Leaderboard

I don’t know what you’re paying for the boat, but if it were me, I would look towards the classified section on this site. Currently, there are some very good deals to be had for instance there is a Widget which is measured for sale, in my mind that would be an excellent starter boat and for £300 all in for a boat that sails straight out of the box and would be competitive not bad at all.

It's a wrap. Envelopes opened, all points calculated and confirmed in the presence of 2 independent witnesses. Obviously most had BG in 1st position, except for one entry, guess who, followed by RW, CR and PS, not necessarily in that order I may add ,but Josh sort of spoilt that party. Thanks to everyone that participated in a bit of fun, we will do it again for the Worlds, top 10 though. RESULTS....... VICKY..........13 POINTS GRAHAM.....12 POINTS ANDREA......12 POINTS JIM L R.........11POINTS MICKYBOY....10 POINTS TRACEY.........10 POINTS HARRY............9 DARIN.............9 JOSH...............9 WALSHY..........9 BRAD...............9 PRESIDENT.....8 JIM E...............8 ROB Mc...........8 Tiger................8 1 spoilt paper. Well done Vicky, spend it wisely with any radio sailing manufacturer in the UK.

It was great to return to Greenock MYC after about 30 years, since my last visit. John Taylor and his American wife Sarah, came home from Florida for a family visit and planned it to coincide with the Scottish DF65 Championship weekend. john's sister Helen was also visiting. It was a pleasure to head north on the M6 and not have to battle with the queues at M62 & M56 junctions, then Stoke, Stafford, Walsall, and of course the M42 which always seems to be a constant circular traffic jam!! JT still has his apartment over looking the Clyde at Greenock kindly offered to host Maureen & I for the weekend, and we were made most welcome. The 5 of us enjoyed the hospitality of the "James Watt" local Wetherspoons on the Friday night, where we ate & drank and learned about the town from the photographs displayed within. John & I went off to the sailing on Sat morning to find a very blustery SW wind, which was A+ A or B rig strength depending which part of the lake you were in when the gusts blew through, or didn't!! Stepping inside the clubhouse, I saw several faces I recognised Gordon Rae, Gordon Allinson, Richard Rowan, Robert Rooney, and of course Hughie Shields whom I first met in 1963 at the Fleetwood Vane A Championship! Greenock MYC has had an influx of new members from the nearby Royal Gurrock Yacht Club who, having no sailing in the winter months, all initially bought DF65's and several have now moved on to IOM's. 16 boats took part including 6 visitors. 3 from Fleetwood JT, Paul Middleton and I and 3 from Belfast loch. Richard Rowan the RO for the weekend, set a testing course for our small boats, with 2 long WW/LW laps and a reach to finish. Most sailors opted for A+ rigs despite the strong gusts as the lulls were windless! JT stamped his authority on the race from the beginning winning the first 2 races, he was enjoying the "free air conditioning" after the stifling heat of Florida. He continued to dominate the event for the rest of the day and came out on top after 16 races were completed. At lunch time the club fed us with a hot plate of Scotch meat pie (very peppery) mash, beans & gravy with tea or coffee and biscuits to follow, provided by a lovely lady Mary who looks after the clubs scale boat section. Very welcome & all included in the £10 entry fee. For Sat night Simon Thompson the race organiser had booked a table at a local "hungry horse" pub where several of us gathered. I went chatting to the Irish sailors & discovered that one of them a friend of Peter Baldwin, is an International Race Officer. Better be on my best behaviour tomorrow! Sunday dawned and a flat calm at 9.00 am for the second event which was a separate open DF65 race, with a few less competitors. By the start time of 10am there was a ripple on the water but it was constantly changing direction. However, Richard set a 2 lap WW/LW course and racing started. The race team pushed us hard and by lunch we had completed 10 races. Lunch on Sunday was a choice of 2 soups, assorted sandwiches, cakes and tea or coffee, again included in the £10 race fee. At lunch Richard suggested that after we reached 16 races we could stop for the day before the forecast rain arrived. The Irish lads and I agreed, they could get an earlier ferry and we could be home earlier, so we completed the last 6 races by 2.15 and on our way home by 3pm. Many thanks to Greenock MYC Derek & Maureen Priestley.

