next leap forward will probably be technology driven, rather than simply some radical design wheeze. What all of this proves to me is that, wherever the next performance gain is made, it will affect all classes and therefore no class other than a One-Design has any real longevity advantag e over another. So why am I asking all these questions? Well because I am concerned about the future of the RM. The Truth about RM’s Ithough my contributions to this magazine are made on alternate months, I am aware that my last article left several questions unanswered. It is for that reason I am sitting down to write a conclusion to my thoughts on the Marblehead class and will attempt to produce a more detailed analysis of the rig options. The article will be supported with a few photographs of some of the interesting or controversial rig arrangements seen at the recent RM European’s. Those of you that have taken the time to read and consider my last missive, will know that I was suggesting that the RM class was” not quite as expensive as some of the more negative propaganda suggests. Since putting pen to paper, I have discussed my analysis with several others and although these chats have identified that the use of carbon fibre does add a lot to the material costs, I remain convinced that there is little else to explain some of the cost differentials between a One Metre and RM hull. The major variation seems to be basicall y in what people charge for their time and overheads. There are also technic al factors such as the method of moulding but basically with the production of model yachts still being small beer in comparison with the market for car and plane models (both of which have a certain element of self-des truct justified because the One Metre is cheaper and a fairer rule doesn’t stand up to close inspection. One argument in the 1M v RM debate is the longevity of the hulls but again is this justified? As I said in my last article, within the UK and excluding home built boats, one currently has a choice of Paradox, Wafer, Stark or Roar Edge designs. All except the Stark are designs developed for the ‘92 Worlds and the results of the European championships suggest that there is little under development that will show a dramatic performance advantage over these designs. The Scalpel is an ‘83 design and is still competitive in certain conditions. This doesn’t suggest a class with a short shelf life. The One Metre class on the other hand has changed at a fairly rapid rate. Although in my view some of the better wider designs still remain competitive, the move to follow the RM class towards minimum beam has been very rapid. This development may now Putting home built projects to one side, it is possible to go out and buy a competitive RM kit for between £300 – £350 excluding rigs. I know you can pay a lot more but the point is you don’t have to. It is a personal choice and one that should be considered carefully, whatever the class! The problem with the RM, if a problem exists, is that the class rules allow a relatively large number of rigs and as my analysis of some of the sail suppliers will show, even the cheapest set far exceeds the cost of the hull and appendages. Given this level of investment, it is normal to move the rigs from one boat to another, making it essential to carefully consider the choice, number and type of rigs. Bear in mind that the use of all swing rigs, conventional or a mixture of both, Left: From what I can see, people sometimes develop certain ideas Just for the sake of being different, however I suppose to be fair, their thoughts might also reflect the quantity and type of materials that they have to hand. This Spanish owned Scalpel displayed some excellent lateral thinking. Those ofyou that have read past articles by Nick Weall on his own Scalpel may well remember the “Butterfly”, a patented device that goose-wings the jib in light winds. Apparently this bit of kit costs more than a few Deutsche Marks. It must certainly cost a lot more than the alloy plate mounted on the front of this boat’s mast. The plate is horse shoe shaped with holes at the tips and slots on either side of the fulcrum. The tips of the plate are attached by lines to opposing sides of the main boom, so as the boom is eased to will have an affect on your final choice of design. This of course was something I starboard, the plate tips concentrate on the rigs for now as this is the the plate then bear covered in general terms last time, so I’ll major cost element. For the uninitiated, the RM rule allows a maximum of nine rigs within three to port. The notches in down on a continuous sheeting line and restrict the movement in such a way as to cause the jib boom to be dragged to port. Note the © symbol! built in!), the