Leaderboard

Introduction to the ballot from the Class Captain Fellow Six Metre owners. This ballot is being initiated to reflect considerations arising from the current rule set that has been in use for some years now and more recent developments since their last iteration. Developments have emanated from such things as the Equipment Rules of Sailing (ERS, the full-size sailing equipment definitions that are now used in model size rules) which need to be taken on board. Likewise, technical advances in electronics and the move away from free sailing Six Metres that could potentially escalate owners’ costs unnecessarily. They are also intended to refine, simplify and tidy, making it easier for owners and measurers to understand and implement the rules correctly and to allow for an accepted regime for ‘grandfathering’ of older boats as the full-size class has previously done. I recommend reading the MYA Technical Officer’s introduction for a fuller understanding of all the issues and how use the ballot form. As part my role as class captain I feel obliged to look after the interests of the class and all its owners as best I can and to help it in a favourable direction so that we can continue to enjoy our boats now and into the future. I therefore recommend the changes to the existing rules within this ballot. I don’t have any particular feelings about the grandfathering options, but option B probably fits closest to the full-size 6m practice. Not many owners/boats are affected by this issue since most of the fleet has been created under more recent rule versions. I strongly oppose the two-mast proposal. Please read my reasons below. It’s a longish read but it is important that you understand where this may take us. You might think that at face value it is attractive but there are significant arguments against it . Thank you. Shaun Holbeche, Six Metre Class Captain. 1/. What is the Radio 6 Metre class? You might wonder why I’m asking this but not everyone knows what or where this model class originates from and its significance. It was created in the years prior to WW2 to replicate and follow the full sized Six Metre class (formed in 1907). It was a chance for the working man to sail a boat that mimicked those full-size competitors who competed nationally, internationally and at the Olympics. The first UK model Nationals (free sailing of course) took place in the early 1930s. The R6M class is unique amongst the MYA classes in being based on a full-sized class. It is something that’s unique, with connections in the wider sailing world that no other MYA class can boast. They have even been used as tank and sailing test boats for the mighty 12 Metre Americas Cup yachts, Six metres and the little one man 2.4 Metre yachts. So, this class is strongly based on its full-sized counterpart. They are the reason for the existence of our models and that’s the point. Aside from some details that cannot be replicated in model form, we maintain a fidelity to the word and the spirit of the full-size rules. We use the very same formula to rate our boats as the full-size. It’s been like that for nearly 100 years. The full-size class still flourishes and so does ours. They have had rule changes and amendments and so have we. There are some things that they have not allowed though. Using two masts is one of them. You don’t lift out a full-size mast and boom and pop in another one complete with mainsail attached to change or reduce a sail. Nor should we. We should respect our origins and our history, not be like almost all the other MYA classes (no criticism of them intended). 2/. Why has this rule change been proposed? I was approached by the proposer, Geoff Josey from Broads RYC with the idea of having a second mast because: ‘I have found the one mast restriction particularly frustrating in that I find it very difficult to change the mainsail at Filby and it's even worse when it's windy. I am told it's easier with a groovy mast ! Groovy masts are no longer readily available !’ Geoff demonstrated backing for his idea from other Broads members and so I offered him the following: ‘Having looked at the issue and the results of your Broads club survey I see no reason why you cannot have a club only agreement where you may utilise a second mast of the same height, same boom length, same spar cross-sections and same weight as the primary measured mast, allowing an alternative mainsail to be pre-rigged on it and thereby facilitating rig changes at Filby. It would be an arrangement for club sailing of Broads members at the club water only and could not be utilised for any inter-club, open or nationals event. I note that the vote was not unanimous. The use of a second mast falls outside the accepted national class rules. In fairness to all it should be accepted that it is possible for those who do not employ a second mast to have enough time to change their sailplan without prejudice when others are doing so that do have a second mast pre-rigged. I hope this arrangement will satisfy the requirements of your club members.’ This was rejected: ‘The key points of your reply have been discussed, informally, at our club and there is no desire to go down a route where we sail Six Metre class boats which are outside the current national class rules. In fact, it would potentially create a very undesirable situation for those wishing to attend open or national events.’ I cannot think of any reason why that should be the case. Nor can anyone else I have asked. So, the problem was raised as a local individual/club problem and a local solution was offered and rejected. To quote from the proposal now before us: ‘This proposed change is intended to make it easier to change the sails when required for any reason. Currently, to quickly change the mainsail can be difficult.’ I would suggest that further local solutions could be considered. The use of a temporary club windbreak erected as necessary to help skippers. Likewise, skippers pairing up to help each other make a sail change would make the task easier and avoid any wear and tear. We are that sort of class aren’t we? The need to ‘quickly change the mainsail’ is a not a requirement of R6M racing. We race on the water, not ashore. If conditions are such that a race officer is approached for a break for sail changing, then sufficient time should be allowed for this to happen. There is always the lunch break for a sail change too. Time is not an issue. Many hundreds of owners have changed their sails on the mast over many years and have not felt the need to change the rules. So why now? (Incidentally, I don’t think there is much difference between groovy and ring sail changing speed/difficulty if any. I have had a groovy and presently use rings so I know what both are like). 