There’s certainly something Australian about the pictures…

The other option is to have multiple windward marks, the fastest skippers go round the furthest mark. In my opinion all starting at once is preferred, then everyone gets the benefit of learning the art of starting and beating up the first beat. The slower guys pealing off earlier to start the run, do that for each lap and everyone should keep coming back together several times and making it more fun each lap and not just at the finish, eventually all finishing at the sometime.

I feel that adding more rules is looking at the issues from the wrong end of the telescope. i have sailed at venues from Bournville to Datchet, West Kirby to Lake Garda and the rules have been consistent. The issue is not the rules, it’s the competitors. We can do a lot to help ourselves as a sport but until individual skippers step up and accept that they have infringed we wont change. It amazes me how many people (I include myself) leave no room for error at a distance mark leaving no way to deal with an issue. We all know those who come barrelling into an incident shouting “starboard” then complain when they get involved, almost as if they want to become entangled! We also know those who acknowledge their mistakes graciously, but also those whose pride does not appear to allow them to say “sorry, my fault”. Until we accept that clean racing is the quickest way around the racecourse we will be following the best across the finish line.

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.

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.

TIME TO REVIVE THE CHAMPION’S CUP? Back in the 1970’s David Hollom, donated the “Champions Cup” for competition amongst the class Champions in Radio sailing. . Invitations were initially extended to all National & District Champions and later when the Ranking lists were introduced ther were used to select the invitees. The event held over 2 days with day 1, 2 boat Match racing, and day 2 fleet racing and the scores combined to find the winner. Initially the Marblehead was used successfully for many years, and later the event was sailed in the IOM class. Interest from sailors fell away, and the event has not been held for several years. Readers of the Yachts & Yachting website will have seen the report of the recently held Endeavour Trophy, (Champion of Champions) in the Dinghy world. This annual invitation only event was held as usual at the Burnham on Crouch YC and for the first time for several years, all boats were supplied and were all the same Melges 15 Dinghys. None of the Champion entrants had the chance to sail the boats before the Friday of the event. It occurred to me that we in the radio sailing world could attempt to revive our “Champions Cup” by adapting a similar approach using one of our “out of the box” classes, Laser, DF95 or the new up coming IOM “Mint” from Joysway. So is now the time to bring this once very popular event back?

The CRYA IOM Class Championship regatta was just held at the Saltspring Island Sailing Club (SISC) on Sal Spring Island, on the west coast of British Columbia. links to photos and youtube videos of the races may be seen on the West Coast Radio Sailing Club web site https://westcoastradiosailing.ca/ There was a regatta within the regatta for a fleet of 'woodies'. Enjoy! John

Put a small triangle/ half circle of deck patch over the front of the pulley to allow the sheet to ride over the top.

Hi Simon Never used LiPo batteries are did not like the risk while charging plus the checking of discharge level! Went straight from NiMh to LiFePO4. I have found that 1000mah battery gives me between 2 to 3 hours sailing in anything except top end of rig sailing conditions. For the sake of peace of mind when racing I usually swap the battery out at 2 hours. Did contemplate obtaining a 1600mah Life to ensure a mornings sailing without concerns. I am either using a RMG or Hitech monster power arm winch and it does not appear to make any difference to duty cycle. Not had any issues with winch performance (speed or power). Happy with my choice. Regards Eric

