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

Fri Sep 30 12:18:11 PDT 2005

Mike-

Of course the analogy is not perfect. I only brought it up because I see
some similarities. I agree that we don't need to have rules that are so
dynamic that they can absorb every change that technology throws at them.
However, this propulsion system issue is a big one, and not just for me.
There are a lot of owners (and potential owners) out there who are going to
have to deal with this someday. So I think that it would be good if we had
something in our rules which clarifies what is allowed for racing and what
is not. Because racing is an important part of Alberg 30 ownership for many
people. 

The assertion that all of our boats are made of the same stuff isn't 100%
accurate, I think. For example, my deck is cored with a different material
than yours. My hull-deck joint is also different (although if I remember
right, your hull-deck joint is not as it was built at the factory). I'd be
willing to bet that our laminate schedules are not exactly the same (but I
don't know this. I am sure you know better than me). Late model boats have
liners. Late model boats have deck drains. Somebody already pointed out that
many boats have already had their gas engines replaced with diesels which
are probably not exactly the same in terms of weight. Not every boat has a
head with holding tank installed. Our boats are far from one-design in the
strictest sense of the word. But that's okay and I am DEFINITELY not
advocating that we try to move more in the direction of strict
standardization of boats. The question is more...what modifications should
be allowed, and what should not, and how could disallowed modifications be
corrected. 

I think the spirit of the class rules is to keep the playing field as level
as possible while still recognizing that these boats are dual-use and that
means that each owner will want to customize his or her boat to their own
taste. I am all for following protocol, and I would be happy to write up a
proposed rule amendment. My goal will be to make it clear enough to ensure
good sportsmanlike competition while still allowing the freedom for people
to change or upgrade their propulsion systems as they find best meets their
operating requirements. I am only really interested in clarifying the rules
as regards this one particular issue of onboard power generation and
propulsion. Let's chat about it tomorrow. 

J

-----Original Message-----
From: public-list-bounces at alberg30.org
[mailto:public-list-bounces at alberg30.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lehman
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 1:58 PM
To: public-list at alberg30.org
Subject: RE: [Public-list] RE: Public-list Digest, Vol 494, Issue 7

Gentlemen -

Our boats are no longer being built, as are the 5o5s. They are all made from

the same stuff. I do not think, in this case, we need a rule that needs to 
anticipates technological change per se, but We should take these on a 
case-by-case basis.

J. I will check the proceedure when I get home. You may be asked for write 
up a formal rules change and submit it to the commodore - I do not know what

the process is, but will find out for you. On something like this we want to

follow protocol

Mike Lehman
~~~_/)_/)~~_/)~~~

----Original Message Follows----
From: "J Bergquist" <JOHN.R.BERGQUIST at saic.com>
Reply-To: j at ship.saic.com,Alberg 30 Public List -- open to all 
<public-list at alberg30.org>
To: "'Alberg 30 Public List -- open to all'" <public-list at alberg30.org>
CC: tim at goosemonkey.com
Subject: RE: [Public-list] RE: Public-list Digest, Vol 494, Issue 7
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:05:20 -0400

Andrew-

I completely agree with you that the change should be offset by carrying
ballast, which is exactly what I am advocating.

I own Lindsay hull #6987, built in 1978, and still very stiff and fast. Mark
Lindsay did, indeed, revolutionize boat construction in the 5o5 class. The
boat I referred to in the previous e-mail is #7200, same hull builder, but
that boat was finished by another man...Larry Tuttle who went on to found
Waterat sailing equipment.

At any rate, as I said before, I am not advocating that a net reduction in
displacement be allowed, or that the net change in LCG or gyradius be
allowed to change.

In other words, I want to HAVE THE OPTION to take my inboard out, replace it
with an outboard, and as much ballast as necessary to make the boat displace
the same amount as other boats and have the same mass properties. This is
the spirit of the rule stipulated by the 5o5 class as well.

I still maintain that as our boats age and parts need replacing, we will
have the continual challenge of allowing people to replace old parts with
modern parts and still maintain a level playing field. This issue is the
same with sails and spars, too!

Your points are very well taken,

JB

-----Original Message-----
From: public-list-bounces at alberg30.org
[mailto:public-list-bounces at alberg30.org] On Behalf Of Cole, Andrew L
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:43 PM
To: public-list at alberg30.org
Subject: [Public-list] RE: Public-list Digest, Vol 494, Issue 7

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

_______________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
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

 1128107891.0