3/. Learn to love your top suit. Let’s get some further perspective here, because you are going to be using it for most of the time, more than 90% in fact. R6Ms are not a tippy, dippy semi-submersible that often needs a sail change. I have sailed my 6m at Fleetwood and around the 6m circuit since 2016. My first ever 6m race was at Broads RYC. Ironically there was hardly a breath of wind. Since then I have used my second suit main either three or possibly four times in all that time. I’ve never used my third suit ever. Some of you have a ‘skinny’ main. I don’t use one but part of the skill of sailing a R6M is knowing what sail to put on the night before or at the start of the day. As the wind increases in strength a well-appointed rig can be progressively de-powered to cope with the conditions (and conversely powered up as the wind lightens). This is another skill in the skipper’s repertoire along with handling gusts efficiently. As we approach more marginal conditions, I have often seen skippers who do not know how to do this effectively and therefore think they should be changing sail when in fact there is no need to, and they might be disadvantaged when racing downwind if they do. The ways to depower are freely available on the internet for full size yachts and those methods work for ours. You can ask for advice too. So, let’s get the problem in perspective and let’s not erase hard earned skill and judgement from R6M racing. 4/. There are costs and practical problems involved. One of the great attractions of the R6M class is that for a potential £500 you can get rather a lot of attractive, second-hand boat with a couple or three suits. Which other class can offer so much boat, capable of winning the Nationals in the right hands, for that money? R6Ms are a bargain and we should continue to aim to attract sailors who are put off by the high costs of some other classes. You don’t need to spend big to have good racing, certainly not in our class. So why would you want to increase the cost of going sailing your 6m by spending a significant amount of money for the parts (maybe £200 for a carbon mast/boom rig?) and then build it. Is it cost effective for the use it will get? Can you be bothered building it? Of course, you might think ‘well, I’ll have a spare mast’. But, if your principal measured mast is a groovy mast and you have no second groovy blank already in your possession you won’t have much flexibility. You will have to use a round mast as your second mast and your main sails will not be interchangeable between masts. If you possess a skinny main and a second suit main you may have to convert them to ring mounting too. All time and extra cost. If during a race day you need to change down from the skinny to a second suit main then you are no better off having two masts. Don’t forget there will be the cost of going and getting your second mast measured. Time, fuel etc. You will need to take your boat, battery and primary mast with you because they will need to be weighed too - see later. You will also need to have the second mast pre-rigged to take with you when you go sailing. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point in having it. Can you get a second, full height, rigged mast/boom/sail in your sail box? No? You need to make a new box then. No sail box? Maybe buy a soft bag then. Not so good for protecting the sail but there you go. Can you get it in the car? Maybe, maybe not. Some 6m sailors with smaller cars travel to sailing with bare poles and put their main sail on at the water. It’s common procedure in the A Class fleet. Finally, can you get your nearest and dearest in the car with this extra encumbrance? I’ll draw a veil over the scene at this point. 5/. Other problems. ‘The proposed rule change is NOT intended to give any performance advantage to anyone having Two mast and main boom combinations over those wishing to continue with one.’ The proposal puts forward a 5% allowable discrepancy in weight and dimensions. I believe this is too wide. It would allow a main boom to be, for example, about 25mm shorter on an average Rococo 2nd mast. It provides an opportunity for owners to take advantage of this to create a rig that can be mounted lower in the boat to take advantage of the shorter boom downwind in waves and on a reach, plus the obvious upwind advantage of a lower rig in stronger winds. The mast could be made around 90mm shorter too, which would give a very handy reduction in windage. Furthermore the 5% weight discrepancy of a 2nd mast could put a boat outside of its certified displacement measurement if a boat is near to the maximum/minimum 100g limit above/below certified displacement. It could all get complicated for you and your poor measurer. More to measure, more to check, including the accurate weight of the boat in racing trim to make sure you stay within . A way will also be needed to mark the mast as measured. We are trying to clarify, streamline, refine, simplify, and make the rules easier to understand and implement correctly. This proposal is going in the opposite direction and will make this harder. A 2nd mast could also be used for further advantage. It could be constructed differently but within tolerance to provide different characteristics that produce a performance gain in particular wind conditions compared to the primary, measured mast. Some of you may be thinking that ‘different masts, different sizes, weights and characteristics - this is ok in other classes I sail so what’s the problem?’ Firstly, the proposal says it is not intended to give any performance advantage to an owner with a 2nd mast versus a single mast owner. I think it will fail that objective. That’s because it needs to be the same as the prime mast but it can’t be, even if you try and rework the rule proposal. The MYA Technical officer tells me that the rule itself can be worked on if the proposal is voted through as a principle and subsequently made fit for purpose. I’m not convinced. Many owners will not be able to produce a near identical mast in performance terms even if it is weight and dimensionally very close to the primary measured mast, not least because it may not be made from the same mast stock (round versus groovy), plus the round will be a different diameter to a groovy, as will its internal construction and possibly its carbon fibre modulus (stiffness) and wall thickness compared to the primary measured groovy mast or primary round mast. An automatic performance difference is guaranteed. With judicious construction a knowledgeable owner can further enhance differences in their favour. All of that contradicts what the proposal advocates. Secondly, I refer you back to the overarching point 1/. It’s a Six Metre. No full size Six Metre (or any other Metre rule boat) is allowed a second mast and certainly not a performance enhancing 2nd mast. The two mast model boat loses its fidelity to the class it is meant to portray. I’m quite sure that this proposal has been made in good faith. However, I contend that this proposal undermines the basic DNA of the Six Metre Class, its beginnings, its relationship to the full-size class that it still emulates, how it has developed and how it can remain an attractive, superb value for money option in the model racing family. This proposal doesn’t match its stated objectives and could divide the ownership unnecessarily by allowing advantages to some unless there is sufficient policing of the fleet enforcing strict adherence to second mast rules. Ask yourself, how that is going to be achieved when I frequently see something as simple and visible as the ‘J’ measurement rule being broken? Wouldn’t you rather sail something a bit special, a bit different, a class where the performance of different designs is well balanced and the skipper skill is to the fore? Or do you want to throw money at it for the sake of an occasional problem, real or perceived, that can be worked around with your mates? Do you want to sail a Six Metre, or do you really need an eighth class of yacht with multiple masts? The class is not broken. So let’s not try and ‘fix’ it and thereby create problems please. Lets go sailing instead.

