International 14 Mailing List
| 14 | ||
From: John Gertzel (johngert@gertzel.com.au)
Date: Wed 02 Jan 2002 - 14:51:08 GMT
Some more inflamatory smartarse non productive musings
>From a personal perspective I would now like to ask - Did we amalgamate or
join ?.
I thought the classes were amalgamated into a new class with a new
constistution, rather than AUS and NZ boats joining the existing I14 class.
My involvment has significantly tapered off over recent years due to the
arrival of daughters so I am happy to be corrected on this point
Historic rulings in a defunct class may not be relevant - Even when I agree
with them.
AUS 14s had a long history of rules that seem to no longer apply and in
hindsight were better worded and developed. Rulings on that constitution
have no relevance it sems
I personally put a lot of work in to the last AUS 14 constitution, and was a
major advocate of amalgamation. I am concerned now that
1. My eforts were wasted, and
2. my opinion misguided.
Internationals would not know of a stupid attempt in Australia in the late
1970's to market a non alcoholic spirit called "Claytons". This led to an
Autralian saying regarding fake things as " A Claytons whatever"
In the light of Rollo Pypers recent email, any response from the ISAF/IYRU
would now seem to be a "Claytons Ruling", and not binding to the class if we
don't want it to be.
Just who "we" is has to be resolved.
"we", whoever we are, are far better served by sailing the boats we have
got, than thinking of meaningless reasons to spend more money on them
RE Costs
The AUS 14 class was based soundly on participation over elitism.
Internationally, there seems to be little appreciation of the cost of our
boats. I pay half the cost of our boat and running costs, and as a 40 year
old professional person earning a pretty good wage (Australian Taxation
Office - you didn't hear it from me) I struggle to justify the expenditure
to myself, much less my wife if she knew. If costs are not contained, and
contained severely, we will have no future in Australia.
Internationally, that is the only way we will survive. Let the 49er go past
you upwind - the people sailing it will be sick of it in 4 years, and if you
give them a chance will settle in to a 14. But only if there is a second
hand one to buy. Wait ten years, and their class will be gone - lets be
around when it is.
RE T Foils
I have been struggling to justify my opposition to T foils when compared to
assymetric kites
20 odd years ago, we launched a brand new boat, and fitted dual kite
systems, both conventional and assymetical,to go to the nationals. This was
brought on by Australian 18 foot skiffs using assymetricals, and an
allowance within our rules for a 14 to carry a kite pole, and a bowsprit.
This allowed us to use the asymetric, on a bowsprit, or a spinnaker on a
kite pole.
We were the last boat to win the Australian 14 foot dinghy championship with
a symetrical kite. The next year, we were beaten by Andrew Crisp with an
assymetric, but the kite type was largely irrelevant to our defeat.
Following this, the AUS fleet converted to assymetric kites, leading to our
first round of scrapping perfectly good boats.
The adoption of the assymetric opened the classs to people who would
otherwise have not sauiled it. Prior to that it was deemed "Too Hard:" Ex
fireball world champions at the front of the currnet Australian Nationals
provided that input.
Hindsight is wonderful, but I doubt if foils on the rudder wil be similarly
significant. Ultimate speed of the boats is not imporant. If youi want to
go fast, get in a jumbo jet (sorry Badger).
A significant part of te AUS fleet is now made up of over 40 year old
sailors. Young guys to take our place do not seem to exist, but when they
appear they need a cheap, current model second hand boat to step in to.
Any decisions regarding the future of our class must address this, rather
than wether we are going to beat an iso rso hobie boat with an outboard
motor upwind inb 17.5 knots
Nozza
<p>----- Original Message -----
From: Pyper, Rollo (PHSI) <Rollo.Pyper@defra.gsi.gov.uk>
To: Grant Bourke <swizzle@xtra.co.nz>; Tony Arends
<tarends@quantumsails.com>
Cc: 14LIST <14list@i14.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:03 PM
Subject: RE: [I14] FW: "Wings and things"
<p>> Grant/Tony,
> There have been very few occasions where ISAF/IYRU have been
asked
> for a rule interpretation in recent years (last 29 that I know of !!).
> Two that spring to mind are 1) Definition of allowable rudder
fittings -i.e.
> was a rudder box included ?.
> 2) Legality of asymmetric racks .
> Both of which I was involved in resolving. On both occasions IYRU/ISAF
> were approached - via Tony Watts, ISAF Chief Measurer - and due to time
> constraints only an unofficial opinion was given by T.W. which was
accepted
> by all concerned.
> 1) A rudder box was not allowable for weight purposes as a rudder
> fitting.
> The wording of the rule was subsequently altered to avoid confusion.
> 2). Asymmetric racks were not allowed ,as ISAF defined the beam
> measurement to be centred about the middle - i.e. centreline - of the
hull.
> The rudder wings issue is the only time the class has gone to ISAF for an
> "Official" interpretation. The difference on this issue has been the
> widespread disagreement within the class over the wording of the relevant
> rule.
> Whilst the class does not use ISAF sail measurement definitions - this is
> historic and there is now no good reason for this to continue - it does
> accept , by not excluding ,ISAF hull definitions.
> Although we are an International Class under the auspices of ISAF, the
> class values its independence and as such has tended over the years to
have
> a consensus of opinion, within the class, over measurement/rule
> interpretation matters and only used the offices of ISAF very sparingly.
> I hope this clears things up.
> Regards,
> Rollo Pyper.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Bourke [mailto:swizzle@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: 31 December 2001 19:34
> To: Tony Arends
> Cc: 14LIST
> Subject: Re: [I14] FW: "Wings and things"
>
>
> Here is another can of worms
> > open for argument. Class maximum beam has been a topic that I have heard
> > people discussing . Go to http://www.i14.org/photos/1029_001.jpg
> > http://www.i14.org/photos/1029_005.jpg
> > http://www.i14.org/photos/1029_007.jpg to see photo's of my
interpretation
> > on how the rule defines the class maximum beam . The measured maximum
beam
> > is from wing tip to wing tip . These photo's show the boat with a
maximum
> > class beam of 1.830m but has an effective beam of some 2.560m when
pushed
> to
> > one side . I'm sure there will be some discussion on whether this is
legal
> > or not .
>
>
> I had this same idea a few years ago and asked the then president of the
WA
> Tom Treveleyan if there was an interpretation from ISAF on this matter. It
> turned out that ISAF had declared that the 1/2 width be no more than 915mm
> effectively stopping this arrangement. There has been some discussion on
how
> to get all the various ISAF interpretations that have been handed down
over
> the years into a format that can be accessed by owners. I think Colin
Smith
> was going to talk to Tom in the first instance to see if they were all
> available in one place on paper to start with but I'm not sure about that.
>
> Cheers
>
> Grant Bourke
> Swizzlestick IV
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> International 14 Mailing list
> To Subscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=subscribe>
> To Unsubscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ----------------------
> International 14 Mailing list
> To Subscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=subscribe>
> To Unsubscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
<p>----------------------
International 14 Mailing list
To Subscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=subscribe>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:14list@i14.org?subject=unsubscribe>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4.