I think you are being wound up! No more tricky than any other 6M.... Like any R/C yacht, your starting point is pretty standard. Check she floats on her lines, in particular, the stern just clear of the waterplane. Check the bulb has around 1 degree of nose-up tilt, the 6 doesn't need more. Set the mast perpendicular to the deck, that is, around 1 degree aft rake with respect to the waterplane. Then make sure the mast can rake from there, around 2 degrees forward and around 6 degrees aft (ie there is enough adjustment in jib stay and backstay and no fouling of the booms with deck fittings). Set jib pivot point at around 22.5% of foot (ie between 20% and 25%). Adjust the sheeting radius for the jib so the jib and main booms are parallel when they reach 45 degrees. For beating, sheet the main boom to 3 or 4 degrees, the jib to 12 or 13 degrees. For running, check the gooseneck axis tilts the main boom down and tightens the leech. Set around 6% camber in the foot of the jib, 8% in the main. Set main twist so that the top batten is around 15 degrees off the main boom, jib twist around 10 degrees off the jib boom. I've not yet found shrouds and spreaders to be important in first setup, except to check that they can be adjusted to ensure control of mid-mast bend as the backstay is eased or tightened. Go sailing and balance the boat to taste with mast rake. Be patient before deciding on the amount of helm, the 6 takes a little while to get up to speed, and while getting there does not like to be sheeted full in. You'll then be ready to fine tune. Good luck!

Can't help with the ID, but pretty sure the rudder is on backwards - pivot point needs to be forward of the centreline (actually ahead of the centre of pressure). If it isn't then the hydrodynamic forces will be trying to increase the rudder angle rather than reduce it. The servo would certainly hold it but any slop in the linkage would cause the boat to be very difficult to steer in a straight line.

I used https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BHSR5R5H?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_9&th=1

PJ Sails does them. https://www.pjsails.co.uk/collections/rig-fittings

John, I quote: "This was put forward simply for the benefit of those who struggle with sail changes on the new round tube masts and feel disadvantaged by the process. The proposal is for ONE additional mast, as identical to that first measured as possible, within tight manufacturers and building tolerances. Outside of these tolerances, alternative combinations of tube size, length or weight are not acceptable." Line 1/. I have already suggested practical, easy to implement remedies to reduce any difficulties that individuals might have with changing a sail. Nobody is at a disadvantage when changing sail. there is no race on shore, no time limit to change. Skippers have been changing sail on the mast for a very long time, including when round masts (they are not 'new') were the only type available. We are closely aligned to the full size Six Metres. They have a crew of four besides the helmsman to do sail changes, so model yachts with two people, on land, making the sail change sounds right to me. So what has changed in 2025? Absolutely nothing. To be frank, prospective owners (should) know the rules before they purchase a boat. There are SEVEN other MYA classes to choose from if sail changing on the mast is really such a big deal. Line 2/. How are owners going to achieve these objectives? What tight manufacturers/building tolerances - simply the one percent, but anything else is fine? Well the reality is that the 2nd mast may well be rather less than 'as identical as possible'. How are you going to check and determine how owners have constructed their mast so as not to gain a performance advantage, or is that a disadvantage that you and one mast skippers just have to bear? I don't see why they should. Line 3/. "alternative combinations of tube size......are not acceptable". This is not in the proposal but you are now including it in your requirements. Well it's just pie in the sky anyway because anyone with a groovy mast is going to have a very hard time replicating anything approaching a groovy mast in round tube form, because nobody makes 12.7mm round tube in the UK, let alone any with the same, unique bend characteristics as groovy. Therefore they can only construct a second mast that is of a different diameter with significantly different in characteristics from their primary mast, and that mast will be of limited use as a spare because of likely sail mounting differences. Any first owners with round tube could comply if exactly the same materials are available and constructed identically. But owners could simply say that they are (perhaps legitimately) unable to source the same material as that used in the primary mast and construct one of their own design and specification while remaining within the 1% tolerances. Owners of second hand boats won't have a clue what they are looking at and what tube to use for their second mast to create a 2nd mast that is as identical as possible to the primary. Can anyone simply look at a primary round tube and know where it was sourced from, what modulus it has and then find that specification to buy in the marketplace? No. Will any owner,measurer or Race Officer/Protest committee be able to judge how the finished mast/boom compares to the primary mast and whether it is fair to other competitors, in the event of a dispute or protest? No. And we haven't even touched on another variable that the owner can introduce, namely differences to the position of shroud mounting points on the mast and the deck plus the spreader design, to influence mast characteristics and performance. Are we going to have rules for that too, so that single mast owners are not disadvantaged? There are none in the proposal. In conclusion, these 2nd masts are not going to be anything like identical in many cases. This rule change will benefit those with deeper pockets, or the builder who knows what they are doing making a rig, or the technically savvy owner who can design a superior mast for a given condition. And as a final thought, note that this 2nd mast does not have to be used as the vehicle for a sail change down due to higher wind speeds. There is nothing to stop it being used purely tactically, in what would be regarded as normal conditions. In fact, how do you know that, privately, an owner won't have more than one '2nd mast' available, each measured, with different characteristics to suit different wind and water conditions. How would that be policed? Just a thought. Welcome to the Rabbit Hole. Pay as you enter. It's dark. Dig at your own risk.

