RC Groups

RC Groups
    Sailboats
        Discussion IOM General Discussion

#1 8387mike Dec 09, 2009 05:41 AM

IOM General Discussion
 
Hi All,
This thread will be about IOM's, which means we can stop hijacking other peoples project's:D

Does anybody now how to lock this thread?:rolleyes:

Mike

#2 8387mike Dec 09, 2009 05:44 AM

Larry,
I see you have been looking for a new hull to play with (ARYA), whats wrong with the noux?

Mike

#3 Robert May Dec 09, 2009 08:57 AM

I am all for one design racing but there is a fundamental flaw with the IOM rules, unless things have changed since I questioned the MYA, what is the point of restricting the class to two servos when for the sake of under $20 the class could be sailed properly with either independant sail controls for main and jib or at the very least have the jib trimable.

"Its to restrict the cost of the Radio and make the class competitive for all" was the argument cited for keeping the rules unchanged. Strange that, the cost of the radio is probably only 10 to 20% of the cost for the latest Hull and sail and foils set up so that argument doesn't hold water.

Properly balanced boats sail faster, introducing youngsters to the subtleties of correct sail control would lead to improved competition and ultimately benefit the class.

Maybe the move is to protect the Marblehead class which is apparently the class for "development and experimentation"

#4 Islander51 Dec 09, 2009 10:46 AM

For one thing, having only two channels makes you pay attention when setting up your boat on land; you can't just throw it in the water and think "It's OK,and I can adjust it later if I need to!"
If you get it wrong, you won't be up at the front of the fleet! :)

#5 Dick L. Dec 09, 2009 10:48 AM

Bob - I concur, and feel that "all" classes should relook at their rules regarding servo numbers/channels.

Back just a short 4 years ago, it was still pretty expensive to have multi-channel radios and for the sake of cost, many rule-writers believed restricting the number of channels used would hold costs down and therefore encourage new sailors/owners/builders. At the same time they opened the door for high-end carbon blades, rudders, masts and hulls (talking variety of classes - not just IOM).

Today with the advent of 2.4 Ghz radios, no need for a pocketfull of crystals, more and more inexpensive radios (some well under $100) you may be correct in your assumption it might be time to rethink class rules in some classes.

Would be no different than moving from vane steering to radio control and improving technology will continue to make many hang on the fence, tongues out, looking at the bright green grass on the other side of the fence.

It is the class members who must make the unpopular decision to bring this forward to all members to consider. If no one does, no change will happen. And change can be made to work with minimal effort if they want it to happen.

#6 gpzy Dec 09, 2009 11:10 AM

Why not just follow the rules ?

#7 Robert May Dec 09, 2009 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander51 (Post 13778459)
For one thing, having only two channels makes you pay attention when setting up your boat on land; you can't just throw it in the water and think "It's OK,and I can adjust it later if I need to!"
If you get it wrong, you won't be up at the front of the fleet! :)


But you will have to set up for the best compromise for the whole course, this favours the older experienced sailors rather than the potentially talented youngsters, a boat balanced for a beating course will not sail so well on the reach or run. A youngster turning up and losing all the time is very soon lost to the hobby. Explain how to trim a boat on all points of sail and there is more challenge for those that want to learn (Young and old) More learnt = better competition = more fun = more success. I think the cost to the hobby is far greater than the cost of the radio gear.

I used to race Vane gear Marbleheads and was taught how to "sail" a model, I distinctly remember the resentment of a few Oldies at the Model Maker trophy at Dovercourt one year.

My Waveney is being built to my new "1m Scale" rules. Hull length is 1 metre, the sail area is governed by the scale factor require to reduce the hull to 1m as is the beam and draft. The displacement weight will be determined by the LWL so the boat will need to "look" right on the pond. If the full size has a Genoa so should the model, if there is a Gennaker one can have one too. It adds a modelling challenge and the chance to race different designs in the same race.

IOM can produce exciting racing but is favours those that can afford the very latest model, carbon this that and new sails every now and then etc.

