International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: Emmett Lazich (emmett@hutch.com.au)
Date: Mon 03 Jan 2000 - 14:02:22 GMT
Colin,
Thanks for your time in writing your reply to me. It was very
interesting and you explained a great deal for me. Your class
move in 1996 was very bold, but very good in that it may have
saved the class from a gradual decline in today's market. Well
done for that. I am glad that you feel that the I14 cannot stop
changing now either since I think the I14 class has far greater
untapped potential. Finally, I can appreciate that your class
needs a short period of relative stability after 96.
In follow-up I would like to offer some thoughts of possible
interest on some maybe not-so-new points of discussion such as
lengths, widths and areas of some key things. But thoughts from
an outsider (me) who has sailed in market related classes (Moths,
18s and 49ers) and who is looking at the I14 for some enjoyment.
Would any body welcome this from me?
I can also offer some feedback on the way the active 49er sailors
currently see the positioning and health of that class if you
wish?
Regards,
Emmett
Colin Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Emmett,
>
> Blimey! You've approached me as one person to try to represent the views
> of a wide bunch who can talk different views on this sort of stuff until
> the cows come home. I'll try to answer by describing how I think the
> class views itself - always dangerous, and no doubt many would disagree!
>
> As I'm in the office between Christmas and New Year and getting bored
> however, I'll also copy this to the 14 list to see how much traffic it
> gets going - although you may have seen some of the recent
> correspondance on similar topics...
>
> I'd say the 14's definitely view themselves as a development class - the
> boats have always been at least near the 'leading edge' for their time
> (especially outside Oz where we haven't had the 18's as comparisons).
> Ability to develop and set up the boat and rigs has always been
> recognised as something that should be encouraged and rewarded. However,
> it's not unlimited development. The battle we've always had is how we
> trade off the desire to develop against the cost that that implies
> (we're a largely amateur fleet in competition with a number of
> well-marketed mass-produced competitors). For example, when the
> international fleet changed our rules in 1996 as part of the merger with
> the Aussies, the effect (lower, narrower, lighter hulls, bigger rigs)
> was that the existing boats became obsolete overnight. Even converted
> boats (with new rigs, racks, whatever) could (with one or two
> exceptions) not compete with boats designed to the new rules. Secondhand
> prices plummeted, people were reluctant to invest in new boats until
> they could see where the development was going, some people left the
> fleet. We are only really now getting our numbers back up again. But the
> boats are a lot faster, look nicer and are even better to sail. So
> development can be a painful experience and major changes are things we
> don't want to go through too often - but they have to happen. My own
> view is that we are currently in a period where there is a general wish
> for a bit of stability post-96, but that we'll be ready for our next
> changes in say 2 to 3 years time.
>
> As someone pointed out recently, development continues even when the
> rules are stable, so we'll always have a degree of obsolesence risk -
> it's just that rule changes lead to big jumps.
>
> I think there's surpisingly little politicking based on personal
> constraints - the bigger rigs led to an increase in crew weights, wider
> racks could counteract this, but most of the conversation seems to be
> around what's best to develop the boat overall (unless the politicos are
> more devious than I realise)...
>
> Our rules are undoubtedly wordy. It's not that we want technical rules -
> we don't - it's just that they've grown over time, typically in response
> to particular developments, or to put some restrictions on the boat to
> stop costs getting out of hand. There have been lots of conversations
> (and a little progress) on how to simplify them. But we've got the same
> problem of how to change from where we are without incurring lots of
> expense, since any change tends to set off another round of development
> - eg an apparently small tidy up like how you measure rig height can
> have all sorts of unforeseen consequences!
>
> Even without the problem of obsoleting existing boats, I don't think the
> 14's want completely open (eg '18 feet long and the race starts at 2
> o'clock') rules - we think we need some limits to keep costs under
> control and to stop the boats getting too freaky. Nor do I think we're
> at the point where rules become self-limiting - if we allowed taller
> rigs for example, we could undoubtedly carry the extra power in light to
> medium conditions. But then we'd all need two or three different rigs to
> cater for heavier conditions - the rig we have now is capable of
> covering all reasonable wind strengths (only a few stump or reef down)
> and we've generally shied away from the expense/hassle of multiple rigs.
> The current debate on rise of floor is interesting however - Paul Bieker
> (who knows far more than I about this) argued recently that this is
> probably self-limiting at about the current level, and abolishing the
> limit would also do away with the issues we have over measurement bumps.
> I don't think enough people agree on this yet, though.
>
> I don't really know about the effect of keeping limits on mast (and
> presumably boom) length but otherwise derestricting sail area - my
> laymans response would that we'd get lots of wierd-looking very roachy
> sails - but maybe such roaches couldn't be supported? I'll leave this
> one to the measurers and sailmakers - but from what you say, it works in
> the 18's and 16's?
>
> Incidentally, we do have a requirement to have reaching legs in our
> rules, which controls spinny size to some extent.