few suppliers there are, charge what their particular section of the market will bear. So why the decline in interest in the RM? Well from the entry for the event at Vilamoura, one might conclude that the decline, such as it is, might be restrict ed to this country. The reduction in number s on the ranking list is evidence of reducing interest, however this has coincided with the rapid development of the One Metre Class. Whether this development will hit a plateau is a matter for speculation but I still feel justified in saying that the One Metre class has failed to act as a feeder to the RM and has, at the same time virtually wiped out the R36R class. The suggestion that this is MODEL BOATS Left: No jib boom on this Portuguese boat but an interesting use of a compression strut pivoted on the mast as an alternative. I’m unclear as to the advantage of this arrangement although it may well bring the jib tack closer to the centre-line. NOVEMBER 95 65 Photographs of deck and rig arrangements on Phil Playle’s latest Paradox. One of the he replacement ofthe possible, hence the winch ts mounted through the deck with a skroud placed over the drum to prevent tangles. The boat uses a sheeting post for all rigs that gives more precise Sheeting. Each rig has it’s own sheeting post attached to it’s sheet, the post simply being inserted into the tube mounted in the deck with each rig change. The result of all these alterations is that the battery and radio pot is moved further aft. Whether this affects the balance of the boat will categories. These are referred to as A, B and C Rigs in descending order of height and mainsail foot length. In simple terms, each category is based on a certain mainsail luff length. One can extrapolate that if you are aiming to set the maximum area of 800 sq.in. on each rig, then the foot length will increase with reduction in rig height. The A rig therefore tends to have what is referred to as an high aspect ratio (luff length to main sail cross width), B a lower aspect and C the lowest. The benefits of this arrangement are that the highest aspect ratio is most efficient in light wind conditions but as wind strength increases, it is possible to maintain maximum area, whilst lowering the centre of effort, by reducing the aspect ratio. Obviously one reaches a point where the sails are just to big, so the rules allow the skipper to have other rigs with reduced area, within each of the categories; ie. a C2 will have a shorter mainsail luff and foot than the C1 and the C3 likewise, smaller than C2. If a skipper feels that there is a need for even smaller sails, then these often tend to be rated as B2/3 and A2, the rule limiting numbers to three per category. The foot length is designed to fall within the A and B Rig measurements. When you run across skippers with 9 rigs (!), one will probably find that the skipper is using similar sized A rigs only be shown with time but certainly another yacht I tried with a pot mounted well aft handled differently to ” it’s sisters. This photograph of a Herr Dreyer’s Paradox is included to show an interesting arrangement on the jib. The problem on swing rigs is that it is difficult to get the jib tack on the centre-line. The Stollery rig has a boom fitting that allows the forward yard to drop to leeward (see May publication). Look closely at this photograph and you will see that there is an intermediate forward yard. This is attached slightly behind centre to the shortened fore-yard on the swing rig, with it’s outer end attached to the jib boom in the normal way. Presumably it’s inner end has something like a leech-line to balance it, as well as a restraint to control the amount the intermediate yard falls either side of centre. Below: The jib sheeting eye is held on an harness tensioned between the mast and the jib boom attachment point. The yacht placed second at the German Championships however I am told that the yard will sometimes fail to tack across in light airs. but has one rigged with super lightweight sails. Otherwise he is probably just confusing himself with too many choices! Should all of this gradually be convincing you to consider the RM, then the next stage will be to decide whether the budget will reflect your ambitions, or your ambitions be restrained by your budget. As referred to earlier, I have taken a look at the price of RM rigs from four different suppliers. You can of course make considerable savings on the costs by doing a lot of the work yourself. I am told sail making is not as complicated as one might think. If your interested in a bit of D-L-Y , then I suggest you send £1.00 to Sails etc and ask for their T120 Sail Making Notes, which will give an excellent idea of how to set about the exercise. Returning to the rig kits, I