#8 Robert May Dec 09, 2009 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpzy (Post 13778625)
Why not just follow the rules ?

I like the size of the IOM for transport and storeage but think that one fundamental rule is wrong. How good would model car racing be if the cars only had throttle and steering? It the same thing. Let the youngsters learn about gearing and suspension and the will absorb that knowledge and will spend hours tweaking and adjusting their cars for individual tracks.

The 2 servo rule stiffles the need to learn how to balance a boat. I know from personal experience that my Maths and Geometry benefited enormously from wanting to know how to make an old wooden Vega beat Graham Bantock's lastest GRP racer.

The rules don't even let you do away with the rudder and use the 2nd channel for the jib:o

#9 gpzy Dec 09, 2009 11:53 AM

There are rules in racing, all kinds of racing. For whatever reason they exist they do. I am sure if a person learns to sail within those rules they will be alright when they do race. My personal opinion, why people stay away from IOM and racing in general is the cost and availability of competitive racing boats. Not a third servo.

#10 mfr02 Dec 09, 2009 12:25 PM

You want more controls, get a Marblehead. Simple.
You want to win without learning, fit an outboard.
If having a big pile of controls was an actual advantage, the young allegedly talented skippers would find that the old, experienced and cunning would still beat them on a regular basis, because they would also have the same controls, but would know how to use them.

#11 casy Dec 09, 2009 12:40 PM

IOM and Servo's
 
Having read over the comments one thing seems to be missed it's not the cost or the number of servos but the level playing field everybody has the same amount of goodies so the best hotdog on the pond has no more of a chance than the newby certainly the the hotdog will win until the newby sorts his or her boat out there is a saying racing improves the breed and it is just as applicable here as in horses or cars it appears the IOM rules attempt to make the sailor the determining factor and not the boat hence the tight restrictions

#12 Robert May Dec 09, 2009 12:43 PM

I have stayed away from IOM for exactly the 3rd channel reason. 7 years ago I designed a radically different IOM which was pointless with a huge brake on the back end. A boat which can be balanced on all points of sail could have the tiniest rudder. Trim out weather helm and nothing will touch you.

I went along to my local club borrowed an aging IOM and sailed the pants off the very latest Australian "must have" at the time. I could quite easily afford to be spend the ŁK's to buy a competitive boat, but without the 3rd channel IOM to me lacks interest or challenge so I have stayed away from Yachts altogether. IMO without a review of the rules the class will stagnate just like F1 motor racing has. That is just dull these days.

#13 Robert May Dec 09, 2009 01:48 PM

I am not advocating a big pile of controls just 1 extra channel to do the job properly.

#14 hew565 Dec 09, 2009 02:27 PM

I have never attended an IOM regatta were there was a reaching leg. My boats sails upwind and downwind very nicely.

Using your arguments, they should also allow carbon fiber masts and booms, as they are the same price as aluminum these days. At any single regatta, you will see almost as many different designs as there are competitors, yet no design out performs any other. The home made balsa boats are just as competitive as the latest epoxy/glass hulls. Since I have never sailed a boat with a separate jib trim (I wouldn't know what stick to put it on either), maybe I don't know what I'm missing, but since my boats are well behaved, I still don't see the need.

Being an International Class, don't hold your breath on getting a radical change of the rules approved.

#15 k4s Dec 09, 2009 02:34 PM

The biggest fleets of boats in the world are STRICT one design and possibly the simplest in regard to rigging.
The LASER has it right in my opinion....keep it simple.
IOM rules are strict enough to not make older boats redundant overnight when the latest and greatest design comes along.I can do as well around the course with an old (12years)hull as I can with my brand new boat.
Keeping the rules simple encourages HOME build and design which again I think is why this class is growing in popularity.

If one more channel is allowed it opens the door to someone then also wanting to control their backstay,cunningham,shroud tension etc etc adinfinitum.Once allowing the one extra channel it becomes harder and harder to deny any further change.

If it ain't broke...Don't fix it


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 AM.