Joysway sails are illegal?

[tony...@elmclose.co.uk]

I have just measured 12 Joysway sails and all fail to conform to the rules.

Comments please

 Fore Sail - All failed

A – B    73mm   +12 to 0mm  too high  (3 complied)

A – C  631mm  -10 to -4         too short (none complied)

B – E  208mm    all complied

C – D   14mm    +2 to 0mm    too wide  (3 complied)

Luff to A-C       -7 to 0mm      Luff curved inwards (4 complied)

Pulling the luff tight will induce a curve into the sail.

 Main Sail – All failed

 Overall Height

A – G  861mm     -3 to 0  (1 complied)

 Sail widths

B – L  248mm     -3 to 0   (8 complied)  Bottom

C – K  224mm     +8 to 0  (1 complied)

D – J  178mm     +10 to 0 (1 complied) 

E – I  129mm      +4 to 0  (1 complied)

F – H   68mm      All complied

Leech height points

A – B   33mm    +2 to -2  (5 complied)

A – C  213mm   +18 to 2 (none complied)

A – D  433mm    +8 to 1  (1 complied)

A – E  649mm    +8 to 1  (none complied)

A – F  842mm    +4 to 0  (6 complied)

 Luff Curve to A –G

B     1mm       +1 to 0       (3 complied)

C     6mm       +4 to -2.5   (none complied)

D  8.5mm    +5.5 to -3      (2 complied, one 14mm from A - G)

E      8mm   + 2.5 to -4.5  (none complied)

F      1mm    +0.5 to -1     (6 complied)

[David Foster]

I have just dug my Joysway supplied sails out to measure them. They have never been used as I went straight for Housemartin sails from the start (I find patterned sails rather distracting and where do you put the sail numbers?). They came with the boat which is one of the third batch (I think) which Ripmax received in early November.

Tony. I think you have measured them differently from me. For the mainsail you refer to A-B, A-C, A-D, A-E and A-F as Leach height points and say that they don't measure in most cases. Surely they are meant to be absolute distances from the foot (hence the reason they don't have any tolerance values) from which you measure the perpendicular B-L, C-K, D-J, E-I AND F-H lengths, luff to Leach,  as shown on the sail plan  in the rules.

I don't understand your measurements 'luff curve to A-G'. Where did you get the measurements you are judging them against from? They don't appear in the v1.2 Dragon Force rules as far as I can see and I can't see them in the RG65 rules either.

My results (in the format/order in the rules) are as follows :-

Note that I didn't stretch the sails out. I taped the head, then gently pulled the luff until the creases disappeared, then taped the tack. Finally, I did the same with the clew.

A Mainsail.
A-B: 33
A-C: 213
A-D: 433
A-E: 649
A-F: 842
A-G: 862 (-1 within tolerance)
B-L: 248 (+2 within tolerance)
C-K: 223 (+1 within tolerance)
D-J: 177 (+1 within tolerance)
E-I: 126 (-1 within tolerance)
F-H: 65 (-1 within tolerance)

A Jib.
A-B: 73 (a measurement to get the perpendicular, which exactly met the clew
A-C: 633 (spot on measurement)
B-E: 206 (spot on measurement)
C-D: 14 (once I trimmed away the excess clear plastic reinforcing which wasn't quite lined up)

I think I prefer the way I measured them, as the sails comply with the rules! The only one that was touch and go was the 13mm width of the head of the sail which was 14 mm on mine once the excess plastic reinforcing was trimmed off.

How come you have access to so many sails to measure Tony  I thought the boats were in short supply.

David

[RG65 UK NCA]

The Dragon Force is built by a toy manufacturer (Joysway) and therefore their tolerances are not going to be the best. The sails and rigs were designed by John Tushingham (Graphite Sails) a leading sailmaker in the UK of all Radio Yacht classes and one of the top 10 UK skippers in several classes, Joysway have taken these designs and mass produced them to keep the costs down, and in doing so compromises have been made and the manufacturing tolerances give way to some sails being out of the dimensions specified in the one class rules.

However, because of these know manufacturing difficulties any sails supplied with the kit are acceptable within the spirit of the rules all the DF supplied sails are legal.

If you are serious about sailing this boat then you will replace the sails.

The Dragon Force sails supplied don't comply with the RG65/ISAF rules in other ways but where else can you buy a competitive RC Yacht for under £200.00.

There is also a spread sheet available to calculate the sail area it can be found on this forum under a thread called " sail calculation" or on the RG65 website under rules, link at the top of the forum.

RG65 UK Class Association

Technical Officer

[Joanne Sharpe]

Tony,

Please, let's not bite the hand that feeds us?

Mike, Mark and John along with Ripmax and Joysway have done an outstanding job bringing the DragonForce to market. I think it's a consensus view that whilst there may be minor short comings, in terms of 'bangs for one's buck' the DF is streets ahead of any other ready to sail product out there. It's the best beginners boat by miles.

May I respectfully suggest that we spend a little less time looking for the minutia and criticism and put a bit more effort into encouraging new skippers into this class and the sport of radio sailing in general?

Personally, I am waiting patiently to see what exciting product will be next out of this stable because it's a great business model IMHO. In the meantime, I'm not going to measure my sails (or anybody else's), I'm off to practice tacking in waves, 'cos I know that costs me boat lengths.

