John949

As suggested, first try the winch in another channel. If it still does it, then dirt / corrosion / damage in the winch feedback pot is most likely. If you can dismantle the winch and spray contact cleaner onto the track, then this might cure it. The problem is that having gone bad once, it is likely to do it again. If it's an RMG then replacing the pot is fairly easy (though expensive for the older 10 turn types). For other types, manufacturer's spares are hard to come by and finding a generic part that fits properly is also tricky. Depends how seriously you sail, but a new winch and keep this one as a spare might be the best option for a non-RMG.

Note that the term 'full & by' was dropped from the RRS many many years ago - replaced by 'close hauled course' Oops, showing my age. Still I do know that the "overtaking boat keeps clear" rule was dropped equally long ago (unlike a lot of people it seems). It is one of the (many) difficulties of Radio Sailing that judging "proper course" when sailing perpendicular to the observer is not easy. My understanding is that if you get overlapped to leeward you are required to keep clear and protest afterwards (if you believe the leeward boat is sailing above her proper course) - not ignore the leeward boat and watch the boats raft up.

In a similar vein, a yacht tacking from port to starboard does not gain starboard tack rights until her sails are full on the new tack. In my opinion, if the port tack vessel has to start an evasive manoeuvre before the starboard tack yacht's sails are full, then the tacking yacht has broken Ruel 13. Unfortunately I seem to be in a minority on this point as yachts to leeward and slightly ahead on port think they can tack with impunity and yell starboard as they come head to wind,

I may be a bit out of date as I haven't used a gelcoat in a while but my understanding is: The gelcoat you linked to is a polyester gelcoat whereas the lay-up info claims it is an epoxy gelcoat. I'm not entirely certain but I though there is no such thing as an epoxy gelcoat and you have to use a special type of polyester that is compatible with an epoxy lay up. See https://www.easycomposites.co.uk/epoxy-bonding-polyester-gelcoat-clear Standard Polyester gelcoats don't set hard when exposed to air i.e. they remain tacky. This makes 'filling scratches' difficult. For more serious damage you used to have to make a mould to fit on the outside, then put the gelcoat on first from the inside and then use mat over it. Perhaps someone who has tried more recently could provide some feedback but I would be wary of making it worse. In my day we just used to live with gelcoat cracks. The boats I have made recently don't have a gelcoat (carbon / epoxy).

I do actually know what a sans serif font is. What I don't know is which (if any version) of the figure 4 counts as being sans serif or indeed if sans serif has any meaning when applied to numbers. If you are being really pedantic then you could perhaps argue that the figure 1 should be just a vertical line without the tick at the top but since Helvetica has it then go figure. Ironically serifs are used to improve legibility of small letters (or big ones at long range?) which is why optician's eye charts use san serif fonts i.e. it is harder to 'guess' the letter. Hopefully I have made my point about the rules perhaps not being as clear as they could be but, since the font doesn't affect boat speed, it's probably time I let it rest.

The rules say: (IRSA Supplementary Class Rules - https://radiosailing.org/download/irsa-supplementary-class-rules-2020-4/ C.11 IDENTIFICATION ON SAILS C.11.1 A boat shall display: (a) her class insignia and (b) a sail number on all sails and (c) national letters on her mainsail as required by C.12.1. C.11.2 National letters and sail numbers shall be in capital letters and Arabic numerals, clearly legible and of the same colour. The colour shall contrast with the colour of the body of sail. Commercially available typefaces giving the same or better legibility than Helvetica are acceptable. Digital fonts are not acceptable. I know it's easy to criticise and I'm more aware than most how hard it is to write good rules but the above are a beautiful example of how not to do it. Firstly Google Arabic numerals and see what you get! Secondly, "typefaces giving the same or better legibility than Helvetica ..." is entirely subjective; and thirdly what on earth is a " digital font" in this context? I recently acquired a vinyl cutter and was trying to find out which variation of the figure four I should use. The Racing Rules of Sailing (G1.2 a (4)) say " a sans serif typeface" so I'm none the wiser.

Just noticed that F.5.2 (a) says that a headsail boom swivel is mandatory. Does that mean I can't just use a cord (like a DF does) and I have to have a physical swivel? Anyone know what constitutes a swivel or what the point of this rule is?

In theory you can calculate the best position for the hounds and the spreaders if you know the loading on the mast (assuming you goal is to minimise the mast bend). In practice the loading varies with so many things (incidence, camber, mainsail twist, wind speed, etc.) that I'm not sure it's worth trying. Perhaps it is easier to consider what happens at the extremes and then decide if your rig is tending towards one of them too much. If the hounds are too low then the top of the mast will bend off too much, the leech will open and you will likely get a crease running down from the hounds towards the clew. If the hounds are too high the mast may bend excessively between the hounds and the foot. This may well induce a crease form the hounds to the clew. It will definitely stiffen up the top of the mast and lessen the tendency for the leech to open in a gust. Is this a good thing at the top end of the rig's range? I think the spreaders should be at a point where the bending moment above them is equal to the bending moment below them i.e. at the height of the aerodynamic centre. But of course the aerodynamic centre moves around with the same variables (particularly mainsail twist). Personally I would go with practical experience and perceived wisdom unless I was trying to cure a particular problem with the rig.