have based my enquiries on a set of five rigs. I must stress that this is simply for comparison because, as I have mentioned before, the Roar Edge for example is designed for four rigs. It is important to make one’s choice bearing in mind the design of the boat. The tables summarises the total cost of purchasing either a package of five swing rigs, or a mix of swing and shroudless conventional. I have also shown the different luff lengths and area (in imperial units of inches and square inches as the metric equivalent means little to me) which makes quite interesting reading on it’s own. Like hulls, the cost of a set of rigs seems to reflect what the supplier charges for his 66 MODEL BOATS NOVEMBER 95 the MYRD Technical Committee Chairman having vested business interests. The fact that the whole question raised by a member of his committee seems to have been ignored, probably because there are those with their own vested interests, who in turn may have misunderstood the problem that prompted the question in the first place. For the benefit of the reader, this is worthy of some explanation as it is probably the only really interesting part of the survey. I must admit to being a little flummoxed by the majority response of the UK skippers. The current RM rules limit spars to a maximum of 19 mm diameter. In the U.K the package of swing and shroudless conventional rigs has become the norm. All of theses rigs utilise round carbon fibre tubes with the notable exception of John Cleave’s Roar Edge. In Germany, the most successful skipper in recent times has been Janusz Walicki, who developed the Scalpel design which utilises conventional rigs. I won’t reiterate the reasoning behind this choice, however the Walicki rig has a number of devices to combat the swing rig’s advantage, especially in light airs. One of these is the “Butterfly” which ensures that the jib goose-wings on the run. Another feature is the mast section, which is oval rather than round. This section is far more efficient aerodynamically than a roundtube, as long as the section is allowed to tack to smooth the air flowing over the combined aerofoil of mast and sail. To achieve this, the time. What I have demonstrated is that you could go out and buy a very competitive fairly unimportant to an outside observer. The majority supported a revision to the package of rig kits for as little as £425.00. The total bill might end up a lot more than rules to prevent hollows/tunnel hulls (much as the 1M rule revision). It was agreed that fins etc. should be on the centre line of the hull and continue to be limited in number. The use of materials denser than lead should be banned and it was agreed that the swing rig was an established feature of the class. Apparently there was support for limiting the number of booms, allowing the use of AFrames in rig construction as well as amending the rules to permit simpler boom construction. There was also support for measuring the “extra” sail area of non-round your average One Metre but then again, few Marbleheads are average. Another Rule Change… is on the way. As I mentioned way back when, LY.R.U- M.Y.R.D circulated a . questionnaire as a precursor to a rule revision for the Marblehead class but don’t believe that the questions contained anything particularly contentious. Of course that didn’t stop a few people getting very wound up about it. The results of the UK skipper’s response have now been analysed by good old Henry Farley of the M.Y.A and circulated to the clubs but for those of you with a more passing interest I thought it might be useful to summarise the responses so that there is This is the one that got to the Germans and has prompted all sorts of allegations of mast is mounted on pivots at top and bottom but also requires the support of shrouds, forestay and backstay. It is the need for shrouds that is now the controlling factor in the development of Walicki’s boats, but we’ll return to this later. The oval section developed by Walicki falls within the current RM rule but is expensive to purchase. It is possible to replicate the efficiency of the oval mast by using a pocketluff mainsail but there is a rub in the RM rule. The pocket luff forms part of the sail and is therefore measured as sail area. The result is a suggestion that the Walicki rig gains 20% more sail area over a pocket-luff as well as a more conventional round mast and therefore the mast should be measured. What this ignores is that with advent of narrower boats, the efficiencies of the Walicki rig are circumvented by the need for shrouds, which means that one needs a wider beamed yacht. Personally I agree that pocket-luff sails do seem to be unfairly penalised but I cannot believe that anyone would seriously see a merit in penalising the Walicki rig. Surely one could argue that round masts are more efficient than square, so why not penalise Top left: This arrangement for a swinging jib boom was first seen at the 1990 World’s in Fleetwood. It brings the tack closer to the centre, controls camber and probably is quicker to tack in light airs. However some have questioned whether that and the one piece moulded yard comply with the rules. As no one has protested, I assume that most are fairly relaxed about it. Let’s trust that the issue will be resolved by the next rule revision. Left and below: One question addressed in the recent RM survey was the need for restriction on booms. Here we see two swing rigs with two yards on the main. In the first the lower yard is rigidly fixed to the mast and the upper continuous yard rocks, controlled by a screw at it’s aft end. more awareness of facts, rather than rumour. As was the case with the One Metre rule revision, the survey was distributed to all MYRD’s member states who were asked to disseminate it to interested parties and subsequently present a summarised response for consideration by the MYRD Technical Committee. MYRD will then present a draft revised Marblehead rule for consideration and comment. My personal criticism of the survey was that it was unclear as to whether the questions were aimed at arriving ata consensus for revising the rule to remove On the second version the continuous yard is fixed and the upper main boom rocks again controlled by a screw at anomalies, or if it was the intention to undertake a more fundamental review of the class, it’s future and it’s development. The analysis of the UK response suggests the former, although the reader will probably understand from my previous jottings that I believe there is a real need for the latter. Anyway, I digress. In summary, most of the questions dealt with issues that would seem mounted on radial Sittings. I’m afraid the reasons and benefits of either arrangement are not immediately clear to your scribe. 67 NOVEMBER 95 ————- MODEL BOATS it’s aft end, Both arrangements have jibs Right: Another cause of round ones. Hopefully MYRD will find a moulding of the main/jib yard in one piece. As mentioned in the text. luff sails. Of the items that did not find support, the main one was the 62% against the introduction of a draught limit. Other some questioning among way of addressing the real issue by the pundits is the _ rectifying the penalty carried by pocket spars may not exceed 19 . stat ieiliiadie tie : a asa minimum thickness for e bow bumper didn’t attract a clear piece mouldings oftendo — te one way or the other, so it’s going to where the mast passes be left to the wise men to come up with measure? However, ts some of the issues. I only hope that the through the yard,so doestt _an appropriate draft revision to settle there any real difference trend to restrictive rule amendments will between a mouldinganda _ Cease, otherwise I can see this kit of parts where the joiner is not a spar and therefore may exceed International development class j “i saye and losing its reputation as e test bed for cutting edge ideas and technology. 19mm? See you next month. Below: A reminder of the Walicki style rig mounted on Scalpel and this Scalpel 2. The width of the oval mast tube is clear in this photograph as is it’s mounting on the ball raced deck pivot. The need for shrouds to support the mast in the absence of a through hull deck tube, as well as forestay and backstay, means that the yacht has to have sufficient beam to support the mast. Does this detract from the efficiency of the rig in comparison with the latest generation narrow and light designs? Announcing ‘Multi’ versions of, the DREMEL’ a! B® | Moto-Tool horological collecto Features include sundials, watches, clocks and barometers. the new 10,000 – 37,000 rom Dremel ‘Multi-Kit’ with a Storage Case and 40 Accessories is 15% cheaper than its 4 fore-runner which included only 15 ! Mains voltage & / double insulated, so no transformer needed, the new t THE BEAUTIFUL COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHY MAKES CLOCKS A COLLECTORS ITEM IN ITS OWN RIGHT. ‘Multi’ fool can also be purchased without the case and with only 15 accessory ‘bits’ for £65.00 ! Over 100 other accessories, a Flexible Shaft, Drill Press or Router attachment are available at extra cost. The ‘Multi’ tool is made by Skil-Bosch U.S.A. with a full 2 year guarantee. Available from most of Britain’s best model shops and tool shops. or dial @PEMEL® SALES & SERVICE, Microflame Limited, Vinces Road, Diss, Norfolk IP22 3HQ 68 ray SUBSCRIPTION & BACK ISSUES HOTLINE 01858 435344 Order your copy from a newsagent now or subscribe and we’ll \ deliver every issue FREE!* MODEL BOATS *UK only 7 NOVEMBER 1995