[Public-list] RE: Public-list Digest, Vol 494, Issue 7

[Cole, Andrew L]

J,

I'm a newcomer to the class, have not even raced the boat yet, but I've
been around the one design block (yes, including a stint in the 505
class).  While rule changes are generally necessary over time to
accommodate changing technology, etc., most classes try to avoid making
old boats, and within reason, boats with old rigging and equipment,
immediately obsolete.  If the change you suggest is permitted, and
yanking the inboard and carrying an outboard turns out to be faster
(i.e. no compensating device like an iron slug where the engine sits),
the one design nature of the boat may not necessarily be compromised
(anyone can do it), but if every boat that wants to remain competitive
must then pull their inboard and purchase an outboard, the class may
very well disintegrate.  A subtle change, for example leading halyards
aft, is not fatal, as it does not necessarily make a big (any?) speed
difference, and even if it did, the expense of the upgrade is fairly
minor.  People will not make a change that is expensive, and makes the
boat impractical for cruising (not joining that debate, just noting the
issue), they will simply stop racing, or stop taking it seriously.  This
is not a class where people buy new boats every couple years to keep up
with technology.

The 505 class does permit changing technology, but the permissive change
is built into the rule, not brought about by rule changes to permit new
technology.  I think if you reviewed the history of the class rules, the
most major change is the increased spinnaker size that was recently
allowed.  On the flip side of the coin, the (relatively) loosely written
rules for the class permitted a fellow named Lindsay to build a boat
that was substantially stiffened by adding straight bulkheads from the
chainplates to the mast gate.  The change was class-rule legal, however
once he built the first of his boats, every boat built prior to that
became immediately obsolete.  The class survived, partly because it's a
great boat (was before, and is after) and partly because it was the norm
in the class at that time to purchase new boats every so often to remain
competitive (although durability increased dramatically once Lindsay
started and people don't replace boats nearly so often these days).

My opinion of this class, which admittedly shouldn't count for much, is
that any change that makes a speed difference should be appropriately
offset, e.g. the additional ballast for early boats.

Andrew


John, 

Repowering at 1/4 of the cost, space, and weight and still meeting
operational requirements sounds like the sublime side of the fence to
me. 

The part of the one-design concept I don't get is why some people think
that
rules should be set in stone and will never need to change or be
clarified
over time. When our rules were written, our boats were young, and none
of
them had failing engines. I guess nobody anticipated the need for a rule
about outboards. In the same way, the framers of the American
Constitution
had no idea that they should include laws about software patents,
genetic
engineering and other kinds of modern technological (and legal) issues.
So
they had the foresight to create a framework which allows the law to
live
with the times. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like that is a pretty
sensible
way to operate. In the same way, most class associations recognize in
their
rules that the advancement of technology is inevitable and it will
change
the way that boats, sails, and spars are built and raced. In this way,
they
allow for clarification and modification of the class rules over time
through their by-laws. In my understanding, our by-laws also have such a
provision. 

We are debating a rules change here, it must be voted on before it can
be
made part of our rules. Technology advances over time. In order for one
design class rules and the boats they describe to remain relevant and
alive,
they must be able to change with the times as well. I have given an
example
below of another class with which I am familiar which has allowed
changes in
the rules over time and has reaped great benefit in terms of
participation
numbers from that (175 boats at this year's 5o5 world championship...not
bad
for a 50 year old design). 

I am advocating that the rules committee consider this change. If you
have a
problem with this particular rules change, then you can voice your
opinion
to the rules committee as well. Ultimately, the decision will be put to
a
vote of the membership. You get one, and I get one, and every other dues
paying member of the class gets one. So I guess then we'll see what the
owners want...if the change even gets proposed. 

"Don't mess with the boat." God, I wish I had that as an option!!! I'd
go
sailing to the rendezvous this weekend instead of hauling her out of the
water and going to the rendezvous by car!

J Bergquist  

Cole, Andrew L
Admitted in Maryland, Virginia & Florida
One Corporate Center
10451 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1000
Baltimore MD 21117

 
tel: 410 581-7408
fax: (410) 581-7410
mob: (410) 206-3577

--------------------------------------------------------
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for public-list at alberg30.org. If you are not public-list at alberg30.org you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify andrew.cole at llff.com immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Cole, Andrew L therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
--------------------------------------------------------

 1128102152.0