Many years ago I took part in something called the Classmaster Event. Three entrants from almost every singlehanded class sailed their own boats and then each of the other classes in a series of handicap races. This certainly removed the bias from sailing your own class (I'd barely seen an International Canoe before I had to sail one!). Something similar for RC Classes would require the equivalent of PY numbers for each class but any class handicap advantage evens out because you have to sail all the classes. More recently I took part in the DeQuincy Cup organised by the London Model Yacht Club. This was team racing in 10Rs. I believe they used 95s the following year.

Assuming you have the mast and the jib as far back as you can then try increasing the mast rake. It may be that the rigs are poorly designed - the jibs are too big for the size of the main and therefore there is not a lot you can do within the rules.

Not familiar with the FS-8 but I do know that FlySky have recently introduced a new protocol (ANT) which is not compatible with old Rxs (AFHDS) . Is it possible that the upgrade is using ANT by default? Maybe you can choose the protocol somewhere in the setup?

Are you making the sails yourself or buying them? Marblehead rigs sort of design themselves because of the way the rules work. First thing to decide is the balance between main and jib areas. For a conventional rig this is usually about 60 / 40 (70 /30 for a swing rig). A rig should have the longest luff allowable (depends on you kicker arrangement - read the rules) and as said you take about 200mm of the luff for the B and 400 for the C. Obviously you want to maximise the 'free' areas of the roach and foot. Once you have the luff then you can calculate the foot to give the required area and the maximum 'free' cross widths then come from the rules. If you sail predominately inland you might want to increase the 3/4 width of the main by about 15mm or so and 1/2 by about 7 and hence reduce the foot to compensate. Jib is similar but you can play around with the luff length to some extent. It's tempting to go for a long luff (higher aspect ratio) but the rules force the foot to be too short for the 1/4 width (particularly for a swing ring) and you end up with too much roach to control properly. If you look on Frank Russell's site he gives dimensions for his Gothic design and Graham Bantock (Sailsetc) has quite a lot of information on his designs. Best idea is to create a spreadsheet so you can play around with the dimensions and then draw out likely candidates (I use a roll of lining paper - cheap)

The tapping size for M4 is 3.3mm so there will be some thread left after you drill it for M4 - not ideal. You would need to use a drill press, or preferably a lathe, to stop the tap wandering and producing a 'drunken' thread. BTW I can find M3.5 socket headed stainless steel screws on eBay.

Many people (me included) use the 'exponential' function on the rudder. This makes the rudder less sensitive (i.e. more stick movement for a given rudder angle) around the centre of travel and more sensitive at the extremes of travel. Most simple radios have a function called exponential and you can set a percentage - the higher the percentage the less sensitive it is in the centre. More complex radios have a function called 'curves' which allows you define any relationship between stick and rudder you want. Pretty sure the I8 will allow you to use a three position switch to set how much exponential is in use. I have up - no exponential, mid - mild exponential, down - high exponential. I very rarely change it from the middle position. Not convinced that different throws or different sensitivities for different sailing angles is the right way to go but whatever works for you. Other people don't bother with exponentials or curves and just practice making small movements. Modern radios can do all sorts of clever things and such functions can be useful but if you are just starting out then probably best to keep it simple.

Try this: It's a bit frantic and you may not follow all of it (unless you are familiar with Bernoulli's equation and know what the Navier-Stokes equations are about) but the thing to take away is that the explanation of how a wing produces lift is complex and can only properly be explained using some fairly complex maths and therefore all the simple "molecules speeding up" or ^bouncing off the surface" explanations are nonsense.