I was filling in the excel voting form earlier and came across the Hollow in the bow profile within 10mm of the LWL. Why are there no accompanying diagrams showing the bridging points and how these will be used given different shapes of "chins". Without these diagrams we are unable to see the true potential this rule change may have. If a waterline is bridged and it moves the LWL point 30mm forward, where are the girth measurements points now taken from? A - From the original LWL point B - From the new bridged point where ever that may be If from the new point, in the formula you'll be loosing numbers on the extended waterline, but gaining on the reduced girth measurements. Where are the freeboards now taken from? This could make measuring a 6m in the dry measure a lot harder than it currently is, and mean a lot of other rule numbers will have to change to reflect this change if carried through.

The pet plastic from cheese packs or other flat packaging, cut to size and fixed with double sided tapewith deck lat h squares at the ends

As a previous class captain, I am totally against the 2 mast proposal, it is a step in the wrong direction it will inevitably lead to multiple mast in the future. Having sailed in all the open events I could for a number of years to help to promote the class, and now having a vibrant class this will be a step in the wrong direction, putting up costs and complexity, difficulty in fransport and storage and far from encouraging people into the class will drive them away. In all the open meetings I have been to I have never had to rush a sail change and when changing have always been offered assistance. In my humble opinion it isnt broke so please leave it alone.

Hi I'm fairly certain that a Skipper I knew who made his own sails used X-ray film. Not 100% certain where he obtained it, I think it may have been his employers quality department (Welding X-rays)

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.

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...

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.

During the various COVID lockdowns I acquired a vintage Marblehead that needed some restoration. It was set up for Braine control, something that I quickly decided, as a radio man, was not for me. At that time I still regarded the vane sailing gang as a bunch of old men that were yet to embrace modern technology, so it was with some trepidation that I decided to try my hand at making a Vane gear for the boat. That was the start of a journey that I am thoroughly enjoying. I now find myself in that gang of old men who walk around lakes, poles in hand, cussing boats that are not doing what you think you set them up to do..... Here is my journey 1 - EZ Vane I came across the drawings on VMYG and it seemed easy enough to make so I ordered up some brass sheet and set about machining the parts using a handheld drill and a rather wobbly drill-press. For the round bits I roped in Derek Morland who had a lathe, was kindly donated a dial by Graham Reeves and hey presto, I had a vane. While it was functional it had a lot of slop and wobbled around a bit. 2 - EZ Vane - Attempt 2 Having acquired a mini-late with a small milling attachment I decided to try again. This time I was able to machine reasonable slots in the brass and turn my own shafts. I also made up a dial drawing and had a plastics shop to make a bunch up for me. To improve the look I bought and used a small nickel plating kit. The end result was much better and I still use this vane on my vintage marblehead today 3 - "A" boat Vane Having had my appetite tickled by the marblehead Nigel Brown kindly gave a wooden 1980's John Lewis design "A" boat. The hull needed re-decking and a lot of work but we got there in the end. The guru @Derek Priestley advised that the EZ vane may be a bit light for the "A" and kindly lent me one of his vanes to copy. I initially made the body out of 3 pieces of aluminium which I bonded together with epoxy. Unfortunately the epoxy bond was not great and the vane fell to pieces on day 1 of the 2023 A week. Overnight I remade the body in brass and silver soldered the pieces together. Still going strong and it easy to use for a beginner like me. 4 - Baby Jones The next and most recent project was to make a small vane for my old woodie v36" built by John Gale. Using Nigel Brown's vane for inspiration and some parts donated by @Graham Elliott we now have something that resembles a small Jones. Not quite done and not yet tested on the boat, but seems to be in good shape 5 - Jones This is the first of my 3 vanes not built by me. Needs a bit of a clean and some fettling, but a very nice bit of kit 6 - Corby A stunning piece of engineering that came with another vintage M that sits in my shed. I have not used it yet but one observation is that I wonder if it might be a bit finicky to adjust the "broken" tacking angle, not something you want to have to do in a just at the bank. Also gives you no ability to have slightly different tacking angles on each side to accommodate a boat that sails better on one tack over the other. But I am sure that, as this is a sought after vane, my concerns are unfounded 7 - 3D printed EZ Vane This vane came with my 36 but I feel that it's too out of character for the old woodie. Destined to sit on my shelf until I find something more modern that needs a vane 8 - Clem Coming up will be an attempt to make a Clem which I will use on a 1932 "A" boat that I will get around to restoring at some point... . . . I dread the day when my wife asks me why I have some any vanes, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it.... I hope that this story gives other people the confidence to build something. Vane sailing a boat is fantastic, don't be afraid.... we are not all grumpy old men.

Thanks for the “telling off” @RobVice_GBR41 😁 I am busy making a small Jones for my 36 and have made the body out of brass. So it is heavy(ish). I need to solder some pins in situ and so having the body out of a “meltable” material was not an option. this picture is of it part built. I will see if I can drill out some material to reduce the weight.

Still a long way off but I am hoping to do A week in Gosport (27 July to 1 August) with my long and graceful “Hadeda”. But to do so I need to find a helper. Anyone out there willing to offer their services? No previous poling experience necessary, just willingness, and reasonable mobility We will not win the event with the old girl, but we will take points off people…. cheers Wayne.

It's really a great place to sail, you will enjoy it (except one direction which obviously will happen during the event !) If you want to stay longer in France (or come back in this great country !) , the week end after (May 8/11th) there is IOM FRA Nationals in Valenciennes.

Hi John, Interesting observations that i have a different viewpoints on. I think its important not to cloud the issue with reasons why a kicker of this type has been designed, but to ask how it has been allowed given clear past reasoning for interpretation and rule change in the area of kicker fittings and gooseneck body fitting size and a possible gain in driving force (added effective sail area etc). It could be taken as an understandable oversight if those making the interpretations and subsequent rule changes on the Potter and similar Gooseneck Body/Kicker Fitting back in 2015 were different personel to those presently holding the position of IOMICA Technical Chairman and the then IRSA Technical Chairman, now MYA Technical Officer. How do we get two very different viewpoints on what is or is not allowable free area from the same people from 2015 to October 2023? Why was the push for a change to the rules and subsequent banning without modification applied with a clearly pro active way, yet in this new proposed rule a level of dissinterest to apply the same previous logic? Is anyone truly content that this proposed rule has been well considered? It is one rule for some……

Congrats Austin - I really like it!