Thanks for that info, I was thinking of using the roll wrapped tubes from Easy Composites. So you still need shrouds ona carbon rig then? That is what I was hoping to avoid...

Hi All, Sorry but I can see NO sensible reason to have a second mast & boom on a 6m . Everyone knows the rules before they enter the class. All this will do is make the boats un necessarily more complicated and expensive for no good reason, especially as most of the time 6m's sail in their top suit across a large wind range! From a recent convert to the 6m class, who has been 1,2 & 3 in the Nationals and races regularly at club level! DP.

That is incorrect. Rules changed a few years ago! Find the rules here.. https://www.mya-uk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/36_Class_Rule.pdf For reference I used 10mm for my 36 masts, with 8mm above the shrouds on the tallest rigs. I’d say you’d want a bit of give so using high modulus tubes would be too much. I sourced some from easy composites that has worked fine.

There are two basic types of carbon tube, roll wrapped and pultruded. They have quite different characteristics. Pultruded tubes have all the fibres running in the same direction (longitudinal) and hence are very much stiffer in bending than roll wrapped tubes. Pultruded tubes would seem to be obvious choice for a mast but they do have a couple of issues. Firstly they have very little strength in the circumferential direction and will split as soon as look at you. You must reinforce the outside of any joints and the top and bottom. If you haven't got any carbon fibre cloth, then whipping them with strong thread and superglue works well. Secondly, because of the way they are made (pulled through a die - hence the name) they rarely fit inside one another. I turn the outside diameter down on a lathe. If you are going to risk drilling them then you must reinforce them first. Roll wrapped tubes are much more robust, you can drill holes in them and they usually telescope nicely. I use pultruded for masts and roll wrapped for booms. There are several sources for both types and you can buy pultruded tubes in 3m lengths (I have a 1 piece 10R A rig mast). Not all carbon fibre is created equal and the fibres themselves can have different properties. The tubes sold by Sailsetc claim to be stiffer than standard ones - they certainly cost a lot more. Diameter has a big impact on bending stiffness. The stiffness increases as the fourth power of the diameter so a 12mm tube is about twice as stiff as a 10mm tube (all other things being equal). Shroudless rigs obviously have lower windage, but a thin mast with shrouds can be a viable (and cheaper) option. If you want to see how much your mast bends off then just sail close hauled towards yourself in a breeze. Also, if you get a crease in the mainsail from about a third of the way up the luff to the clew, then this is probably caused by excessive mast bend. I ended up with diamonds on my Marblehead A swing rig to cure this.

I used this stuff (and the 8mm) https://www.easycomposites.co.uk/10mm-roll-wrapped-carbon-fibre-tube-metric I didn’t bother using tow on the join, just a small bit of mylar tape on the end of the larger tube. You could use a strip of black dacron also. I only use shrouds on my #1 and #2 - with PJ clip on spreaders. #3-6 are shroudless. For reference I have a 12mm stub in the boat which has the kicker on, the 10mm section drops the full depth of the mast tube into the bottom of the boat. The mast has a wrap of mylar tape to stop the gooseneck riding up.

No Reason for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th mast, it is opening up a massive opportunity to having different mast standards for different conditions and gaining an advantage. 5% tolerances may not sound a lot but in reality that could make a totally different mast for different conditions. I'd need 5 masts at a cost of approx £300 per mast, gooseneck and boom: Light weight main Working main Flat main (reduced roach) 2nd working 3rd working One of the main reasons I sail the 6m and A classes is the simplified rig requirements of single mast, gooseneck and boom, allows me to compete at the top level without costing a fortune, otherwise it's another class I'll be priced out of if I want to be competitive.