In the interest of balance I'd like to propose an alternate theory regarding sail twist. I am not saying I'm right and you're wrong just proposing another possible explanation of why sail twist might work. The wind does indeed increase in average speed with height and it also rotates in direction with height due to the rotation of the earth. but these effects are very small over the height of a model yacht sail. More importantly the wind at ground level is far from stable in either speed or direction due to the turbulence caused by trees etc inland and waves at sea. I find it hard to believe that the flow is stable enough (lamina if you will) for you to be able to tune the sail twist to the variation in velocity. What is certain is that the more you sheet in the more force you produce (until the sail stalls), but the more you sheet in the more this force is directed sideways rather then forwards. Sail twist can be used to 'unload' the upper section of the sail thereby reducing the heeling moment and hence the hull drag In other words the lower section of the sail is producing more lift and but also more heeling moment. The upper section is producing less lift, but since it is directed further towards the intended direction of travel, the loss in 'drive' is more than compensated by the reduction the heeling moment. I actually sail my boats with very little sail twist, although you can have a reasonable amount of twist upwind it just looks wrong to have a lot of twist downwind when the sail is stalled. With a stalled sail I think you want to present the maximum projected area to the wind so this means having very little twist. On the subject of how a wing produces lift, it would be a disservice to all those people who tried to teach me aerodynamics if I didn't point out that the "air has to travel further over the top of the wing therefore it must travel faster" argument is a common mis-conception or perhaps more correctly: only part of the story. This argument struggles to explain how an aircraft with a symmetrical wing can fly at all or how an aircraft with a conventionally cambered aerofoil can fly upside down. It also struggles with a yacht sail (technically a cambered flat plate) as there is no difference in the distance the air must travel between the windward and leeward sides. This isn't the place to explain aerodynamics (and I'm not the best person to do it anyway) but perhaps if you look at the diagram you drew and replace the cambered section with a symmetrical section, think of the fluid as water rather than air and call it a rudder not a wing: then maybe it's easier to see that the change in direction of the fluid flow must cause a force on the rudder?

It does seem that the latest DF digital servos are prone to this problem and I suspect that it is a fundamental design issue. It is probably still worth trying a few things to confirm. Try the winch in a different channel on your Rx Try your winch on a different Rx Try a different Tx Try a different battery and leads I suspect that none of these will make any difference. If so then there is not a lot you can do My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the control algorithm has been too highly tuned for maximum performance (speed / position accuracy). Whilst it works well when the winch is new, if the electrical / mechanical properties change over time then control accuracy can degrade. I wonder if a new version will be released or perhaps even a software upgrade will become available.

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.

The idea is that by 'protecting' a boat from others tacking inside them or cutting in when clear astern, you encourage people to get on or even slightly above the lay line and give the mark a reasonably wide berth. Hopefully this lead to an orderly rounding with those that reach the zone on the lay line first rounding first, chancers and bargers have to go behind because the rule says they do. They can no longer push their luck and argue there was room.

Ok so I used the term lay line slightly loosely, what I meant was able to lay the mark without tacking. We can sort out the semantics later but the principle I'm advocating is: 1) If you can lay the mark, then no one can tack inside you once you enter the zone. 2) If you round the mark reasonably close to it, then no one clear astern can cut inside you. The idea is to encourage an orderly rounding of the mark and stop all the cutting inside and barging that seems to be the norm at present.

A possible change to Rule 18 would be that; a boat that enters the zone of a windward mark, on the correct lay line, is entitled to mark room from any boats that need to tack to round the mark; thus a boat approaching the mark on Port would not be allowed to tack inside (or close in front of) a boat approaching on Starboard. If they are clear ahead then they can cross and tack outside the line of the boat on the lay line, if not, they must pass astern. This rule could also be applied to Starboard hand marks, giving the boat on port mark room against a boat on Starboard. A concept I'm thinking about is the idea of 'prohibited areas' around boats. In my opinion, many people leave far too little margin for error when in close proximity to another boat or more especially when manoeuvring near another boat. The idea is to have a sort of buffer zone round each boat and encroachment into this zone should be penalised. For example, I am fed up with people (with no overlap) trying to cut inside me at marks. I believe strongly that if you reach a mark clear ahead you should be able to round it clear ahead. Therefore I would like to introduce a prohibited area between a boat clear ahead and the mark (say 1 or maybe 1.5 boat lengths wide. A trailing boat could not enter this space. From several of the comments in this thread it appears that I am not alone in getting pretty fed up with the way some people sail. I'm afraid that the only way to change behaviour is to either change the rules to keep boats further apart or to apply greater sanctions to those that do misbehave. Behaviour needs to change from the bottom up. I know it seems harsh to be a stickler for the rules in an informal club race but why should the standard of acceptable behaviour at club level be different to that at a world championship? At club level I don't have a problem with noting an incident and then sorting it out after the race, provided it is sorted out and both parties understand the incident and who was at fault. If the incident is ignored then it just encourages the guilty party to do it again and again.

I have to agree with Darin. I was sailing at the Round Pound at the weekend and no mark was more than about 20 metres from an accessible part of the bank. The marks were however over a hundred metres apart so a lot of walking was involved. I really enjoyed the long legs for two reasons 1) it gave many tactical options (shame I got it wrong so often) and 2) it spread the fleet out lessening the bumping and boring at the marks. Course layout has to take account of the local geography i.e. what you can see and what you can access, but long legs are generally to be encouraged as they provide better and fairer racing in my opinion. There is however the 'accessibility' issue. Anyone who wasn't capable of walking hundreds of metres per race at a reasonable speed would have struggled at the weekend. The thought of half a dozen mobility scooters racing round the outside of the pond, trying to avoid each other and the general public while watching their boats.......

