All the builders made hulls much too deep. The rules have no limit, as long as you do not exceed the max weight. You can make a boat with hull 6 inches too high if you wanted too, just a lot more area to shoot it.
For those with the popcorn, please note that the following two statements were made by the same person: and
I was but realized I don't have to have a boat to be in the hobby.. I have a KEYBOARD!!! YEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
The hulls all were made too deep, True or false? True And only class 2 and below are allowed to have excess hull volume, True or false? True You can make a boat with hull 6 inches too high if you wanted too, just a lot more area to shoot it., True, no one seems to care that the boats are too deep Yet when cut down to the proper height, you are accused of cheating, called names and so forth. At least I was not using illegal drag disks, right?
Interestingly enough, we all routinely ignore the running gear part of II.C.3 when we install our drive systems. How many folks use props that are scale size (or within +/- 2% using the L/W tolerance as a guideline for 'relatively scale')?
i dont know, if your non scale running gear lets you get away from my guns faster, it certainly seems to reduce it
I like how 'non-conformance' with a statement that isn't actually in the rules is cited for blanket authorization to violate whatever the savants see fit...seems like a logical approach to fair play
Honestly I'm entirely lost at this point as to what is and isn't in the rules and what those words that are there or aren't there even mean. I just want to play with toy boats.
Seems like the only time this all comes out is at Nats, I believe the local events are self governed.
Wow....Thanks for the extra words in my mouth giving permission to break rules. I was just pointing out that we tend to selectively enforce what's there anyway. Last I checked, the rule requiring relatively scale running gear was still in the rules. The clause "such as skegs and bilge keels" does not constitute the only items on the hull that are part of the ship's running gear, but instead only provides two examples. So yeah, props and all the rest of the junk under the ship that provides drive and direction is still part of the running gear. We do have a rule that gives exceptions for additional size on the rudders. We also do have a rule that says props and rudders must be in the scale locations (both fore/aft and in relation to the centerline). We don't however have a rule that says props can be oversized Folks just do it anyway and I don't really expect that to change, rule or no rule. Not to mention the fact that we're modeling subjects that are 70+ years old with tons of poor and or conflicting source information which is a real issue on quite a lot of hulls. I've got a fiberglass Richelieu sitting next to me that is nowhere near the actual French Plans and needs to be well over max weight to float at the same waterline that the French sources list as the standard. It's also more than an inch too wide in the aft areas (whee! SoDak like stern - the main source of the excess displacement) even though it still meets the correct length/beam measurements. Just bonus target area for the fleet that gets stuck with it and what should have been unnecessary weight for the captain to haul around.
I feel like such a Mook. I have always put a lot of thought into the “toy boat” that I choose to invest a lot of time and effort into. I consider things such as: Rudders (duals being the best) Turret positions (4 super firing being best) Speed (faster is better) Free board · Lower in the water is better · Stringers add protection · Casements add protection One of the thing that I didn’t like about the N. Carolina I had been running was the amount of free board it had. Some clever Sea Lawyer found a loophole in the rules that allows us to ignore scale when it come to height of ship. If you don’t like the free board, just shorten it until it is where you like it…. It feels like the Washington Treaty all over again (Only Toy Boats). The Allies get Rodney, S. Dakota, and Richelieu. The Axis get Nagato, Bismarck and Yamato It certainly gives me a lot to think about for my next build project.
What ship What ships are abnormally low in the water? Where are you getting your information? Would you like to discuss facts are just make general accusations? Again calling people names is not productive
This has always been an issue... Model builders want scales ships that go pop so they can get an idea what the real ship was like in combat, battlers want to build ships ideal for combat.. that doesn't make one side of the other 'EVIL' or sea lawyers or up to no good. It is a fundamental difference in the understanding of the core of the hobby. We all choose our levels of participation which is fine. Here are some examples... Some play with sketch-up and 3d-printer.. but are in the hobby Some play with keyboards and don't battle .. but are in the hobby Some build hundreds of ships and don't battle but are in the hobby Some build beautiful scale ships that are battle ready.. but never battle Some build beautiful scale ships that are battle ready.. and battle them... once.. and when the fine details are damaged.. complain about over-competitiveness Some build ships suited to combat not to scale looks.. and battle regularly Yet ALL groups listed above want to be legislators.. for rules.. that one or two groups have to follow. That does not make sense to me at all. WHO CARES ANYWAY!!!! If you are not an effective battler it wont matter what ship you build.. you will not beat the experienced battlers even if they drive the worst 'performing' ship. If we all learned to battle effectively... this would be a non-issue.. Just one problem.. you have to actually BATTLE to learn to battle EFFECTIVELY I am enjoying my new keyboard hobby!! Banzai!!!!
"If a tree falls in a forest and you are not around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Why do you assume that I don't battle? Why do you assume that I am not EFFECTIVE?
