What is not in the 78kg?

[rick perkins]

But an all up weight gives you more freedom than specifying the weight of a range of components dosn't it?

I would have thought you'd welcome that ...

[JohnMurrell]

No I don't agree, not only would it mean that a measurers job would be more differcult and you would have to get the boat cheked everytime you altered anything.

I am firmly of the belief that whilst weight in the boat is of importance, the weight of the crew also plays a major part. To follow your thought process through to its extreme why not weight in boat, helm and crew at every meeting and issue lead to all the lightweights to make it more even for the more robust of us a la the RS600's? Nah!

To be honest too many people blame losing a race on the weight issue and forget that the nut on the end of the tiller made half a metric dozen cockups on the first beat and lost the race there! Anyone who doesn't believe me, join me in the Watch House during Salcombe Week or ask Jimbo41 who drove a safety boat for me last year and also witnesed it first hand!

[RogerBrisley]

But how and how often / when do you measure it (overall weight)?
The only effective way is to specify certain components which are not affected significantly by short term moisture ie rope,  bare wood for inclusion in any weight prescription and leave the rest - like we are now.

[RogerBrisley]

Yes and the crew helm weight issue as well as the nuts. though (yet declaring an interest on both fronts) if you are heavy / error prone then a heavy boat will not help you make up lost ground.  Just have to be more cunninggggggg (who spilt hot choclate on my keyboard?)

Roggger

[rick perkins]

[Jimbo41]

[rick perkins]

I am sorry but I don't accept your arguments that this would in any way diminish the intellectual challenge to sailors actually I think a simpler rule would actually give more freedom and greater design choice and challenge.

I can see no logical argument for controlling the weight of some items and not others that leads to a situation where people are spending large sums of money to build a very light component and then putting 20kgs of lead in another ... this achieves nothing in performance terms and just makes the boats unnecessarily expensive and fragile.

As for rule enforcement it would be no different from today ... the sailors have a responsibility to be legal and if other competitors feel they are not then protest; it is easy. I assume that people don't frequently cheat so this should not be a big deal.

Seems you guys just spin out as soon as anyone mentions RS200 ...

Rick

[James Taylor]

[rick perkins (Guest)]

[quote by=James_Taylor link=Blah.cgi?b=Cool1,m=1169288680,s=37 date=1169634720] say you do break some thing at say BW some one else has a spare but that compont is to light e.g. boom, rudder being the most used and broken[/quote]

That is part of my point - they perhaps break because they are unrestricted in weight and people build them too light ...

[Jimbo41]

[quote by=rick_perkins link=Blah.cgi?b=Cool1,m=1169288680,s=36 date=1169631788]I am sorry but I don't accept your arguments that this would in any way diminish the intellectual challenge to sailors actually I think a simpler rule would actually give more freedom and greater design choice and challenge.

I can see no logical argument for controlling the weight of some items and not others that leads to a situation where people are spending large sums of money to build a very light component and then putting 20kgs of lead in another ... this achieves nothing in performance terms and just makes the boats unnecessarily expensive and fragile.

As for rule enforcement it would be no different from today ... the sailors have a responsibility to be legal and if other competitors feel they are not then protest; it is easy. I assume that people don't frequently cheat so this should not be a big deal.

Seems you guys just spin out as soon as anyone mentions RS200 ...

Rick
[/quote]

Rick, why would  simpler rules in general give a greater design choice and challenge and more freedom (from what?)

I think that the same sort of problem would arise as if we were to change our rules so as to follow the ISAF format for the RYA. Large loopholes might be created, leaving the the filed open for creative thinkers to push in the direction they wanted to go, resulting in a problem for the rest of the class, not necessarily a good thing.

I don't spin out when someone mentions RS200 - I've been immunised - I just get slightly queezy - that's all. We ought to ask ourselves the question why, if the RS200 is such a good boat, then why aren't all 12 owners switching to it? For me the question's already been answered - we have more freedom to choose what we want from our 12.

Cheers!

Jim.

[James Taylor]

[rick perkins]

[James Taylor]

[Jimbo41]

Yes I'm sorry too Rick.... Boo Hoo  

I think the best time to talk about this sort of thing is face2face over a beer...
 Are you coming to BW or  Salcombe Week?

Cheers!

Jim.

[THG]

Rick - I see your point - do we need to set rules to 'force' robust / good designs.  Don't see this as the answer - aren't market forces going to resolve?  If too many masts break then premiums go up too high, also if carbon prices just keep going up then maybe we need to revert back to other materials - I don't see how having an all up weight helps to improve - its likely as now we build masts & hulls light and add in lead (as needed to the current rules).

Is your real point that we are limiting new build / entrants / upgrades as the costs are too high vs SMOD type boats - the market would agree with you - but aren't we like the car market - 12s are a niche (TVR) and you pays your money and takes your choice (RS200 Golf?).   The challenge to the Class is how to give the Class a go and see it can offer good value and a USP vs SMODs (i.e you can tinker / change).

The survey results from non Class members should make intersting reading!

Kean