Happy new year

Take care

Joanne

[Tim Long]

Tony,

Please see below, taken directly from the DF65 Class Rules.

Section E - Rigs
The boat is supplied by the Builder with an A Rig. Smaller B & C Rigs are permissable. Dimensions
and construction details are fully described in Sections G & H.
All spars and rig fittings are restricted to those supplied by the Builder. Permitted changes are
described in these rules.
Sails are either those supplied by the Builder, or made to the dimensions and construction as
described in Section H by other manufacturers or individuals

Please note the bit I have highlighted in BOLD type.

None of the sails have failed because they are BUILDER supplied!

Clearly you have too much time on your hands if you can spend it measuring something that just doesn't need measuring, perhaps your time would be better spent dissecting the rules of another class rather than one which is clearly making good progress in bringing many new skippers to the sport.

Have a great New Year.

[David Foster]

Joanne.
I wonder whether anyone in the IOM class would have been prepared to put in as much time and effort as was obviously put in to get the DF to the shops (for which big thanks are due)? I suspect not, though an IOM for about £200 would be rather nice :-)

The only reason I dug my sails out to measure them was because I couldn't believe that the manufacturer's tolerances could be that far out, which they weren't in my case.

Tim
Thanks for the definitive clarification of the rules with regard to the sails. Hopefully, that will put the matter to bed.

A happy New Year and Good sailing in the coming year to everyone.

David.

[Joanne Sharpe]

Hi David,

I sometimes sail with Liz Tushingham - John's wife - and apparently it took around 2 years work to get the Dragon Force to product launch. So, yours is a good point well made David.

I know that the IOM sailors at our club regard the Goth MX14 HULL as a 'cheapie', starting at 695 Euros - for a hull!! And let's face it, you can spend more than the price of a new Dragon on an IOM FIN !! And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with either of those products, I just can't afford them.

I guess IOM is a case of what you get after people have fiddled about with the rules for 20+ years instead of getting on with sailing the thing as is - you wind up with the idiosyncrasies such as banning £10 carbon masts (expensive material) but allowing carbon fins at £200 each !! Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to sailing an IOM (not a competitive one, just a 'club' boat) this year - and I'll accept the rules 'as is'.

I am very happy with my Dragon and looking forward to racing it over this coming year. However, I have an Andy Hoffmann NeKst in build for a lighter boat with a swing rig and have just started on the plug for a Viperfish (don't hold your breath on either though). So, I am quite happy with the DF just as it is and I'd like to leave the rules alone for ever and I'll do my fidding about on other platforms.

And if I really want to build / experiment / mess around, I can always put together a Footy or two - talk about minimalistic rules - you can even build a multihull - as long as it fits in the box LOL.

Take care and best wishes for 2014 to everyone

Joanne

[Barrie Norman]

Totally off topic, but just for your interest.

The IOM was introduced in the late 1970's as a restricted class to provide a cheap introduction into radio sailing, because the Marblehead was getting far too expensive to get new people into the sport, how things have changed. the IOM is now a very competitive class across the world and the top boats are designed by a few very dedicated people, a lot of time and development goes into getting the edge over the other boats within some very specific rules on design and materials. This is now not a cheap class to race. but the only expense is the initial outlay of the boat, in general radio sailing is a cheap sport compared to Golf of other sports, and with the constant development of new boats this leads to some very good second hand boats on the market. The MX7's and their derivatives have taken a place in the club level racing but will never compete on the top level because these boats are built by hand by people who are striving for perfection, hence the long waiting times for new boats.

Good sailing and a happy new year.

Barrie

[RG65 UK NCA]

Barrie

 

the iom as we know it (with the 3 one design rigs) was introduced in 1988. there was one metres before this but each country had their own rules - some of these classes were dying out. the international one metre was introduced to encompass all these classes

 

1.1 Origins

1.1.1 An International One Metre class was first adopted by the IMYRU in 1958 after application by France and Italy. The class rules limited length to 1000mm and sail area to 0.4m2. There appears to have been much freedom over choice of rig design. No significant international competition appears to have taken place and it is assumed the class effectively died out some time in the 1960's.

1.1.2 In the 1980's there appeared a number of 'one metre' classes i.e. in the US, Japan, France and Germany (Naviga E class rule). The original reasons for interest in this new format are now unclear but it was almost certainly enhanced by the escalating cost of maintaining a Marblehead. This concept clearly appealed to model yachtsmen outside those countries and one metre long yachts to various designs and 'rules' appeared elsewhere.

1.1.3 The various classes had only the hull length in common. The US One Metre had no restrictions on materials or rig proportions; the French class used a One Design hull and rigs; the German class had many restrictions on the hull, foils and RC but permitted much freedom in choice of sail profile.

1.1.4 It was clear that a One Metre boat with tightly restricted rigs and equipment could produce an inexpensive class and close competition for experts and beginners alike. This class would complement the Marblehead class in nature and the lower cost might enable the popularity of the sport as a whole to be maintained or improved by providing a class which would permit mass manufacturers to produce a competitive boat

 

regards

Mark

 

[Barrie Norman]

Thanks for the clarification Mark

I was sailing R36's in late 70's until the 90's and didn't have a lot to do with the one meter's then, I was more into Marblehead's and the 36's

Regards

Barrie