Hi All. West Cornwall RSC growth and development at Argal Reservioir was very much due to Barry and most members have sailed his designs at one time or another. After a break of some years, the club is back sailing at Argal and looking to attract new members. Part of the plan is to have a fleet of club boats that are a good basic design that allow people to develop their skills as a precursor to purchasing their own boat of choice. Having this fleet made up of 'Barry boats ' would be a fitting tribute. Therefore, does anyone have a 'Barry Boat' (Nemesis, Isis, Abso etc.) gathering dust in their garage that they wish to sell. It does not need to have a rig/winch etc as we can sort out that aspect. Of course, if they do, then that is a bonus! Many thanks. Please reply to bobsidlionsnz@btinternet.com

Returning to the competitive environment of International One Meter (IOM) racing presents significant challenges for any radio sailing designer. The scrutiny involved can often be harsh and seemingly unfair, only a few are willing to place their boats in a position to face such judgment. I paused my involvement with IOMs to rethink my design path and restore motivation for the class. During this period, I opted to race other yachts while reflecting on my past experiences as a designer. After a couple of years, I regained my motivation to create, with the continuous goal of achieving competitiveness against more established yachts. Since the class was introduced in the late 1980s, IOMs have become increasingly specialised. Skippers worldwide seek for improved performance and demand quality, often ready to invest considerable finances into their aspirations. For designers, this presents a substantial challenge, requiring hundreds of hours dedicated to drawing, building, testing, and launching, all leading up to the critical moment of racing and the hope for a successful outcome. I appreciate the support I have received from fellow designers who have offered guidance and shared insights on rig design and hull data. This assistance has encouraged me to complete my projects, including the recently launched Home Builders (IOM) 'Gillette' and the anticipated (US1m) project 'Pringle', which is set to compete in the 2025 (US1m) Championship in Florida this November. For more news on these projects, follow the link to my website: HERE

My thoughts are that In light airs you need more twist in the main, so to get the majority of the sail back to where it normally sits the boom must be sheeted in more.

Make up your weights and securely wrap in deck patch material sealing with bow-bumper glue.

At club level I reckon its very likely to be at least one of those. Whereby the apology and a 'just in case it was my fault' spin is best for bonhomie and a pleasant morning

Having bought an unnamed Tony Abel IOM yesterday, I was pleased to find this topic and especially the picture of the unbuilt Mallard, as that hull and the deck cut-outs look exactly like my newly acquired but well worn example. I shall refer to it as a Mallard until someone tells me it isn't!

It's less about the power. The most basic servos have enough torque for the rudder on any IRSA class boat. However the cheap and chearful servos have one major short coming and that is accuracy. They don't centre as well as higher spec servos and also have play in the gears creating unwanted inaccuracy in stearing. As our boats are very sensitve to rudder input it's worth investing in good servo and precise linkage for accuracy and not for power. I have been using the Savöx SC-1251MG for years with not a single failure in M and 10R class boats.

I was watching an interview of the chief umpire for the Sail GP and he mentioned that the most important rule that they enforce both on and off the water is "No Damage". He showed examples of boats colliding where the give way boat was penalised, but also in some circumstances the right of way boat was also penalised for not taking due care and attention around their boat. Near misses were also penalised. From my experience of sailing at many venues around the country very few can actual set a long enough first beat to separate the fleet by the first mark at a readable sail number distance. The big events such as Ranking and Nationals have fleets of 20 to 24 boats, this is essential for those skippers wishing to get experience of what a big Europeans or Worlds will be like, but it brings it's own challenges and we as skippers have to change our approach to sailing in 20 boat fleets compared with 10 at club level when approaching on port very likely will work as you're only navigating around 2 or 3 boats at a time and not 10+. I also think skippers should be taking far more care in the smaller classes to avoid contact and avoid situations where contact is highly likely.