Having raised the question I’ll give my thoughts. In my view there are far too many collisions in Radio Sailing. Hardly a race goes by without at least one collision. This doesn’t seem to happen in full size sailing so we need to ask why. I can think of three possible reasons: 1) It’s just more difficult to judge speed, angles and distances when remote from the boat. 2) Competitors are more willing to ‘push the limits’ and risk the consequences when remote from the boat. 3) The current rules do not work well for Radio Sailing. Number 1 is pretty much a given in my view and there is little we can do about it, however my view is that Radio Sailing should be about who can get from A to B in the shortest time, not who has the best eyesight and ability to judge distance – more on this later. I believe number 2 is true and is more an attitude problem than a rules problem per se, however the ‘consequence’ is worth considering. If the consequences of infringing are minimal then there is little deterrent and the rules are actually encouraging risky behaviour. I know the one turn penalty is meant to encourage people to take their penalty (and avoid protests) but is the deterrent element enough? I doubt many would argue that applying the current rules in certain Radio Sailing situations is difficult, if not impossible, due the view the skipper has of their boat and the surrounding boats. Judging distance when sailing directly away from oneself and the line when sailing across are difficult, but the current rules require fairly high precision in these properties. How you keep clear when you can’t even see your boat within a pack is a mystery I’ve yet to solve. There is perhaps a fourth reason: people don’t know the rules! Can’t do much about that but it doesn’t help if the rules are complicated or difficult to interpret – look no further than Rule 18. As an aside, if you haven’t done so, look at the team racing version of Rule 18. Don’t know how well it works but at least it’s simple. Course setting is also a factor. Limitations of wind direction and geography often restrict the layout of the course but Starboard roundings, heavily starboard biased lines, short initial legs and crossing paths on different legs of the course are all good ways to promote collisions. Most Radio Sailing takes place at sites with lots of local wind variations. This frequently results in big speed variations between boats e.g boats approaching a mark at speed while others are almost stationary close to it. I believe that some rules do not work well in these circumstances. There are a number of situations where I believe the rules either don’t work or could be changed to lessen the probability of collisions. There are also some cases where the rules favour the trailing boat and I don’t believe this is fair. I’ll list them below but I’ll discuss each one in a separate post (when I get round to it) so that any discussions of a specific rule can be kept together. Rule 13 – I belie this rule is not well adhered to. Too many people seem to think you gain the rights on the new tack the second you pass head to wind. In my opinion a trailing boat should not need to start to take avoiding action until the tacking boat has its sails full on the new course. Rule 18 – Tacking in the Zone. When approaching a windward mark directly upwind of the observer, it is hard to judge the lay-line and so there is a tendency to underlay the mark and hence the need to pinch up or tack within the zone. This can lead to some nasty collisions. It also leads to people tacking inside another boat which is already on a tight lay line. Rule 18.3 is supposed to prevent this but in my experience it is totally ignored. (I don’t know whether this is through ignorance or malice). The result often results in several boats ‘rafted up’ in irons at the windward mark or collisions as people tack into the path of oncoming boats (see also comments on Rule 13, particularly in the case of starboard roundings). Cutting Inside while Mark Rounding – The rules say that a boat following closely behind (without an overlap) may cut in between the leading boat and the mark as the leading boat rounds if there is room. In Radio Sailing the leading boat has a much harder job judging the mark rounding as the trailing boat can use the leading boat as a marker and is therefore much better able to judge the mark rounding. I really dislike the trailing boat having such an obvious advantage and because you can get away with it so often, certain people seem to assume there will be space, whether there is or is not. Overtaking to leeward when sailing across the line of vision – Judging the distance between boats when viewed form the side is hard. If you overtake to leeward then you must not sail above your proper course but the windward boat must still keep clear (Rule 17 / Rule 11). Too often the boats slowly converge to contact. Windward claims leeward was breaking Rule 17, leeward claims windward was breaking Rule 11. Overlaps when sailing directly away from the line of sight – This is the classic Radio Sailing issue, how can you decide if the inside boat has an overlap and is the leading boat in the zone yet or not? I have ideas for some of these but the last one is hard to solve.

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.

When in doubt - RTFM! Just found a type written note in the bottom of the box. Apparently the Tensor only reads the travel adjust pot at power up so rotating it while the winch is running will not do anything (as I have discovered). Makes it pretty hard to use as you have to guess how much to rotate the screw (and which way!) and then turn it on and see if you were right. Not the greatest design.