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

[Gordon Laco]

Well said, Andrew.

Gord




> 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.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-list mailing list
> Public-list at alberg30.org
> http://alberg30.org/mailman/listinfo/public-list


 1128102815.0