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

Fri Sep 30 12:39:22 PDT 2005

Can I fit multiple trapeze gear to my boat...

Gord (evil gord) #426 Surprise

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

 1128109162.0