A little musing on development classes

It dawns on me that, if the forthcoming ballot goes in favour of scrapping rig restrictions, the Footy Class will have achieved something unusual, if not unique, in the mistory of yacht ratng rules. It wlil have gone through an entire cycle of the rule’s life with little but simplifications and desrestrictions.

We will have
[li]Removed restrictions on batteries
[/li][li]Renoved many (although not all) restrictons on multiple rudders
[/li][li]Removed all restrictions on sailplans (although not their relationship with the hull)
[/li][li]Removed restrictions on the material used in keel bulbs (although not on the density).
[/li][li]The various housekeeping operations (e.g. clarification of restrictions on radios) have generally been in favour of liberalisation

Given the notorious tendency of rule makers to make rules, I think that this is no mean achievement and the Technical Committee are to be congratulated - all the more so since there have been no mass desertions from our ranks and the general ‘type’ of the Footy has been maintained.

I think that at least part of this success is due to what tries to be a very open style of class management. The ensuing, sometimes rather heated public debate may not always be terribly dignified, but it does allow the committtees to keep their finger on the pulse and try to act accordingly.

Or am I living in Cloud Cuckoo Land? Feedback please.


I would step forward about this time and take full credit for my ongoing suggestions that if one uses the word “development” a shortage of rules is a way to control the basics and let the rest run free. :stuck_out_tongue:

Unfortunately, I cannot since it looks like the class itself has decided “less is best” - a tip of the hat to those who see development as an effort to evolve using new ideas or trends.

Here’s to Open class being open :zbeer::zbeer::zbeer: