International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: Thomas Hannibal (growler@worldonline.dk)
Date: Thu 18 Jan 2001 - 10:50:37 GMT
In Denmark we have that kind of competition between the I14 and the 49ers. People are mainly affraid of buying a very expensive I14 and the danish fleet dies because people choose to buy a 49er. If you choose to buy a 49er you are sure to have a danish fleet in the following years and you know that the only reason that you can't beat the others are your poor sailing. If you buy a I14 you will have to buy a very expensive dinghy just to follow the front of a race and you ALLSO have to be a greath sailor. If we choose to make the boat MORE expensive I think it could kill small fleets in countries like Denmark. So changing the boat should be with that in mind!
I don't think we always should compare us with the 49ers but in this particular case it is a factor that we (us in DK anyway) have to bare in mind. I strongly recommend that we develop the boat in a cheaper direction! In Denmark most of the sailors are young people who are studying. And those kind of people don't have the money to buy a new dinghy every second year! Changes that can be made to an existing boat is okay. That mainly takes work hours and courrage... Everybody can do that.
Right now our fleet is growing. The next two years are very important for the danish fleet. Either it develops to a more modern fleet or it dies. Right now we are mainly sailing in Hewlett 1b dinghys. So it's time to move on ;-) The sailors will have to buy a new dinghy within the next two years. If the design changes dramatically or it seems like it would in the following years then some of those sailors will put all their money in to a 49er or a 18 footer in stead of a I14! And we do not want that - do we?! So the task is to develop the I14 with out making it dramatically more expensive.
Thomas Hannibal
DEN 17
<p>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Chris Dixon [SMTP:chrisd@paxaus.com.au]
Sendt: 18. januar 2001 02:09
Til: International 14 Email List (E-mail)
Emne: FW: Class Direction
"FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND" When this trial was introduced it was with
the intent of increasing the wing size to make the I14's faster. After
watching the correspondence over the past few months it seems as though
it is really to allow the I14's to be competitive with the likes of the
49ers. Obviously in some countries the I14's being the way they are do
not attract as many people as the 49ers and other classes. In Australia
this does not pose a problem from what I have seen. By introducing this
change the standard lines apply of, "it will allow more people to enter
the class", "it will make us faster up wind", etc. From a totally
objective point of view, the pros and concs have to be listed.
I think that in the future when there is a suggestion to conduct a trial
that there is a description of why the trail is to take place,
describing the real source of the problem/change. This may lead to
several options being put forward and it will also highlight to the
other countries what the real issues are behind the change. By
providing this additional information there may be less hostility to the
changes that are occuring.
I hope that this can be used in a constructive manner to improve our
process of change.
Chris Dixon
AUS 604
<p><p>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Edmunds [SMTP:sedmunds@edmunds-assoc.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:42 AM
> To: International 14 Email List (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Class Direction
>
> Tim - Agreed!
>
> In the last century of the A14 the basis rules of hull length, hull
> width,
> hull height, hull weight, sail area and mast height an the class
> developed
> from a timber and canvass fishing boat to a lightweight flying
> machine. the
> only thing that really changed in that time was design and available
> materials.
>
> Many supporters of width GREATLY underestimate the impact of "just
> changing
> the overall width". With a different power / weight ratio we will need
> different rigs and hulls.... get ready to open your wallet while the
> design
> phase takes off at a great pace ... creating a expensive dogs along
> the
> way.. and forcing more rapid turnover of boats to maintain
> competitiveness.
>
> In the end we may all go a little faster... but at what cost?... just
> a few
> more of your buddies I guess.
>
> Steve Edmunds
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Willetts [mailto:twcc&cc@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2001 7:23 AM
> To: Pyper, Rollo (PHSI)
> Cc: jose Padman; Int 14 List (E-mail)
> Subject: Class Direction
>
>
>
>
> "Pyper, Rollo (PHSI)" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > The last major rule change was Jan.1996, the earliest
> possible
> width
> > change (providing all agree)would be Jan.2003. This would make 7 yrs
> between
> > major changes. You suggest 5yrs, I rest my case m'lud !! I do
> > agree,however, that periods of stability are vital for the future of
> the
> > class.
> >
>
> I believe much of the fleet looks at this issue in a very similar way
> to
> Rollo.
> So its been 5 years lets look to make 14's go faster.
>
> I strongly disagree with this prevalent philosophy.
> As I see it a development class is one in which the fleet strives to
> achieve
> the
> best possible boat within a fixed set of parameters.
>
> It is not the basic parameters that should be changed. So for example
> we
> never
> touch the length overall, even though the boats would go faster if we
> did !
>
> In this case, sure the boats will be faster if wider , but so would
> they be
> if
> we made the boats longer.
> Do we gain anything if a bunch of 14ers can comprehensively beat a
> 49er
> upwind
> in 25 knots (after the new round of changes) other than a sticky mess
> once
> they
> are done spanking their monkey's?
> Especially if in the short term we have so many disillusioned down
> under.
>
> I see much of the I 14 development in the past 80 years as merely
> "catching-up"
> to what the Australian 14' fleet had already been doing.
>
> In fact if you look at it, the Australian 14' had a very stable
> platform of
> basic rules for around 120 years, where few things substantially
> changed, it
> was
> more that the boats developed a huge amount within the original set of
> rules.
>
> Of course its easiest to change the parameters , but it is quite
> possible
> that
> if the rules are left as is, that in 20 more years the existing
> parameters
> could
> still lead to faster, and better boats.
>
> I agree with the concerns of the Australian meeting and trust that
> those
> pushing
> the wheel barrow the most vocally will take time to consider the real
> benefits
> they might see.
>
>
> Regards to all
>
> Tim (SFB)
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4.