>
> So if we were starting from scratch, we'd probably have some of the
> current rules (max width, rig height, spinny pole length, min weight)
> but not others (rise of floor, banning of bumpkins, whatever they are).
> The ideal probably would be not dissimilar to the 18' and 16' rules you
> mention. I suspect we'll keep moving in this direction.
>
> So where does all this leave us? My guess would be that we'll make the
> next major changes - another reduction in hull weight, wider racks,
> racks aft of the hull, maybe abolish rise of floor - in a few years
> time. New competitive designs are coming on fast and we'll be left
> behind if we don't develop again. But what do I know? I'm not a
> technical expert by any means, and am just one of many...
>
> But in the meantime there's still lots you can do within the existing 14
> rules to develop boats and rigs - do come and play!
>
> Hope this ramble is of some use...
>
> Cheers
>
> Colin Smith
>
> Emmett Lazich wrote:
>
> > Hi Colin,
> >
> > I am a casual but interested observer in the I14 class. Living in
> > Sydney. In fact I think I want to get an I14 and have a play. I
> > have been recently reading your class email list, and your well
> > written message just caught my attention. I hope with some info
> > exchange we can help each other. Please be patient with me. I am
> > mostly curious here.
> >
> > Firstly a brief self-intro might help: I've spent the last few
> > years sailing a combination of Moths, 18s, and 49ers, and a few
> > years before that racing in things like Lasers and one-design
> > junior classes. Now I am 31 years old. Although I've recently
> > spent a lot of time in the 49er class and enjoyed it plus did
> > alright at it, at heart I am the true fan of relatively low cost
> > development classes, and I miss them.
> >
> > Further on this, I do not see much any any particular class rule
> > unless it is both simple and they help kerb costs within some
> > common playing field. The Moth class rules for example look
> > great to me! The first thing I looked at on the I14 web page
> > were the rules, and to be honest I was a little disappointed at
> > the amount of words. Colin, if you think that anywhere here I
> > can offer a possibly fresh view on your class rules, or others
> > might be interested in my ramblings, then feel free to forward
> > this message to any individuals or your class list.
> >
> > Of course what I like is not relevant to your sailing class. What
> > I am wondering is effectively two things, and with this maybe I
> > can help with your current proposals being discussed. I welcome
> > being corrected on anything because it will help me better
> > understand the I14 class.
> >
> > 1) Can you give me some insight into the goals and desires of the
> > people who sail I14s? Eg: Do you guys perceive it as an active
> > development class? It appears so to me. Do you like having lots
> > of technical rules? Could you say that anything is generally not
> > liked about those rules by the sailors? What aspects are most
> > commonly argued over? Is it commonly accepted amongst the active
> > sailors that good I14 sailors should get rewarded for knowing not
> > just how to sail, but also how to setup a boat? I hope so. Does
> > development simply imply increasing the craft's performance but
> > at zero or negligible cost increase (for a new boat)? Or do
> > people try to protect their own interests via personal
> > constraints such as their body weight, agility or fitness level?
> >
> > 2) After your findings , we know you could just increase the
> > proposed mast height figure by 12mm, and leave half the fleet as
> > is, and let a small minority complain about being 12mm below the
> > new max. I am interested in your thoughts on self-limiting
> > restrictions. What do you think of keeping a max (straight) mast
> > height rule (no matter how difficult), and stating that no sail
> > can extend above it, but abolishing all sail dimensional and area
> > rules?? Could this be simpler and better suited to the class
> > goals? Could this help the class grow even further? Could this
> > make regatta measurement days far less of a hassle? Could it
> > widen the perceived (and actual) competitive crew weight range
> > and thus possibly open up other avenues for development?
> >
> > More on question (2). From much experience with 18s, I think
> > that mast height is a very fundamental parameter. Especially
> > running downwind. If you allow any legal way for people to put
> > bigger spinnakers on, then (unless you also add course styles to
> > the rules) I think you can guarantee it will be done to some
> > extent for a substantial advantage in downwind light air. But
> > this technicality is not really my point. The Australian 18 and
> > 16 footers have very simple class rules (with near one-design
> > hull shapes) and they work very well in terms of their simplicity
> > and policing. For both rigs they limit mast height, pole length,
> > boom length and the number of sails. That's really it. The
> > self-limiting righting moment factor you mentioned is all else
> > that is needed. Neglecting any hull shape checks, measurement
> > takes about 15 mins total with two complete rigs (just ask Peter
> > Moore who used to measure our GP 18s). But don't get me wrong,
> > the I14 is very good! To me they are cheaper, so you can still
> > play with hull shapes, you have less crew hassles with only two
> > in the boat, they are truly international, and they are
> > relatively fast even though you cant get very far out or behind
> > the boat (how I wish!). These other classes have been working
> > well for many years (in Aus at least), so could the I14s open up
> > as they are? Or have I jumped the gun and missed something like
> > assuming the I14 rules are complicated and/or unjustifiably
> > restrictive when they are not?
> >
> > Emmett Lazich
> > Sydney Australia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4.