John, Thanks for your observations. The proposal is the proposal, as written in black and white. We are voting on the whole proposal of which the principle is but a part. The idea that we are voting for a proposal and that afterwards, if accepted, the gurus are going to dump the rules changes made in the proposal we have voted on and then cook up new rules that unequivocally deliver an accurate 2nd mast that matches the primary mast in all respects is 1/. a pipe dream. It's impossible to achieve and 2/. would be rather undemocratic. A 2nd mast will likely be open to being gamed for performance hikes that will be very difficult to outlaw and nigh on impossible to police. I believe that some owners with groovy masts would utilise an allowed 2nd mast if they perceive it would benefit them in terms of performance or otherwise. Regarding the tolerances, the proposal allows for a 5% variation in dimensions and, as I have highlighted in my comments, that allows some serious differences to the performance of the 2nd mast versus the primary. Some masts could be even more than 90mm different. I was using a typical Rococo mast size as an example and they tend to be on the shorter side. The 5% weight variation is less problematic but could theoretically put a boat out of its rating if the owner was careless. As I have already said in my comments, sail changing is not a race. What's the rush? It takes as long as it takes but it will be greatly facilitated by skippers pairing up and helping each other and will no doubt greatly reduce any wear and tear. Are east coast skippers all allergic to each other or something? Owners may find that trying to manoeuver a 2nd mast with main sail on it in high winds and trying to get it in the hole, plus reattaching the shrouds, then maybe putting the thrashing jib back onto the mast equally trying. Shaun Holbeche.

If you would prefer an English voice, there are always the files on the MYA KB https://www.mya-uk.org.uk/kb/start-countdown-recordings/, which have two different 2 minute countdowns. One of these has a "musical" introduction leading into the 2 minutes. Both could potentially be amended and reduced down to a 1 minute countdown if required, using an audio editing App such as Audacity.

Dust off his old girl's what?

I think I'll have a go at a Reece Easy vane. Relatively simple to make with brass from the hobby shop and a bit of perspex. I had a Jones gear given to me years ago in Australia and can't, for the life of me, remember what happened to it. It came with a Stollery marblehead kit. Gary

Gary Look at 'Alioth V3 now available' post this gives a breakdown of cost. I have built an Alioth V2 so glad got it learned lots in building it. Yet to finish the rigs so I can finally get her out on the water. So much shorter time scale to get a top boat as the article demonstrates.

I have updated all the articles on my web site for the new RRS that come into effect on Jan 1st 2025. https://sites.google.com/site/johnsrcsailingrulesandtactics/ I have added a new item to the Appendix for short items at the bottom of the home page - R18.2 or R 18.3 at the windward mark. This item looks more closely at when to apply 18.2 or 18.3 and the effect of the significant change in 18.3 for windward port roundings. John

It ould be a 1.5 metre ya ht there were a few of these around, I know John Lewis did at least 2 designs and Oliver Lse did at least one they tended to look like oversized Marbleheads

Always good seeing you, Rob. I’m sure we’ll catch up soon.😀

I used the clip-on in my early (only a few years lol) IOM days. I fitted a pin in the front, and a hole in mast, to prevent rotation. Over the course of some re-rigging and spar swaps, I've been thru the sailsetc 'aero section' too. Latest re-rig I have simple wire, round tubing, with split pins in the ends. My reasoning: I don't now buy the 'reduced drag' of the aero section, its gonna be insignificant to the whole (it's not an ac75 with deck profile designed by AMG Mercedes!); wire allows rake to be adjusted if you want; steel tubing is cheap, if you wanna lengthen/shorten then its quick cheap and easy. With a known design i doubt you'd realistically need to alter the height. Have it about right and varying the length instead would still allow tweaking for more/less lateral force. In short - simple gives adjustment, even replacement, at low cost and with low hassle. (Most of the mast bend is fore-and-aft - i have my structural engineering text book somewhere lol, but two holes in the side probably cause less weakness than the jib attachment).

Tom, essentially the deck limit mark can be placed where you want is my take. I would imagine any limit mark would need to be placed in a position that can be visually identified and relevent points checked for compliance against on inspection. I.e. could i readily check that the upper edge of your lower mast band point is within the required 60mm min and 100mm maximum range allowed? Before getting too far ahead, worth understanding the class rules what is mandatory regarding fittings, especially the kicker. You may find you need a mast well of some sort to allow for a kicking strap that meets the rules. The recommended notion that anyone trying anything new should ask for an interpretation from firstly their local measurer who if not clear will pass upwards to a National Technical Officer, then oneards to the International Technical Officer is a correct one. When we can expect that all will follow this advise instead of circumvention or that the playing field will become level for all designers, builders or manufacturers is anyones guess…