When the various RG65 National Class Authorities voted on the 2014 rules, the only rules at issue were 7.1.2, 5.2.3 and 5.2.4. In addition, the NCAs voted to change the official language from Spanish to English. Somehow, in the translation, an Appendix was added that redefined the administration of measurement. We are now approaching the International Class Authority for clarification. So please “keep calm and carry on” until we get this issue resolved. We are moving the discussion to this forum because there is an individual trolling the RG65 and Dragon Force threads over on regroups.
I had sent a message to Eric regarding same - plus the question about builder’s compliance statements and Eric advised the builder’s statement was no longer required. I also sent him a suggestion to make measuring a bit easier - and if he doesn’t share with you, please ask him, or let me know. Basically use the “average” sail area template* and let all competitors decide if the difference is too big and requires a more “formal” on-site measurement. Also two wood jigs - one for overall length as a “go/no-go” jig, and a wooden dowel with top cross piece that defines the maximum mast height.
*may need more than one to handle standard and swing rigs and differences in jib vs. main sail sizes.
I confess that I dislike the whole idea of official measurers. The class got along for about 50 years on the basis of the Certificate of Good Faith, which is consistent with the Corinthian Spirit of self-regulation and was one of the things that attracted me to the class in the first place. That spirit is called out in the COA Constitution and is the reason that we award a sportsmanship trophy at the Rio Grande Cup, which is voted on by the skippers. (This year the youngest entrant was voted the winner, which made a lot of us feel good.) Using the Certificate of Good Faith a skipper just signs a piece of paper that says they checked their boat and it fits, and they submit that paper with their entry form. (As an aside, in full size racing in the UK during the Victorian Era, you had to sign a piece of paper attesting that you sailed fairly before you would be scored.)
I see the institution of official measurers as the start of a slippery slope in which there are two contests, one in which you try to beat your competitors and another in which you try to beat the system. The end point (since doping doesn’t seem to work in model yachting) is the kind of nit-picking sea lawyering exhibited by our pet troll over on rcgroups combined with a “catch me if you can” attitude which turns a lot of people off. There are plenty of activities, and even classes in model yachting, where you can find that sort of thing if that’s what you like.
As a practical matter, there are only three measurements to be made and the only one where you can generate a real performance enhancement is by having an oversized A rig. If that is discovered at an event it can be fixed at pond side with a pair of scissors. So I think that a formal measurement process is unnecessary and carries a downside.
A compromise position is to add a second signature to the Certificate of Good Faith for someone who checks the owner’s work. This second person could be another club member, your spouse, or your next door neighbor. There is also a mechanism in the COA bylaws to deal with incidents of deliberate misrepresentation – we apply due process and then revoke your membership. The chances of something like that happening, given the simplicity of the rules, is just about zero.
We just received the revised and final copy of the 2014 rules, and I am happy to say that the official measurers and measurement forms have been removed. We are back to the skippers entering events with boats that adhere to the RG65 rules. I suspect that many regattas will still want to use the RG65 Statement of Good Faith, though it is not strictly necessary.